Where does the electricity come from that is used in this conversion?

Once this is sorted out, fossil fuels are history.

You fail to take into account the staggering amount of money fossil fuel purveyors will spend to purchase the needed politicians to perpetuate their hold on world power sources.

Indeed.

Er, what?

Why not get some gov't funding instead?

Because Gov't funding is doled out by the same lot that's already been purchased by established billionaire businessmen.

Oil companies will make hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars in PROFIT (not revenue) this year alone.

They've get Washington all locked up.

maybe put together a failed business plan and call it green. Maybe you can get $500 Billion.

But you'll have to put a contingency on it by making a big political donation to the current administration.

".. the Solyndra loan guarantee process was a multi-year process begun during the George W. Bush Administration.."

I know it probably doesn't fit your world view but it's not just one administration that's susceptable to donations and hype.

No I realize it started in Bush's admin. Something this big doesnt happen overnight.

You missed the point.

They, and the ethanol lobby already have. I remember, years ago, George Olah did a tv presentation on methanol, they had fuel cells to provide energy, but also, fuel cells to convert CO₂ to methanol, a conversion that could use surplus power from wind etc. at times of low demand.

It seems to been pushed back out of sight. Read a little more, here.

Wow, after reading that, it smells a little conspiracy like.

Whenever I need to judge if a situation is fed by conspiracy or stupidity, based on experience I vote for stupidity. But that's complicated by stupid conspirators.

Mark Bingham
Relativity PL

those people have been quitely switching over to natural gas for years since the oil came in up at Prudoe Bay. There is enough Natural Gas there to fuel the USA for 200 years. They presently use 4 jet engines to power pumps that push the Natural Gas back intro the earth.

I think we need to decide for sure whether CO2 is destroying the planet or not. If it is, then the logical next step would be to stop burning anything, immediately, whether it's for energy production or not..................................which, unless we are willing to bring all of humanity to a screeching halt, is impossible.

Global warming is happening. We will see most of Florida under water sooner rather than later, and New York, Boston, Savanna, and many other cities will be surrounded by levies. It is happening, no arguement. (well, no "serious" arguement anyways) The only arguement is whether it is caused by man made activities.

We better be the ones causing global warming. If not, then there is NOTHING we can do about it.

So we have three options.

option 1. carry on like we do now and watch the world warm up. (The attitude by most reputable climatologists)

option 2. stop burning fossil fuel and watch the world warm up anyway. (the attitude taken by big oil, big coal, and big natural gas who are sqirming at the idea of all those profits going bye bye.)

option 3. stop burning fossil fuel and watch the world stop warming, and maybe even start to cool down.

There is so much rhetoric and finger pointing and emotion in this discussion, we forget that there are only those three options.

Which option gives us a faint hope of success?

Why would anybody not be able to see this?

Thing is: here's a process that converts C02 into methane which is reused as a fuel. The question remains: Is it viable to pursue research in this venue? and if so what is the final measure of toxic elements released into the atmosphere? With methane it's carbon monoxide, a known greenhouse gas: With coal its carbon dioxide, a known acidifier.

If it's discovered that this process eliminates a high percentage of the two toxins would the use of this technology warrant operating the power generation equipment at a loss or break-even cost until it actually becomes part of the operating economic infrastructure?

'...what is the final measure of toxic elements released into the atmosphere? With methane it's carbon monoxide, a known greenhouse gas: With coal its carbon dioxide, a known acidifier.'

.

WOW! The error density in your statement is impressive.

.

'...With methane it's carbon monoxide...' You are implying burning methane necessarily yields significant amounts of carbon monoxide. How did you reach this conclusion? What about methane do you believe prevents burning in oxygen to yield carbon dioxide?

.

'...carbon monoxide, a known greenhouse gas...' Carbon Monoxide itself is actually a fairly weak greenhouse gas, compared for example to Carbon Dioxide (which you differentiated as an acidifier, which is not incorrect beyond implying it is less of a greenhouse gas than carbon monoxide.)

