Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, February 21, 2013

Researchers have discovered a new process that takes the energy from coal without burning it -- and removes 99 percent of the pollution. Scientists at Ohio State University discovered a way to heat coal, using iron-oxide pellets for an oxygen source and containing the reaction in a small, heated chamber from which pollutants cannot escape. The only waste product is therefore water and coal ash -- no greenhouse gases -- and the metal from the iron-oxide can be recycled. "We found a way to release the heat from coal without burning," said Liang-Shih Fan, a chemical engineer and director of OSU's Clean Coal Research Laboratory.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

path

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Coal-burning power plants produced about one-third of the nation's carbon dioxide total in 2010, or about 2.3 billion metric tons, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The process, called "coal-direct chemical looping," has been proven in a small scale lab at Ohio State. 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. The technology generated 25 kilowatts of thermal energy in current tests; the Alabama site will generate 250 kilowatts.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

POSTED BY PATH

You're off Al Gores Christmas card list. OSU, PSU and WVU have done a lot of work on clean coal and coal sequestration.

#1 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-20 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hahahaha! No.

#2 | Posted by DRJIMMIES at 2013-02-20 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

This sounds like good news. I hope it delivers on the promise. We need a diverse clean energy sources.

#3 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2013-02-20 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wouldn't it be Loverly.

Loverly.

Loverly.

#4 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2013-02-20 05:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wouldn't it be Loverly.

Loverly.

Loverly.

#4 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2013-02-20 05:07 PM | Reply

Not really; what would the greenies be able to bitch and complain about next. Also, government would have to find another charade to get taxes out of everyone.

#5 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-20 05:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

There's also a purported technology that's supposed to work on "heavy" or "sour" crude oil at the well-head instead of having to transport it via pipeline and chemicals to refineries to "de-asphalt" it and remove other undesirable chemicals.

#6 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-20 05:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Matsop's assumption that people who are "green" are just looking to "bitch" speaks volumes about the mindset of people who oppose preventing pollution and fighting greenhouse gases in the atmospeere. They are unable to comprehend that there actually exist people who, unlike them, care about the condition of this planet for future generations.

#7 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-02-20 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Preposterous BS. There's not going to be any "clean coal" ever. The fact that the story comes from Fox News tells you it's retarded.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-20 05:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well Obama has already killed hundreds of thousands of jobs already, with his EPA has closed down well over 100 coal power plant in 2012 alone and 300 by the end of 2013. The funny thing is Texas and other states are forced to buy power from Mexico which plants are extremely dirty and the plant they have been shutting down are less than 5 years old. EPA is also shutting down several coal mines. On video Obama has stated his goal is to bankrupt these companies out of existent and wants to see every coal plant and mine shut down permanently.

#9 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-02-20 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"his EPA has closed down well over 100 coal power plant in 2012 alone and 300 by the end of 2013. "

That sounds like BS, but if true, maybe I'll vote for him. A better number would by 500 by the end of 2013.

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-20 06:30 PM | Reply | Flag:


Preposterous BS. There's not going to be any "clean coal" ever. The fact that the story comes from Fox News tells you it's retarded.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian

What a closed mind you have. You should look to expand your mind and treat your paranoia.

Here are some links on the same subject that have nothing to do with Fox News:

www.greencarcongress.com
www.dispatch.com
www.netl.doe.gov

This is a work in procress. So if they can pull this off as advertised, why wouldn't that be a good thing?

#11 | Posted by path at 2013-02-20 06:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"On video Obama has stated his goal is to bankrupt these companies out of existent and wants to see every coal plant and mine shut down permanently."

From the article:

Yet the federal Department of Energy believes that the process can create 20 megawatts to 50 megawatts by 2020, said Jared Ciferno, the agency's director of coal and power-production research and development, in a statement. The government plans to continue to support the project, as well as the concept of "clean coal" in general.

Somewhat contradictory.

#12 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-02-20 07:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

"www.greencarcongress.com"

"Green cars" are a fantasy, a techno-fix that won't save industrial civilization.

