Southern California Edison Wants $52M Dollars to Study "Clean Coal."

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41982/story.htm

There is no such thing as "clean coal," nor will there ever be such a thing, but no matter.

The State of California has a law on the books saying that no nuclear plants can be built until "we know what to do with the waste," even though the State of California has no such law about dangerous fossil fuel wastes. This is amazing since dangerous fossil fuel wastes kill lots of people, Californians included whereas the so called "nuclear wastes" in California do essentially <em>nothing</em> but sit within the boundries of the plants where they were generated.

There are many people here who talk all about the wonderful renewable energy future, but not one of them will have the moral courage to jump in on this issue, I bet.

Governor Hydrogen Hummer of California recently signed a "brazillion solar roofs" bill in California a law that effectively killed new orders for solar power in California. All the solar power added in California in the last two decades would not produce as much energy as this so called "clean" coal plant. No amount of technology can make coal "clean."

When the coal is burned the end products should be fully contained.

The impurities (SOx, NOx, Hg, etc.) from the gasification will be scrubbed out, and what isn't scrubbed out will be pumped into the deep saline formations with the CO2. It's looking unlikely that the CO2 will be sold for enhanced oil recovery and piped to Texas, but that is still on the table. What's left over will be completely vitrified and inert, so it will probably be sold as roadbed material.

Good times.

I don't really believe that a carbon dioxide pipeline is going to run from Texas to California, unless of course, some Texas natural gas wells are depleted and the carbon dioxide is shipped on those dead lines.

In any case, carbon dioxide is - and how dumb is this? - actually mined in New Mexico from natural carbon dioxide deposits. That carbon dioxide is much closer than California.

As it happens, even very modern upgrades scrubbers do not get all of the sulfates, nitrates, etc out, and neither will a carbon dioxide scrubbers. Finally, the millions of tons of coal transported to this plant is going to cause awful pollution just in the transport.

Then there's the matter of mining the stuff in million ton quantities.

This morning 38 Siberian coal miners died. That no one cares will not make coal safe.

California is deliberately choosing the dirtiest form of energy there is, and there's no changing that fact. They have a law against building new nuclear plants and this law is a law that injures all of humanity.

:rofl:

I know where this plant is going, and it ain't Cali.

:wtf: does whether or not it is going to be built in California do to change the fact that it is another coal-fired travesty in the planning stages?

Gee but I wish I could laugh right along with you, but at the moment I'm too busy thinking about the consequences of this fucktard decision. :eyes:

You can't build a power plant in California, first of all.

Second of all, I think we'll all have something to learn from this.

There are dirty plants built all the time that get no press. The fact that someone, somewhere is trying to do something cleaner (whether it works or not) should be good news.

in the general area of the LADWP monster (Intermountain) at the end of the major DC transmission line running past Las Vegas from Utah to LA.

I had no idea of course, that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power burned coal in Utah, but it seems this is so.

LA dried up the Owens Valley, hundreds of kilometers away, and it pollutes the skies of Utah, more than 1000 km away. It's a strange city.

Again, I know you cannot discuss this, but we'll see if I am right.

I forgot that only completely harmless forms of energy can be built in California.

are natural gas, solar thermal, waste to energy, and wind.

:woohoo:

:woohoo:

:woohoo:

:woohoo:

:sarcasm:

The hell will be in supply, costs, and climate change.

People keep acting like natural gas has some kind of climate change advantage. It does not. It, like its oil and coal sisters is a cause of climate change.

I'm sure that you have better data for your company than you have reported to the EIA, but the EIA notes on planned capacity 2006-2010 should rankle the mind of any environmentalist. Of particular concern should be the 2009 and 2010 numbers.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epaxlfile2_5.xls

I have a feeling that there's going to be a lot of mud wrestling over natural gas supplies in the coming years - especially in the case of another Katrina like event in the Gulf of Mexico.

