Proponents of coal Neanderthals - MPP

10kBq Jaro · Senior Member

Proponents of coal Neanderthals - MPP

GoogleNaut · Guru

Personally,
I think a much better use of the coal is as a feedstock for synthetic petrochemicals. If we were to switch most prime mover energy production away from fossil fuels to nuclear say, with the appropriate reprocessing to recycle unburned fuel, then the coal could become an excellent source of carbon for synthetic petroleum products: synthetic petrochemicals for polymers, pharmeceuticals, lubricants, and some specialty fuels. Moving away from petroleum means moving away from Middle Eastern petroleum--and will tend to keep a lot of those energy 'dollars' domestic.

I suspect that carbon dioxide emmisions will also be substantially reduced. Also, the reduced demand for petroleum for fuel uses (presumably because such uses would have been shifted to electricity generated in nuclear plants) leaves only the demand for polymers, lubricants, and other chemicals, which should substantially reduce the consumption of coal. Smaller batch sizes should reduce the effects of pollution associated with coal gassification.

It is also my opinion that detailed studies of such a process strictly on an EROEI basis is misleading. The Energy Returned on Energy Invested is a basic criterion which works pretty well for natural petroleum, where the chemical energy already exists as 'fuel' locked into a geologic formation, whereas synthetics must of necessity be created--which is a much more energy intensive operation than merely pumping oil out of the ground and then refining it. As such, synthetics will never achieve an EROEI that natural petroleum can.

Synthetics should be viewed with a different perspective: that the production of synthetics is primarily a domestic process, that it alleviates much of the need to outsource for petroleum over seas, and as such, the independence that this creates will be a boone to the economy. Furthermore, the overall value of inexpensive energy is so much greater for the sustaining of a healthy economy in all of its sectors, that I would argue that the benefits of widescale domestic petroleum synthesis creates more value for the economy than just the cost of its production. As such, it may be a good idea to subsidize synthetic fuels for transportation purposes on this basis alone.

iprimap · Veteran Member

Googlenaut is, of course, correct. For those who prefer burning coal for electricity vice using uranium, plutonium or thorium, please consider the following:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/orl-miket1105oct11,0,4041541.column?coll=orl-news-col

Fossil-fuel bite real; nuclear fears are fables

Published October 11, 2005

As a radical environmentalist, I support Progress Energy's plans to build a nuclear power plant in Florida.

Bring on the three-eyed fish, glowing cockroaches and Homer Simpson.

Give me these imaginary bogeymen instead of the very real wasteland being created by fossil fuels.

America's decision to abandon nuclear power back in the 1970s has been an ecological disaster.

Coal contains mercury, a potent neuro-toxin. It goes up the smokestack, about 100,000 tons of it a year. Some of it is dispersed into the atmosphere where it is deposited to parts unknown. Some comes down near the smokestack.

Rain sweeps it into lakes and streams, and from there it is passed up the food chain. Biologists have found so much mercury in Florida freshwater fish that health advisories have been issued even in lakes and rivers thought to be free from pollution.

In Central Florida, children are not supposed to eat more than one serving of bass a week from the Butler Chain of Lakes. Bass from the Econlockhatchee River are completely off limits.

Power plants also spew out an assortment of other nasty pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide.

These cause acid rain, ozone pollution, soot and global warming.

Health experts have calculated that pollution from power plants puts 30,000 people a year into early graves by triggering respiratory and heart problems. The scientists primarily blame older power plants, which should have been replaced years ago by nuclear facilities.

The two coal-fired power plants at the Orlando Utilities Commission are about the cleanest in the nation. Yet they still emit 6,775 tons of sulfur dioxide a year and 8,426 tons of nitrogen oxide. Every little bit hurts.

Carbon dioxide is not measured because it can't be controlled as of yet. Yet this is a key gas responsible for global warming.

Nuclear power plants don't dump sulfur dioxide or nitrogen dioxide or carbon dioxide in the air.

They don't dump soot in the air to poison people's lungs.

Three Mile Island was the nation's worst nuclear accident. It occurred in 1979 when a reactor partially melted down. Most experts are skeptical that the small amount of released radiation caused any statistically significant health problems. In 1996, a federal judge threw out a lawsuit filed by almost 2,000 nearby residents, saying there wasn't sufficient evidence to link any illnesses to the accident.

There hasn't been a major incident in the United States since then.

We need a paradigm shift away from fossil fuels and toward nuclear power, renewable energy sources and conservation.

God bless proponents of the latter two, but that alone is not a solution. And so I welcome Progress Energy's announcement. The utility is taking advantage of new federal energy legislation that is loaded with financial incentives in the form of tax credits and loan guarantees.

The News & Observer, a newspaper from Progress Energy's home city of Raleigh, N.C., reports that the utility could get as much as $2 billion from the federal government.

Critics call it corporate welfare.

If it cleans up the air and water, stops our dependence on foreign energy sources and slows down global warming, I'll call it a good investment.

Mike Thomas can be reached at 407-420-5525 or mthomas@orlandosentinel.com.