#13 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-20 07:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

#9 Texas is not buying electricity from Mexico. Who is bloody hell told you that ridiculous lie?

#14 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2013-02-20 07:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"This sounds like good news. I hope it delivers on the promise. We need a diverse clean energy sources."

We do but hopefully minus coal. The ecological damage of mountain top removal is disgusting. We need to develop real alternative energy sources for the 21st century not continue using 19th century energy sources.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-20 07:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

#9, for your edification, here is a Forbes story on what really happened in Texas:

www.forbes.com

#16 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2013-02-20 07:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama: All of the Above, Nothing from Below

"Over the last several weeks, the plug was pulled on two state-of-the-art coal projects in Texas that were projected to exceed $5.5 billion in private investment and create hundreds of jobs," declares the House Energy and Commerce Committee in a press release. "The reason? The Obama administration's ongoing push for climate regulations that will effectively regulate coal, and thousands of coal jobs, out of existence."

They're referring to the $2.5 billion White Stallion Energy Center near Houston, Texas, and the $3 billion Las Brisas plant in Corpus Christi. These projects were "suspended after the President signaled he would bypass Congress and move forward with aggressive new emissions regulations." If anything, House Energy undersells the number of jobs wiped out by these plant suspensions. The Las Brisas plant would have resulted in 1,300 immediate jobs, plus another 2,600 from related support industries. The White Stallion plant would, according to its proposal, have employed 2,250 skilled construction workers, then recruited 150 to 200 permanent employees.

www.humanevents.com

#17 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-20 09:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

#15: I agree Danni.Maybe this technology will lead to other ways of using energy sources in a cleaner, more efficient way.

#18 | Posted by path at 2013-02-20 09:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#12 | Posted by REDIAL

Enjoy the video

www.youtube.com

In 2008 Barack Obama planned to Bankrupt Coal Plants Builders by taxing them badly. Taxing who ever gonna build them.

#19 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-02-20 09:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Corpus Christi Caller-Times: www.freeenterprise.com

CEO Dave Freysinger, of Houston-based Chase Power Development, LLC, on Wednesday afternoon confirmed plans to cease operations, effectively orphaning the $3 billion petroleum coke-fueled electricity project that has faced an uphill battle in its quest for the necessary regulatory approvals.

"Chase Power ... has opted to suspend efforts to further permit the facility and is seeking alternative investors as part of a plan of dissolution for the parent company," Freysinger said in a statement emailed to the Caller-Times.

Although financial conditions played a role in the decision, Freysinger said the project was the victim of an insurmountable regulatory framework erected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has in recent years enacted stiffer carbon-based fuel permitting requirements while tightening standards on petroleum coke emissions.

"The (Las Brisas Energy Center) is a victim of EPA's concerted effort to stifle solid-fuel energy facilities in the U.S., including EPA's carbon-permitting requirements and EPA's New Source Performance Standards for new power plants," he said. "These costly rules exceeded the bounds of EPA authority, incur tremendous costs, and produce no real benefits related to climate change."

The Caller-Times editorial board argues that economics is mostly to blame citing low cost natural gas produced from Texas shale formations. Under our free enterprise system the supply, demand, and costs of different energy sources fluctuate. But by picking energy winners and losers, EPA artificially makes some fuels uneconomical. For example, the proposed greenhouse gas rule was crafted to squeeze out coal and other fuel sources, and that's not the only example.

#20 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-02-20 10:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Matsop's assumption that people who are "green" are just looking to "bitch" speaks volumes about the mindset ... yada-yada-yada

#7 | Posted by moder8

our current green energy scheme is a diversion for the feeble minded

a- no known socialist tyrannies offer cheap energy for the masses
b- no known socialist tyrannies have thrown off poverty
c- no known socialist tyrannies display a thriving middle class

I know, I know... the right people haven't tried it yet

#21 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-02-20 10:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Enjoy the video"
#19 | Posted by zack991

You don't need to post the video, the RNC played it about 300 times a week while they were losing the 2008 election campaign.

