The <a href = "http://www.futuregenalliance.org/">FutureGen</a> system is one that has received government research and development funding to the tune of millions of dollars and is on the verge of building a power plant in Illinois. In this system coal is not really the fuel used to produce electricity. Coal (or any other source of carbon such as charcoal or even <a href = "http://www.bioware.com.br/english/">torrified </a>cornstalks and straw).
In this process 1000 degree steam is passed over coal in the absence of air. This causes a chemical reaction between the oxygen in the water molecules in the steam and the carbon molecules in the coal: 2H2O + C ------> 2H2 + CO2. The carbon dioxide produced is then taken out of the mix and the hydrogen (H2) is used to fuel the power plant.
There are many advantages to using hydrogen as the fuel in an electrical generator. One of these is that it burns much hotter than carbon does and so you need less hydrogen fuel than you would coal. Another consequence is that, because you use less fuel, you produce significantly less carbon dioxide than a normal coal plant.
Still another advantage is that when you burn hydrogen the product is superheated steam (2H2 + O2 ------> 2H2O). This steam can be used to turn the turbines that drive the generators in the plant with very few losses. In a traditional coal fired plant the coal is burned outside a vessel that contains water (a boiler) to create the steam needed to turn the generators. This means that much of the heat created by burning coal goes up the chimney and is lost.
The FutureGen system is therefore vastly superior to a traditional coal fired plant. It is the first large scale electrical generator which uses clean, renewable hydrogen fuel from water. Unfortunately the designers of this system tried to go too far too fast and proposed pumping the carbon dioxide that is produced by releasing the hydrogen fuel from water underground to sequester it. This sequestration plan is untested and has become the major sticking point of the whole project.
I think that this is unfortunate because even without the sequestration plan this plant is a huge step forward in our goal of ending our dependence on fossil fuels. Another unpublicized bonus with this system is that you could use the hydrogen fuel produced to run cars, trucks, trains, ships or any vehicle with an internal combustion engine. That's right, you can, in effect, run your car on coal (actually on hydrogen produced through this process) and since coal is still around a hundred bucks a ton or less that would mean that your hydrogen fuel would cost roughly .25 cents a gallon (a rough estimate).
There is a way to use a process very similar to this one with water and liquid hydrocarbon fuels as well and in that case you can produce your hydrogen fuel on board the vehicle as you drive. That process would increase your hydrocarbon fuel mileage by up to 60% and reduce your carbon dioxide emissions by an equal percentage. The tools necessary for us to cut our fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide output on a worldwide basis are there but we are just not aware of them or being told about them (whichever you like).
-
- groups:
- Green, Earth and Science, Science
-
- tags:
- Green, Earth and Science, Environment, Science, 2 more + add
-
-
- Mike_Johnston
- added this
-
Coal is not clean, and the only thing it is sustaining is the problem of ignorance on how ecosystems work.
And cars are just an unsustainable form of transportation, that .25 cents (are you serious? 1/4th of a cent?) a gallon hydrogen is just laden with externalities. The mining and processing of the coal more than jack up the price of hydrogen via coal probably 100000xs.
.25 cents is a ridiculous thought, were you trying to say a quarter? Math is important when dealing with matters of thermodynamics you know.
-
-
- aquamammal
- 1 year ago
-
-
Coal is not the fuel in this case. It is a chemical used to release hydrogen fuel from water. I do have a reasonable grasp of how ecosystems work.
Whether cars are sustainable or not isn't really part of the point here. In a perfect world we could micromanage every little detail of what the consumer has to choose from and it would be much easier for intelligent folk to tell the rest of us what is good for us.
We live in a free market economy though and as such the consumer drives the market and whatever the consumer is willing to spend their money on is what will be used. Americans love their cars and won't give them up without a fight.
That being the case it makes sense to develop systems which could be used on both new vehicles and retrofitted onto existing vehicles. If you can do that for a reasonable price then consumers will buy and the result will be a decreased demand for fossil fuels and a dramatic reduction is CO2 pollution.
Um yes, a quarter a "gallon" is what I meant. That figure comes from the price of coal being around a hundred dollars a ton delivered. That is retail, the electric utilities pay much less.
Two thousand pounds of carbon in the form of coal is roughly equal to the amount of carbon in 400 gallons of gasoline. So divide that 400 gallons by the thousand dollar price of the coal and you get about a quarter a gallon.
-
-
- Mike_Johnston
- 1 year ago
-
-
You are obviously unfamiliar with the 1 million acres of devastated mountains in the Appalachian mntn. range ,or the 1200miles of natural runoffs being filled. Or the massive groundwater contamination. Try checking out the iLoveMountains.org website and then get back to me on this so called clean,cheap coal. Keep in mind I have been fighting this kind of ignorance about coal for years and we are finally getting our voice heard, however slightly that is. I have posted several vids on this subject and I will do whatever it takes to save my kids from this toxic , deadly misinformation campaign the coal co's have pumped millions into. Clean coal is like saying, safe anthrax. or cigs don't cause cancer, or shit smells like tulips.
-
-
- victimofcoal
- 1 year ago
-
-
Clean coal is a ruse, or, as Grist Magazine calls it, a subsidy-hungry boondoggle.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/4/12/173831/909
"There is reason for cautious optimism. Coal mining is destructive as hell, but in places like northeastern Pennsylvania -- where the article focuses, and where the first U.S. coal-to-liquid plant will be built starting this Spring -- there's waste coal laying all over the place, leaching acid into groundwater (the legacy of pre-regulatory coal mining). The plant will gather that coal as feedstock and replace it with solid waste covered in soil, thereby creating farmland or forest."
--David Roberts
-
-
- 96thdayofrage
- 1 year ago
-
-
Yes David, coal to liquids is another example of using coal to offset our dependence on foreign sources of petroleum. The truth is that we have been able to produce synthetic gasoline, diesel, etc since WWII. The cost of this oil was only ever projected to be 4-6 cents per gallon more than refining crude oil. That was of course before petroleum prices went through the roof. I agree that this is a great way to dispose of waste coal.
Coal to liquids is however not any more or less polluting than what we have now. I guess it is a good way to lessen our dependence on foreign oil without either a gain or loss over current fuels as far as CO2 pollution produced.
I look at H2 from coal and water in the same way but with that process there is a pollution reduction as well as an offset of foreign oil dependence. Until we have something better it is a step in the right direction and one that could work with existing vehicles (in the case of steam reformers).
-
-
- Mike_Johnston
- 1 year ago
-