.

'...With coal its carbon dioxide...' ...ah, the pièce de résistance of this spectacular train wreck of thought. Claiming that 'the final measure of toxic elements released' by coal, is 'carbon dioxide' betrays the most impressive misunderstanding I've seen all week. Hey, whatever you are going to be, be the best at it.

If Carbon Dioxide were the worst of the problems with coal, it would be no worse than any other commonly used fossil fuel power source. Unfortunately, the average 1000MW coal fired plant puts out tons of toxic substances including massive amounts of mercury, around 12 tons of radioactive thorium and around 5 tons of uranium, every year. If coal had to meet the same requirements as nuclear for containment of things like radioactive material and mercury, coal would be far from economically viable.

Economically viable truly clean coal is a pipe dream

.

My mistake....I meant to say sulfur dioxide. However, courtesy of your sweeping statement I would urge you to quantify the amount of millirems a person is exposed to within the vicinity of a coal plant? Perhaps, even compare it to the normal background radiation? Over the period of say, a year. While you're at it please include your smoke detector and cell phone in the equation. You can leave the fly ash out of the equation if you so choose (though you might learn something).

Oh, and uh, you might want to run a dosimeter/scintilometre over your lettuce. Chances are the phosphate fertilizer used to grow it contains some annoying isotopes.

Whatever it is you think, the fact remains that coal remains the foremost source of electrical energy production on the planet.

Before I address the specifics of your comment, congratulations are in order. Your newest response consistently displays the same exceptional traits discussed of your previous comment. This removes any lingering concerns about your initial comment just being an incredible fluke. You sir are the real McCoy.

So lets get right to it:

'..I meant to say sulfur dioxide..':

- I take this to mean, you intended your statement to convey 'for coal, the final measure of toxic elements released is sulfur dioxide'. Let me know if I have misunderstood your correction....

-If, however, that is what you intended, please shed some insight into the path that leads you to believe the amount of sulfur dioxide can in any reasonable way be considered 'the final measurement of toxic elements released'?

- Certainly sulfur dioxide presents a problem for use of coal, but that problem pales in comparison. Compared to several other problematic coal emissions, sulfur dioxide is less toxic, presents a less severe impact, and can be dealt with effectively via several routes using proven current technology. The coal industry would certainly love to have everyone convinced that sulfur dioxide was truly the final measure of toxic elements released and their biggest problem. The discussion will return to the more significant problems with coal later, but let' get through the significant problems with your response first.

(MORE)'..I meant to say sulfur dioxide..':

- Just to be clear here, since this is your only 'correction' or retraction, does this mean you stand resolute behind your claim that carbon monoxide is a necessary significant resultant of standard efficient methane combustion (i,e, Methane would be the limiting agent, so it would not be starved for oxygen)?

.

'...quantify the amount of millirems a person is exposed to within the vicinity of a coal plant? Perhaps, even compare it to the normal background radiation? Over the period of say, a year...'

-Upon casual inspection these may sound like reasonable questions for evaluating the severity of the issue, but there is a fundamental misunderstanding that leads these question to frame the problem in a way that misses the major impact. OK, bare with me here, this will take a couple steps, after which it should become more clear....

.

-Attempting to assess the severity of contamination with alpha emitter dispersed from coal powered plants over a period (such as one year), by a comparison to typical background radiation dose over that period, is not very helpful for a several reasons, the two most important being: long half lives of U238 and Th233, and decay products of Th233 and U238 being major (and increasing) constituents of total background radiation.

.

-Th233 has a half life around 14 billion years and U238 around 4.5 billion years, so it is important to remember that these alpha emitters will not decay sufficiently to yield a meaningful decrease in radioactivity over our average lifespan. This means that in any given year, the radiation exposure to an individual as a result of coal based power is not well correlated to the release of radioactive material over the same time, but a much better correlation would be found related to the sum of all the previous annual amounts of radioactive release. buildup is the more important factor. Effects of buildup can be seen in the steady increase in background radiation over the past century (which correlates well with increased coal utilization)..