How do you reconcile that with the current administration's support of the actual topic of the thread?

#22 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-02-20 10:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

How do you reconcile that with the current administration's support of the actual topic of the thread?

#22 | Posted by REDIAL

oh, that must be why they are shutting down coal mines

#23 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-02-20 10:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"They are unable to comprehend that there actually exist people who, unlike them, care about the condition of this planet for future generations."

We comprehend you exist, Moder8, but we also remember other Garden of Eden dreams like the thousand year reich and communist utopia.....totalitarianism based on a future ideal is the curse of our times.
Green is as brown-shirted or red as any other con game to overrule liberty.

#24 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-02-21 12:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you want to keep your rates of technological advance, you have to keep your fossil fuels. Clathrate.

#25 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2013-02-21 08:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

""Applied to a modern IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle) power station, which gasifies coal, this can lead to an efficiency gain of up to 4%." "

Big deal. That's not going to do squat to prevent catastrophic global warming.

#26 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-21 09:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Carbon.

'Clean coal' is like 'gun-free zones,' a fantasy for idiots.

#27 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-02-21 09:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

a major part of the pollution of coal, is actually getting it out of the ground...

#28 | Posted by tanelorn26 at 2013-02-21 09:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

"oh, that must be why they are shutting down coal mines"
#23 | Posted by roadrunner22

We stopped burning coal for fuel because natural gas is cheaper now.

And we are a coal mine.

#29 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-02-21 09:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

You're off Al Gores Christmas card list.
#1 | POSTED BY PANEOCON

TWO of the dumbest comments ever posted in a span of 24 hours. Incredible! There has got to be an award for this kind of thing.

No, but seriously, this would be Al Gore's dream come true...and same goes for most green activists.

#30 | Posted by Sycophant at 2013-02-21 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

There is no perfect, easy-to-obtain, 100 percent clean energy source. Maybe there will be one day, but I doubt it. In the meantime, we have to look at all reasonable alternatives, or get ready to stop driving, stop manufacturing stuff, and turn off the lights-- AND your computer.

#31 | Posted by cbob at 2013-02-21 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

I see Nulli is in rare form, or should I just call him EcoRay.

#32 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2013-02-21 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

#30 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

As an expert on dumb comments I accept your self retorting tetort.

#33 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-21 10:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

When I read threads like this I am left to wonder what is the perfect world that will make the eco-nazi's happy? Most would have put out the caveman's first fire yelling about air quality.

#34 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-21 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Coal Industry Regulations Were A Laughing Matter to the EPA"

"(CEI sued the EPA to force compliance with its FOIA requests related to the EPA's coal policies. The second batch of emails was released three hours after most federal offices had closed on Feb. 15 for the holiday weekend.)

According to CEI, "nearly 95 percent of the correspondence from the administrator and more than 80 percent of the email sent to ‘Richard Windsor' – excluding news stories available to the public – were redacted (blacked out), despite claims by President Obama his was the most transparent administration ever."

"Coal Ash Regs Are Comin' To Town

She's making a list,
Priority: High,
Gonna find out who's wet or dry.
Coal ash regs are comin' to town!

Yes, Lisa Jackson,
Is making all haste,
EPA's cracking down, On combustion waste.
Coal ash regs are comin' to town!

She knows which landfill's leaching,
She knows which pond might break,
She knows they all lack liners,
Close 'em down, for goodness sake!

One-thirty million tons,
Ev-ery year,
Spew from coal plants, Far and near.
Coal ash regs are comin' to town!

So, you better watch out,
Coal waste fly,
A high hazard, Either wet or dry.
Coal ash regs are comin' to town!"

cnsnews.com

#35 | Posted by KBM at 2013-02-21 10:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

The researchers discovery is potentially good news; unless all you care about is spinning it to fit your political agenda. Then it's any kind of news you want it to be.

