<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes" ?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title><![CDATA[Jubilee Centre - Blog]]></title><link>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/jubilee/blogs.php</link><description><![CDATA[Comments on the blog: Cost of `Clean` Coal]]></description><language>en-gb</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2011 18:59:56 GMT</lastBuildDate><item><title><![CDATA[Thermal Coal]]></title><link>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1674</link><description><![CDATA[The use of sophisticated software systems for coal mining (thermal coal, steam coal and metallurgical coal) that is mostly burnt for power generation and steel production and adds to the greenhouse effect is valid for western countries who may allocate resources and funds to alternative and more greener sources of power. Some of the alternatives may be "safer" than the traditional mines. Unfortunately, coal reports and coal statistics show developing economies are more likely to increase their use of thermal coal & metallurgical coal in coming years because of its affordability and to meet increasing demands for electricity and steel. Whether they will embrace and utilise sophisticated software systems that no doubt add to the cost of production is yet to be seen. Ian www.coalportal.com ]]></description><guid>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1674</guid><pubDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2011 18:59:56 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Oliver W]]></title><link>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1581</link><description><![CDATA[The search for ways to reduce carbon emissions has led to government grant money for schemes ranging from promising to wacky. Recognizing that there is no currently viable replacement for fossil fuels, with the possible exception of nuclear power, the US and other countries with large coal deposits are desperately looking for ways to continue burning coal without incurring the wrath of nature or the IPCC. Clear evidence of the seriousness of this effort is evident in this week's special edition of Science, dedicated to carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology.]]></description><guid>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1581</guid><pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:23:16 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Dr Doug L Hoffman]]></title><link>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1263</link><description><![CDATA[The search for ways to reduce carbon emissions has led to government grant money for schemes ranging from promising to wacky. Recognizing that there is no currently viable replacement for fossil fuels, with the possible exception of nuclear power, the US and other countries with large coal deposits are desperately looking for ways to continue burning coal without incurring the wrath of nature or the IPCC. Clear evidence of the seriousness of this effort is evident in this week\'s special edition of Science, dedicated to carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology.

dee http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/serious-black-quest-clean-coal]]></description><guid>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1263</guid><pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:45:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Lynn Lanier]]></title><link>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1209</link><description><![CDATA[Sequestering carbon dioxide is too expensive

 	I'm a chemical engineer with extensive experience designing and cost justifying projects including carbon dioxide sequestering using amine scrubbers, pressure swing absorbers, membrane and cryogenic separators, and alternate energy.  My back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate the capital and operating costs of removing the CO2 from coal fired energy plants would be massive.  The 50% reduction in energy output per unit of coal as one engineer suggests wouldn’t be far off.

	The initial capital cost of wind, solar, and geothermal would also be high, but the operating costs for these would be much smaller than burning coal.  Also, since these technologies are relatively new, the experience curve would be steep so future costs have the potential of being much lower.

	One of the best ways I found to assess technologies is to look for the simplicity of the process.  This is an offshoot of Occam's razor.  The ultimate sources for our energy are two very large nuclear reactors: the sun and internal earth.  The closer we get to these ultimate sources of this energy, the better our chances of obtaining it at minimal cost and damage to our earth. 

	Solar direct conversion is the simplest: solar panels on roof/ power.  Wind power is also simple: solar heat/ wind/ windmill/ distribution/ power.  Coal is more complex: grow plants with solar/ age under pressure for millions of years/ dig from ground/ restore land/ burn in power plants/ sequester carbon dioxide in sequestering plant/ bury CO2 in ground/ distribution/ power.

	As a chemical engineer I would relish designing and building CO2 sequestering plants.  However, considering capital and long term costs, I'd have to put my money on other energy sources.  The long term ROI for clean coal just doesn’t add up.

Lynn Lanier  
]]></description><guid>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1209</guid><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2009 19:38:26 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[A. Sceptic]]></title><link>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1206</link><description><![CDATA[In terms of Bible references in response to the previous post, Isaiah 22:13b might be more appropriate. Sorry to break the news.]]></description><guid>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1206</guid><pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:10:16 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[John Hayward]]></title><link>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1205</link><description><![CDATA[Precisely the message the IPCC's Sir John Houghton gives in the Jubilee Centre video interviews, you'll be pleased to find, Peter, if you follow the link I suggested! 

Thankfully, the good news is that however often mankind might think he is master of the universe or even of his own destiny, the LORD has declared, 'I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done. "While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day and night Shall not cease."' (Genesis 8:21-22)]]></description><guid>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1205</guid><pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:35:48 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Peter Morgan]]></title><link>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1204</link><description><![CDATA[Actually, the consensus amongst global warming scientists is that we have already passed the tipping point. It's too little too late no matter what we do to address the situation now. Again, I encourage you to read the IPCC report and browse the UK Met Office website. Sorry to break the bad news to you.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/]]></description><guid>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1204</guid><pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:48:11 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[John Hayward]]></title><link>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1203</link><description><![CDATA[Peter, I\'m not sure that encouraging continued healthy scientific enquiry about mankind\'s impact on the world around us can really be described as lulling anyone into a sense of false security, nor how trying to place environmental concerns into a broader context of concern for humans is unbiblical... Perhaps you haven\'t seen the full range of Jubilee Centre resources and analysis on this issue, which include video interviews with former Royal Society Vice President and Foreign Secretary Sir Brian Heap and former co-chair of the IPCC\'s scientific assessment working group Sir John Houghton - you can explore these under Topics > The Environment.]]></description><guid>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1203</guid><pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:52:35 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Peter Morgan]]></title><link>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1202</link><description><![CDATA[You're ignoring alot of the scientific studies here showing the catastrophic impacts of climate change. Perhaps you need to reference the IPCC Report or the UK Met Office for further details. I think it is irresponsible and unbiblical to lull people into a sense of false security by only reporting on "the good news" wrt climate change. A well balanced scientific debate will address BOTH sides of the issue, findings both good and bad. Don't compromise or remain luke warm.]]></description><guid>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1202</guid><pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:26:43 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Anthony Garrett]]></title><link>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1201</link><description><![CDATA[It's not a question of the cost of capturing and storing carbon dioxide, it's a question of how. Pumping that much carbon dioxide underground is asking for trouble if there's an earthquake.
]]></description><guid>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments/212/cost_of_clean_coal#comment1201</guid><pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:17:01 GMT</pubDate></item><atom:link href="http://www.jubilee-centre.org/comments.xml.php" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /></channel></rss>