-The cumulative effect of the significant use of coal has been increasing the background radiation for more than 2 centuries. attempting to use background radiation to assess coal plant emissions, involves something akin to a begging the question fallacy. Specifically, since background radiation is comprised in (steadily increasing) part by previous coal plant emissions, the comparison is of little use, being a self referential measuring stick.

.

. '.While you're at it please include your smoke detector and cell phone in the equation....' .

.

-Asking for a comparison with cell phones is silly. Cell phones do not emit ionizing radiation.

-In a typical house with two ceiling installed smoke detectors with 0.1 μC Am241 each, a typical resident who sleeps 8 hours at 1.5 meters from one detector and daily spends 4 hours on average in other parts of the house can expect a dose around 0.001mrem/year

...

-In a very conservative estimate of the increase in dose only from uranium decay products via fly ash leaching to groundwater, a maximally exposed nearby resident will experience and increase ranging from 0.14 mrem/year to just over 5 mrem/year depending heavily on type of coal and processes at the plant, for one year operation of a 1000MW coal fired plant.

....so possibly 140 to 5000 times more severe than smoke detector effect on dose

But remember this was neglecting many facets of exposure to decay daughters of U238 and all facets of exposure to decay daughters of Th233.

It is even more important to consider that the increase in annual dose is not just for that year, but continues because of extremely long half lives. It is also just for one year 1000MW plant operation. as the plant operates longer the increase continues. Plants larger than 1000MW will cause correspondingly large increases in dose received.

So if you want to a comparison to smoke detectors....one portion of the dose due solely solely to decay products of U-238 could be equivalent to exposure from several hundred up to a few thousand smoke detectors in your house and then adding several hundred up to a few thousand more each year the nearby plant continued to burn coal...

All in all, that comparison is high oh goofy and low on utility, but it was the best of those you demanded.

. . '...You can leave the fly ash out of the equation...' . .

-This is an important comment. It illustrates why our viewpoints are so very different.

-If we simply neglected fly ash, it might be possible to view coal as not that different from other fossil fuel sources. While it may simplify analysis, fly ash is the majority of the problem, specifically ultra fine fly ash which is especially detrimental. These <0.1μm diameter particles stay suspended in the atmosphere for a long time, are very widely dispersed, present inhalation and ingestion hazards (high energy alpha emitters in your lungs is consistent path to lung cancer), provide negligible containment of decay product daughter gasses, and are essentially unregulated-

-

. .'...Oh, and uh, you might want to run a dosimeter/scintilometre over your lettuce. Chances are the phosphate fertilizer used to grow it contains some annoying isotopes....'. .

I know you are doing your best to give the impression that you are 'schooling' me on matters radiological, and from what I can tell you sincerely believe you are correct. I guess my suggestion would be if you are trying to come off as if you posses a competent fluent knowledge of a subject (as you seem to have been attempting here), it is probably best you avoid committing to writing the ad hoc conjecture and those foggy recollection short on specifics. It is a dead give away to those who have at least a basic working knowledge of the subject....

.

.....case in point is your mention of 'run a dosimeter / scintilometer over' lettuce in search of 'some annoying isotopes' contained in 'phosphate fertilizers'.

- anyone who has worn a dosimeter knows it isn't something you 'run over' an object to asses radioactivity. Dosimeters are devices, usually in the form of badges or clip on tubes that people wear for measure ionizing radiation so that equivalent dose can be calculate.

- a scintilometer is also not something 'run over' an object to look for 'nasty' radioactive 'isotopes'. Instead it is a device used to measure fluctuations in the refractive index of air.

.-Phosphate PO4 is not known to commonly harbor radioactive isotopes. If this were a subject with which you were even partially well versed on the basics, confusion (most likely) between phosphorous and potassium would be highly unlikely.

