Clean coal?

[The Minsky Moment]

... the process can create 20 megawatts to 50 megawatts by 2020...

I'm hoping there's a 'per facility' missing there.

I don't think so:

The next step is to take it to a larger test facility in Alabama, and Fan believes the technology can be commercialized and used to power an energy plant within five to 10 years, if all goes smoothly

It looks like they are hoping for a 5-10 year period before the first commercial prototype is up and running. 
No one is going to invest billions in reconverting old coal plants before there is a clear demonstration of the technology and firm numbers on capital costs and run costs, including maintenance.

[The Minsky Moment]

1. When us Chemical Engineers talk about what is colloquially called "burning" we use the word Oxidization.
2. As Minsky pointed out this is a ridiculously small amount of electricity.
3. This process produces the same amount of CO2 as regular coal burning.
4. This process is ridiculously convoluted and user unfriendly.
5. This process manages to capture and segregate all waste products.

Thanks - this helps clarify a lot of the confusion in the article - particularly how the pollutants somehow get trapped in the reaction chamber and then mysteriously seem to vanish from the picture.

[mongers]

1. When us Chemical Engineers talk about what is colloquially called "burning" we use the word Oxidization.
2. As Minsky pointed out this is a ridiculously small amount of electricity.
3. This process produces the same amount of CO2 as regular coal burning.
4. This process is ridiculously convoluted and user unfriendly.
5. This process manages to capture and segregate all waste products.

Thanks - this helps clarify a lot of the confusion in the article - particularly how the pollutants somehow get trapped in the reaction chamber and then mysteriously seem to vanish from the picture.

Yes, it sounds more like a conjuring trick at the moment than anything else, but I guess addict will latch on to almost any magical solution.

[Ed Anger]

Ohio State.

[Razgovory]

1. When us Chemical Engineers talk about what is colloquially called "burning" we use the word Oxidization.

I got in trouble when I said the car was "merely undergoing rapid oxidation", rather then saying it was on fire.

[Viking]

1. When us Chemical Engineers talk about what is colloquially called "burning" we use the word Oxidization.
2. As Minsky pointed out this is a ridiculously small amount of electricity.
3. This process produces the same amount of CO2 as regular coal burning.
4. This process is ridiculously convoluted and user unfriendly.
5. This process manages to capture and segregate all waste products.

Thanks - this helps clarify a lot of the confusion in the article - particularly how the pollutants somehow get trapped in the reaction chamber and then mysteriously seem to vanish from the picture.

Yes, it sounds more like a conjuring trick at the moment than anything else, but I guess addict will latch on to almost any magical solution.

It's not a conjuring trick. Coal industry PR and Conservative wishful thinking are the problems here. The science is actually pretty interesting, they have built a solid fire. They are burning coal with rust rather than air. The fascinating bits here are the use of rust for oxidization and the apparently functioning mechanical solid feed to a continuous reactor. The Rust bit presumably only works because rust has a higher chemical potential energy level than carbon dioxide. However you get less bang per unit co2 by burning with rust rather than oxygen. One of the waste products here iron (bizarrely) and no process we know of can produce energy by converting it rust. So, on the whole you get much less power per pound of coal than you do normally. The mechanical feed is probably the most significant part of the process, usually with solids you either have to have a leaky open reactor (which pollutes and is polluted by the surroundings) or an ineffective batch reactor (low efficiency and low effectiveness, basically less reaction per unit mass and more cost per unit mass)

Their tricked out reactor seems to be the most interesting bit here, but, sadly, pointless for power generation.

[Viking]

1. When us Chemical Engineers talk about what is colloquially called "burning" we use the word Oxidization.

I got in trouble when I said the car was "merely undergoing rapid oxidation", rather then saying it was on fire.

You were in the right. BTW, I should have gotten into trouble for using Oxidization, which is not the correct word, Oxidation is.

[CountDeMoney]

Ohio State.

Yes, all those researchers have very distinctly historical Buckeye names.

[Ed Anger]

Ohio State.

Yes, all those researchers have very distinctly historical Buckeye names.

U jelly.

[KRonn]

So maybe this new clean tech isn't as doable as the scientists lead us to believe. Besides, with so much natural gas being produced in the US now coal plants are changing to gas which is cheaper and a lot cleaner.

Still though, if the technology pans out maybe it will be put to use. But with cheaper alternatives like natural gas it might be a hard sell to go with new coal tech.

[dps]

Did anyone else notice that the director of OSU's Clean Coal Research Laboratory is a PRC spy?

He's Isreali?

[CountDeMoney]

Ohio State.

Yes, all those researchers have very distinctly historical Buckeye names.

U jelly.

They've probably committed NCAA violations during their research anyway.
CLEAN COAL = NO BOWL

[Ed Anger]

 

Ching Ching got some tats.

[fhdz]

He's Isreali?

He reali is?

[jimmy olsen]

Coal is dead in this country, shut down West Virginia and cede it back to the Old Dominion. Make Puerto Rico a state to keep the number at 50.