#36 | Posted by squinch at 2013-02-21 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

How do you reconcile that with the current administration's support of the actual topic of the thread?

#22 | Posted by REDIAL

Well, there is the little matter of Obama saying one thing and doing another. He is supposed to be transparent, and yet hides everything he possibly can.

Obama tries to reduce the unemployment rate, it is the highest in decades.
Obama tries to reduce the number of guns in the USA, hightest sales volume of guns ever.
Obama tries to fix the economy, it sucks.
Obama says he won't rest until the economy is fixed, as he goes on vacation.

Everything this mans supposedly supports is fading, and everything he says he is against is growing.

How do YOU reconcile what he says VS what he actually does or the end results which are exactly the opposite of what he intends or says he intends?

#37 | Posted by Marty at 2013-02-21 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

I hope this is a valid method to utilize coal as a clean energy source. Given what I know of Chemistry (more sketchy on organic chemistry) I would like to know more about one thing in particular from the article: 'Fan discovered a way to heat coal, using iron-oxide pellets for an oxygen source and containing the reaction in a small, heated chamber from which pollutants cannot escape.'

It may be way off base; but it sounds like they are still producing significant pollutants but capturing them? So, fine they capture the pollutants - what then?

#38 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2013-02-21 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm trying to find some more about this, but except for Fox and the Washington Examiner and a precious few others, they all relate back to The Ohio State University article. Which doesn't give very much info.

So, using a little "educated guessing", I'm thinking that the reaction is: FeO + C + O2 ---> Fe2O3 + Heat. --->Steam--->Turn Turbines.

Fine. What are you going to do with the hundreds of thousands of tons of Fe2CO3 (Iron Carbonate) produced by this reaction? Reduce it back to Iron Ore? Guess what: Fe2CO3 + Heat--->Fe + CO2 gas.

More data is necessary.

#39 | Posted by madscientist at 2013-02-21 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

Iron Ore--->Iron Metal

#40 | Posted by madscientist at 2013-02-21 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

More data are necessary. ftfm

#41 | Posted by madscientist at 2013-02-21 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

If that process was so clean why are they still wearing masks?

Just saying...Anyway it seems like good news to me. How long before it can be implemented in the real world? 2020 you say? Sounds like the same time-frame it will take to make renewable energy more affordable too.

I have an idea.

Let's do both.

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-02-21 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Preposterous BS. There's not going to be any "clean coal" ever. The fact that the story comes from Fox News tells you it's retarded.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-20 05:42 PM | Reply | Flag"

So here you faced with a solid technological breakthrough, and all you say is that it is "retarded", really? Do you even know anything about science? You are as bad as biblical creationist that plague the right.

This is just one breakthrough from one college, more and more we will find ways to pollute less, because all pollution really is inefficiency in a process of energy conversion.

But people like "nullifidian" won't ever believe that clean energy sources can exist, because then they might have to admit they were wrong, then they won't be able to insult people. SO sad when ego trump logic.

#43 | Posted by danv at 2013-02-21 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Burning carbon will always produce CO2 and CO.

You can do as these scientists are doing and form a metal carbonate without burning it appears. But what to do with the mountains of Fe2CO3?

You can precipitate CO2 in slaked lime (calcium hydroxide) forming calcium carbonate, but in order to make calcium hydroxide, you make it from calcium carbonate to begin with, on an economically feasible industrial scale, making CO2 gas.

This article has all the bells and flags of a set-up piece by the "clean coal" industry. However, as Donnerboy said in #42, by all means keep trying.

We're going to use the coal anyway. And Nullifidian is not wrong is his appraisal. This isn't going to do anything substantial to combat MMGW.

#44 | Posted by madscientist at 2013-02-21 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's wrong with CO2 gas? It's plant food.

#45 | Posted by visitor_ at 2013-02-21 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's wrong with CO2 gas? It's plant food.

#45 | Posted by visitor_ at 2013-02-21 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, and water is good for you too, unless you consume, say, 10 gallons in one sitting.