-Potassium is the element found in many fertilizers and many other things that is always radioactive. K40 beta decays but it is pretty low energy and hardly qualifies as nasty.

-just as a note, as an example of radioactive food we consume, there is no need to hypothesize about possible radioactive isotopes from fertilizer on lettuce, every banana contains K40 and emits betas.

.

.

..'...you might learn something...'. .

Indeed, I did. I did not previously know what a scintilometer was... i had to look it up. Thank you.

What a wonderful rant.

Guess what I found out?

Birth leads to death. It's no wonder things are this f**ked up.

I'm on a mission to make whiney little punks, shut up!

Go cry to your mamma!

I probably overreacted.........................but I'm getting sick of this, "poor me" bullshit.

Kramarat, I don't know how that comes across as 'poor me'. I certainly don't feel disenfranchised, in fact, it is fairly flipping amazing to be me, and I feel very fortunate.

My rant goes towards ingrained opinions with little basis in fact and vehemently opposed to change.

I think nuclear power gets a bum wrap while coal power spews toxic filth unrestrained. Coal gets away with this in part because most of the public have no idea. there is also a lot of misinformation out there. It is a pet peeve of mine.

I can't help but respond when I see someone singing the praises of clean coal.

Nuclear is definitely the cleaner option.

Are you pro-coal, Kramarat?

My Scintillometer detects gamma rays....it is NOT a device that measures the refractive index of air........and I can calculate dosimetric equivalency using this instrument.......and no, I'm not an advocate of coal. .....just faced with real world prospects.

You sir, on the other hand, really don't know what you're talking about but you do rant on ad infinitum.....

btw...if wiki is your only source of info I'd suggest you start reading elsewhere. You might discover there's a lot of mis-information in wiki (you just found one). Try some of the online papers from MIT.

Any credible paper never uses wiki as a source.

To be honest there is a company marketing a Refractometer by calling it a scintillometer.

It's a misnomer based on the principal of gallium arsenide oscillation. Many distance meters are built this way.

You probably are referring to something I know as a scintillation counter, or a component thereof, the scintillator .

I am open to the possibility that there is a scintillation counter branded 'Scintillometer' and perhaps that this branding has come to mean a scintillation counter or perhaps terminology has changed in some other way, or even perhaps that it is terminology that has been in use even when I worked in the field and I somehow never came across.

It has been a while, but personally I would refer to something used, as you describe, being 'run over' and area or item of interest to determine radioactivity due either to activation or contamination, as a radiac. A scintillation detector in my experience was not portable survey equipment as anything to be analyzed had to be placed inside a counting chamber shielded with thick lead, but I understand that may not be the case today. I could certainly be out of the loop on this.

Terminology or technology would have undergone a radical changed in the last 20 years if people are now running their TLDs or other dosimeter over an object for an indication of radioactivity. I find this highly unlikely.

.

I'm willing to chalk these differences up to semantics.

.

There are several other statement you have made that cannot easily be explained as semantic differences:

.

I cannot understand why you claim that Carbon Monoxide will necessarily result in significant amounts from Methane combustion.

.

.

I am in the dark on the 'annoying isotopes' that might be in my lettuce from phosphates. Surely you meant Potassium, right? Words are important.

.

.

I cannot understand why you think it might be reasonable to neglect fly ash when assessing pollution from coal fired plants. I am most interested in this response, perhaps it will shed some light into why ultra fine fly ash is unregulated.

.

.

Yes.........words are importrant. It's you who is jumping to conclusions about my position in all this.

First....I did not make any claims about carbon monoxide. Just stated a fact.

Second.........I meant phosphates...especially those that are the by-product of the smelting and oil refracting industry

Third .........fly ash is insignificant compared to the cinder waste. I imagine why it's unregulated is for the same reason asbestos particles of less than a micron were not measured (.5 um penetrates human cells).