This hit should have induced some sobriety, but it has not:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3045us3m.htm

Frankly I'm going to have a hard time to keep myself from laughing like hell when the cows come home to fart into biodigesters. (I will not laugh though. The result will be tragic.) It is almost criminal on some level to use natural gas for base load. Here in New Jersey, of course, we burn natural gas, but 50% of our electricity is nuclear. We have a realistic shot at new nuclear here at Salem Creek, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed. We are also going to have to fight off the ignoramuses who want to shut Oyster Creek.

Finally, I note of course that this disastrous coal plant has not been ordered and that they $52 million is just to "study" it.

Maybe you need the money at SCE, because Governor Hydrogen Hummer's brazillion solar roofs bill is going to drive you out of business. After all you're only 10 cents per kilowatt-hour away from the point at which solar roofs become competitive with grid power:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epmxlfile5_6_a.xls

we also have a PV department? :shrug:

:evilgrin:

I believe you had one when I was a customer of your company back in the 1980's.

One hopes that you didn't abandon it, especially now that you will need to incorporate a brazillion solar roofs.

" So Cal Ed CEO John Bryson said this study is "part of a larger strategy we advocate for reducing US greenhouse gas emissions" that include using more renewable energy, increasing energy efficiency, switching to cleaner transportation fuels and investing in new clean generation methods."

and . . .

" The methods to be employed by "clean hydrogen power generation" include:

-- A chemical process that captures as much as 90 percent of the carbon in US-produced coal; "

Now, let me guess. They are going to remove all the CO2 greenhouse gas producing carbon from the coal before they burn it, right?:crazy:

These have been all worked out, right? No flies in the ointment? I missed those announcements.

There's no chance at all that all that CO2 pumped into underground water is going to come pouring out again, like a hot bottle of soda, or perhaps more appropriately, like a TOXIC EXPLODING LAKE ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_lake


ETA: This $52,000,000 is going to buy some nice office furnishings, a few jet junkets, and a really, really, impressive-looking report.

> This $52,000,000 is going to buy some nice office furnishings,
> a few jet junkets, and a really, really, impressive-looking report.

... a bunch of politicians to ensure that the payouts keep coming ...

We're not just talking four-color graphics. I mean, it'll probably have embossed lettering, or maybe even a gold or silver seal of some kind.

The chairs in our office are really shitty. :hide:

Toxic Metal Content in Appalachian Coal

parts------tons per-tons per---- pounds
per million--million - year *------ per year in
--------tons of coal------ --------ash & emissions
Mercury 0.2 0.2 1 2000
Lead 14 14 70 140000
Arsenic 15 15 75 150000
Cadmium 8 8 40 80000
Aluminum 17000 17000 85000 170000000
Barium 2600 2600 13000 26000000
Berylium 3 3 15 30000
Chromium 23 23 115 230000
Copper 16 16 80 160000
Manganese 80 80 400 800000
Nickel 18 18 90 180000
Selenium 3 3 15 30000
Thallium 25 25 125 250000
Thorium 3.1 3.1 15.5 31000
Uranium 1.8 1.8 9 18000
Vanadium 5.7 5.7 28.5 57000
Zinc 0.8 0.8 4 8000

Total 19,817 99,083 198,166,000

* assumes plant burns 5 million tons per year (2 large coal units)

source: Radian Corporation, "Estimating Air Toxics Emissions from Coal Sources",
U.S. EPA, 1989, NTIS PB89-194229


There would be almost 100,000 tons per year of toxic metals with no plans to
isolate any of it from the environment.
This would include 1 ton per year of mercury. The most important forms of mercury- elemental and methyl
are gas at room temperature- so you can't control it even if you take it out of smoke stack-
bacteria convert other forms to methyl over time and its outgased or taken up in the food chain.
Documentation in the record showed that of those tested for mercury, over 20% of those tested had
levels over the EPA health standard, and over 33% of all Floridians had dangerous levels of mercury.
Accompanying data tables by State and Metropolitan Statistical Area
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/addendum-to-mercury-report