I just wanted to give the tOSU Chemical Engineering Program some props for some great research. From the article on FoxNews.
The clean coal technique was developed by scientists at The Ohio State University, with just $5 million in funding from the federal government, and took 15 years to achieve.
I can get behind anything that helps to provide clean energy, especially from a source that isn't traditionally considered so. For anybody bored this offseason and looking for some Buckeye reading material, I suggest you follow this link.
Coal: the cleanest energy source there is?
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/20/coal-cleanest-energy-source-there-is/
Edit: Also, it is currently the main headline on FoxNews.com right now. Great publicity for the school
Take that West Virginia.
If this process is successful, we will lose a recruiting advantage over WV
Look I'm not a left wing environmentalist or a raging conservative so don't take this the wrong way but, don't they mostly blow mountaintops up to get the coal now?
Just sayin....
"There is a force that makes us all brothers, no one goes his way alone, all that we send into the life of others comes back into our own." -WWH
Yes. There are "clean" ways to get the coal, but those are more expensive as well.
Anyway, I think this is great for the university. Hopefully it can make OSU the same amount of money as Gatorade has made for Florida and Nike has for Oregon.
Good point and this could encourage more of that unless technological improvements are made in coal mining. I was less worried about that and more or less just wanted to share the research being done. I think it is great PR for the engineering program.
Overused GIF, but absolutely appropriate IMHO for Aesculus comment
vacuuming sucks
Coal surface mining has been more heavily regulated since 1977. We aren't blowing off mountain tops like we were in 1930s-1970s, but surface mining still accounts for something like 2/3s of coal production in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Mining_Control_and_Reclamation_Act_of_1977
Coal is a great thing. Don't want get political, but our current president is absolutely KILLING the coal industry here in NW PA --- (well all of PA). This is done by design.
Coal is clean, efficient, and cost-effective. It really should be embraced.
Kudos to tOSU
You just did.
Downvote me for pointing out the truth? Stay classy my friend.
"There's just one problem with this scenario: Coal will never be clean."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/4339171
Did you even read the article? From the article:
The very issue that that Popular Mechanics article addresses, the inability to capture CO2 after coal is combusted, is solved by chemical looping..
William, thank you for posting this. I obviously did not grasp that the emissions from the chemical combustion process will never be released. Still not sure how this will happen though?
One of the issues that that Popular Mechanics article brings up is "what will be done with the sequestered CO2?", and that's still a valid question. However this new process removes 99% of the pollutants from coal burning by capturing the CO2. I've seen suggestions that the CO2 could be pumped into our earth's crust or deep into the ocean, where it won't have an adverse effect.
What do you think about the potential adverse effects of sequestered CO2?
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/june/carbon-capture-earthquakes-06191...
Perhaps getting into our water supply?
http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/52478-carbon-sequestratio...
Interested in your perspective. Seems like you have a vested interest or at least some background knowledge.
Those reports identified the problems that sequestration could cause, like very minute earthquakes or possible drinking water contamination, but the report provided by Stanford listed several analysts that stated that a few hundred sites would be required for CCS to be effective. One of the analysts stated that the Middle East, Australia, the North Sea and Texas/Gulf Coast have the requisite geological profiles for CCS, where pumping in CO2 won't have adverse effects as the rock would not allow for CO2 to seep out at a high rate, so that's promising. As a country we aren't even close to being ready to implement chemical-looping or CCS on a massive scale, as I bet it will take decades to build up all of that infrastructure, but it seems like the chance is there, to harness our nation's large supply of coal and use it a manner that is far less impactful on our environment.
Yes shooting stuff straight into the earth clearly has no effect on anything ever
Taquitos.
Nothing is perfect.
Wherever you are, there you be!
One more reason to be proud of tOSU. The demise of the coal industry has been devastating to quite a few regions of the nation. New technology solving age old problems. Go Buckeye Researchers!!!
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
Def any technology improvements on sources of energy we need are good. I have worked in the wind industry for four years and think all the energy sources are needed to meet the worlds needs, but they have to be cleaner or the cost (to our health) outweighs the benefits (cheap power). We need sources that have little to no emissions and we need to reduce the emissions of sources that have a lot. Great research, lets keep innovating and coming up with a great combination of technology solutions to meet our energy needs in ways that don't kill our health. Scrubbing the coal and stashing it underground (where it came from) is a solid solution to the problem. So is non-emission based sources and whatever great ideas we come up with. Nice job OSU!
There needs to be much more technical info in this article for me to have any idea how feasible the research is (or what the hell it actually is), but here are some thoughts:
If the reaction chamber is sealed (thereby sequestering all CO2) that's not going to scale nicely -- and is likely a big safety concern. That's a lot of hot gas to be containing. Then, as mentioned above, you've got to do something with it, assuming you can separate it nicely. Same with the coal ash (which can be recycled, most likely).
The kinetics of a solid/solid reaction are piss-poor, especially in reducing iron oxide. The throughput on this probably isn't going to be as good as combustion. The total energy output is probably lower than combustion as well.
We can't just assume that tanks on tanks on tanks of CO2 can be simply disposed of, so as of right now this process punts on cleanliness, rather than solves it. Great big steps, but certainly no panacea.
Taquitos.
As proud as I am to be a Buckeye for the football team, I am even prouder for things like this.