As far as I know the scintilometer has been in use since the early 50's. The oscillating rare earth crystals have been changed over the years and are far more accurate in measuring low levels of ionization. The geiger counter runs on the same principal though uses something that resembles a tuning fork.

btw; I didn't start this conversation to laud the benefits of coal. I started it in the attempt to get varying opinions on some recent research coming out of MIT. Yes, words are important. More so than words it's the understanding of them that is really the ticket.

OK.

We are almost there.

We agree that words are important.

We agree that we use different words scintillometer vs. scintillation counter.

We agree that when you wrote 'carbon dioxide' you meant 'sulfur dioxide'.

We agree that when you wrote 'phosphates', you meant....no wait, you still say mean 'phosphate'. So are you saying the 'nasty isotopes' are radioactive isotopes of 'phosphorous', or 'oxygen'? If you not confusing potassium with phosphorous, I am sincerely interested in the isotopes to which you refer.

The 'fact' you stated conveys to me that carbon monoxide is a necessary result of methane combustion. I believe that methane combustion is commonly performed resulting no significant amounts of carbon monoxide. If you have evidence to the contrary to support this fact, I am sincerely interested.

You don't seem so unreasonable after these few exchanges, so let me ask you this. would you support legislation that required all electrical power generation to meet the same requirements for containment of toxic and radioactive material, regardless of the source of power?

When you say 'we' I'd suggest that you're speaking for yourself...yes?

If you'd read the article I posted you wouldn't be asking ME these questions....you'd be attempting to answer them. I, for one, do not know the answer. I would, however, like to form an intelligent opinion based on the expertise of this community.

Here's what I do know. In the next ten years there's going to be a massive shortfall in power generation....and it's not going to be because of electric cars or i-pads. At this moment power generation utilities are scrambling for any ideas they can utilize. To that effect everything is on the table. Some ideas have merit......some not. Perhaps you're aware of this? Most of the citizenry are not.

As far as safety is concerned there are learning curves that are addressed as they become known. Will Fukushima and Chernobyl be a repeat? I doubt it. Maybe something else will cause the next meltdown but it won't be a question of oversight. You talk about legislation...ok...since when do legislators foresee those events that no one else can? The answer is only after the fact and given the best of information available at that moment in time. One can only hope these legislators are not insane.

So, given your druthers, would you rather have research take a position in the attempt to make the burning of coal a safer proposition or would you rather turn off your i-pad?

Myself, I'd rather see nuclear take a more active role.

At the moment I'm involved with small hydro generation plants using a run-of-river format. These plants are located in geologically unstable areas. In geologically stable areas (Canadian Shield for eg) I'd have no issues if more nuclear plants came online.

Whichever way you slice it....COAL remains the largest source of power generation in the World. So whatcha gonna do?

The statements you have portrayed as 'fact', are actually not covered in the article:

-The only mention of carbon monoxide in the article is as possible unwanted resultant if a pure copper catalysts becomes fouled while attempting to make methane from carbon dioxide and water. This would not lead a reasonable person to claim carbon monoxide to be 'the final measure of toxic elements released into the atmosphere' from methane. From there it logically follows that, a reasonable person would only make such a statement if they had knowledge supporting this claim from some other source.

...and so I must apologize. This entire misunderstanding is my fault. My line of thinking was based on a false premise. I will be more careful in the future about going on the assumption someone is reasonable.

By the way, you had it correct the first time around.... Coal is the largest fuel source for generation of electricity....

Coal is not 'the largest fuel source of power generation in the world' . That title is held by oil.

...remember we agree that words are important....

Coal is not 'the largest fuel source of power generation in the world' . That title is held by oil.
If you must nitpick then ok.......I didn't realize we had gotten off on the subject of electrical power generation.
..remember we agree that words are important....
The trouble with words is you never know whose mouths they've been in

BTW....I'm not confusing potassium with radioactive phosphorous. I can unequivocally state that radioactive phosphorous is presently being mined (in the form of Apatite) for agricultural use.