#46 | Posted by cbob at 2013-02-21 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Madscientist has this correct. Their is no free lunch with coal or any fossil fuel. To release the energy in coal you must free op the carbon. In this case as a carbonate, but to get the metal back the carbon has to be removed as CO2. In the end the net gain in energy is probably minimal if not negative.

#47 | Posted by schmanch at 2013-02-21 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"More data are necessary."
#41 | Posted by madscientist

It actually sounds more like a steelmaking process than a power generator.

#48 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-02-21 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's wrong with CO2 gas? It's plant food.

#45 | Posted by visitor

And you would be too if that is all you breathed.

Lock yourself in a room with nothing to breathe but CO2 for an hour...then get back to us.

#49 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-02-21 03:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#48 "It actually sounds more like a steelmaking process than a power generator."

That's what I thought as well. I wish the article would have given greater detail on the actual process. I've been looking around, but can't find anything.

#50 | Posted by madscientist at 2013-02-21 03:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

#50 - Maybe it's both!
It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping.
www.hulu.com

#51 | Posted by cbob at 2013-02-21 03:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

#50 - " I wish the article would have given greater detail on the actual process. I've been looking around, but can't find anything."

Probably waiting on a patent process before releasing too much info, not too mention a few journal articles.

#52 | Posted by danv at 2013-02-21 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

#50: Actually there are some details about how it works on the web. Read the second paragraph in this pdf for a very brief summary. Basically, the process doesn't preform magic. It uses the iron compound as sort of a catalizer so that it can preform the "bruning' process in two stages. This allows it to obtain all of the CO2 in the second stage when there isn't any nitrogen present. This in turn allows them to gain efficiency in scrubbing out the CO2. I couldn't find any detail on what they do with the CO2. Presumably that step uses standard techniques for sequestration, probably into some sort of carbonate. Of course, this takes energy, so you don't end up with as much energy as simply burning the coal. www.netl.doe.gov

#53 | Posted by mad_as_hell at 2013-02-21 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh crap now what are we gonna do after demonizing coal for all these years. It looks like the jig is up for us left nut crazy liberals. Now we will have to find something else about coal to cry about.

Leftwing liberals.

#54 | Posted by manuesstonedar at 2013-02-21 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wonderful, if true. Would the present executive branch allow this to be used?

#55 | Posted by Donald at 2013-02-21 09:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Would the present executive branch allow this to be used?

#55 | Posted by Donald

You expect him to still be in power in 2020?

#56 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-02-21 09:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's that saying again about things that seem to good to be true?

#57 | Posted by Tor at 2013-02-22 12:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Would the present executive branch allow this to be used?"
#55 | Posted by Donald

Given their current support for the project, I'd guess yes.

see #12

#58 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-02-22 01:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Not really; what would the greenies be able to bitch and complain about next.

continue bitching about strip mining and mountain top removal.

#59 | Posted by lmiller867 at 2013-02-22 09:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Over the last several weeks, the plug was pulled on two state-of-the-art coal projects in Texas that were projected to exceed $5.5 billion in private investment and create hundreds of jobs,"

Let's call it 5500 jobs.
That will make the math easier.
5500 jobs at $5.5 billion per job...
That's a cost of $1 million dollars per job.

I guess that stimulus was a bargain after all!

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2013-02-22 10:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is Great News! Hat's off for the dedicated work and many many hours to achieve this revolutionary technique to produce 'clean' coal.

One question.
1) Will it lower my monthly utility bill? "I think not - if anything it will be double.. and I should feel all warm and fuzzy because we're helping.. by contributing a quadrillion times less carbon into the atmosphere then say.. the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

-Also.. does anyone truly think, or believe, that this current regime will allow any company.. err.. any USA company to use this new clean coal technique?


#61 | Posted by SamSpade at 2013-02-22 11:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

by contributing a quadrillion times less carbon into the atmosphere then say.. the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

Facts. You failed them.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2013-02-23 04:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

 

Advertisement