Other sources of radioactive phosphate was the oil and steel industry. Much of this product is sold as soft rock phosphate.

Why is it radioactive you might ask. Probably because the environment it formed in is naturally radioactive....ie the Grenville province is one such locale. I personally know of places there where it's dangerous to linger for more than 1/2 hr. Further south crystals of uranophane are growing in a matrix of apatite and columbite. Not exactly salad material but was once used as a fertilizer.

'...radioactive phosphate is presently being mined... ....Other sources of radioactive phosphate '

Phosphate => PO₄^3-

^.

If these sources are yielding radioactive phosphate, at least one of the two constituent elements must be responsible for the radioactivity....

.

Could it be a radioactive isotope of Phosphorous?!?

Let's see....

P-31 is the only stable isotope. It accounts for 100% of naturally occurring phosphorous.....not 99.999%, it is far closer to 100%.

Just two isotopes have half lives long enough to be measured in days...P-33 at just over 25 days and P-32 at just over 14 days. These isotopes are not the decay products of other radioactive elements. These isotopes are produced by neutron bombardment of the naturally occurring isotope.

So it can't be phosphorous....

.

.

So could the culprit be a radioactive isotope of oxygen?!?

Let's see....

The longest lived radioactive oxygen isotope is O-15 with a half life of just over two minutes.

So it can't be oxygen...

.

.

I'm sorry. Better luck next time and just so you don't go away empty handed, you will be the recipient of this parting gift... one genuine reliable fact!

.

...and here it is...

.

"The radioactivity encountered mining phosphate rocks is not due to 'radioactive phosphate' but to decay products of U238 and Th233. That's right....the very elements creating conditions you describe as 'dangerous to linger for more than 1/2 hour' when imbedded in rock below your feet,.....

.....are the same elements you are completely dismissive about the risks of dispersing into the atmosphere in huge quantities as ultra fine particulates."

.

.

.

You mentioned Chernobyl and Fukushima. While those are obviously what we need to avoid, it makes much more sense to embrace an industry that via tight controls have very little emissions of toxic chemicals or radioactive material, with one unfortunate accident in the world about every 20 years or so, resulting in a major breach of containment...

...rather than an industry in which perfect standard operation invariably results in literally tons of of toxic and radioactive material, like mercury, thorium and uranium, released into the atmosphere..... not at just one plant in the world once every twenty years.....but at every operating plant in the world, year in and year out.

.

.

The situation could be corrected by phasing in over the next two decades a level playing field wherein all electricity producers regardless of fuel, must meet the same conditions concerning release of toxic and radioactive substances.

.

This is not asking for legislator to introduce additional 'solutions', I have no more faith in their abilities than you seem to... This is just and effort to make the restrictions on pollution apply equally to all players regardless of fuel type, campaign contribution, or lobbying efforts.

Here's where you don't make sense:You said: This is just and effort to make the restrictions on pollution apply equally to all players regardless of fuel type......my response being: if the pollution containment infrastructure doesn't exist to accomodate the legislation the only thing the legislation will accomplish is to force the closure of those industries. Besides, not all power generation facilities are such that a single sweeping edict can address the inner workings of each facility which, incidentally, also includes the consumer market.

So, according to you the conundrum of keeping pollution to a minimum is best addressed by legislation. I find that to be a juvenile approach at best. An uninformed one at the very least. I opt for research.

ps...thankyou for the lecture

I think we have a fourth option: develop scrubbing technology that cleans up coal emissions by radial counterflow, develop CO2 capture technology (other than amine scrubbing or membranes) to separate CO2 out of flue gas, and develop cracking technology to convert the CO2 into nanotubes by shear electrolysis -- powered by renewables to take advantage of all the night wind and spinning reserve now going to waste. Your third option (poverty) is not likely a solution that the developing world can support.

The key words in my options were, of course, stop burning FOSSIL fuel. Charcoal is not fossil fuel. Ethanol is not fossil fuel. pelletized wood is not fossil fuel. Poverty is not a given...in fact, whole industries have sprung up around non-fossil fuel production, and as you pointed out correctly, carbon capture. Poverty WILL result anyway when we run out of fossil fuel and don't have an option 4 in place. The high oil prices are already creating poverty. Peak oil is upon us now and fuel prices are soaring as a result. We can point fingers, cast blame, but the supply and demand numbers don't lie...demand is exceeding supply.

I rather like pelletized wood. A "drop in" substitute for coal. Except its not dirty. And it can be made from garbage. I wonder if we will ever see a shortage of garbage....

It would take a LOT of it to replace the coal in a generating plant. I wonder if the Canadian forests could stand that much deforestation. If it was combined with an aggressive reforestation program, maybe. I dunno. People can always find a downside to anything I suppose. I was trying to remain positive.

On the up side, I get to shovel less snow.

Spending all this money to develop fixes for just one of coal myriad of problems would be extremely myopic. Even is you get some level of control on CO2, what about the literal tons of mercury and radioactive thorium and uranium released by every plant every year?

If coal were required to meet the same regulations concerning release of radioactive material as nuclear does, it wouldn't be anywhere near cost competitive with any other current major source of power.

More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. Woody Allen

Where does the electricity come from.....
Intelligently designed static!

Interesting,

I have something to add on/off topic, which is also a problem for us.

The Company where I'm working at, we make liquid smoke flavoring. And produce approx. 17,000,000 lbs of charcoal (dust) /year.

This has approx. 15,000 BTU/lb and since we strip all the flavoring, there is nothing but CO2 and about 2% ash after its burnt.

We use about 2-3 million lbs for our boilers and had sold the rest to power plants, but since its dust, we have to water it down. But the power plants can now buy power cheaper off the grid than it takes to make it.

Looked into about making pellets but because we stripped all the flavoring, the lignin is also stripped out. And that is the bonding that binds the pellets together.

Now where do we go with this charcoal?

http://www.allartsupplies.com/item.php?articleId=2733&gclid=CN6-p873vK8CFcjb4Aodu1Szww

If you could sell it like this, you'd probably make more money than from the liquid smoke.

close

never thought of that, don't know how much of an outlet that would be, considering we ship it out in railcars.

17,000,000 pounds x16 ounces per pound x $1.25 per ounce=$340,000,000.00 USD.

LynDoor™Industries will take 5,000,000 pounds this month, at $0.24USD. That pencils out to $1.2million.

I'll wire a payment of $25.00USD to your account today.

LynDoor™rooDnyL™

LynDoor™Industries will take 5,000,000 pounds this month, at $0.24USD. That pencils out to $1.2million.

17,000,000 pounds x16 ounces per pound x $1.25 per ounce=$340,000,000.00 USD.

One has to keep the balance of cash flow and profit.

I hope you have a railroad spur, I have a rail car loading now, we can fill about (3) rail cars/week at our plant in Manitowoc.

I failed to mentioned, we are a charcoal supplier for munitions also...........until the factory blew up. I think packaging would have to be on site.

The char would be valuable soil amendment, to make terra preta.

Thanks,

Had looked into a top dressing for golf courses.

Being in the northern states and charcoal being dark, it would absorb heat. not much in nutrient value though.

The nutrient value is immaterial. The char extends the root systems of plants by symbiosis with mycorrhizal fungi. Char gives a base to the fungi. Finely divided char, like what you have, should be valuable.

Very much appreciated.

I have to look into that.

Thank you.

Another use: http://www.energy-tech.com/article.cfm?id=32242

Even though the Charcoal is made in a 1500 degrees oxygen controlled environment, (calciner) It is not activated charcoal.

I had looked into what would have to occur to make it activated charcoal.

One is a process modification, the other a chemical additive within the process.

Don't the cogen rules still apply? I designed the structures for several cogen power stations. You build a power station (actually, you hire someone to build and operate it for you) and as long as you use 2% of the energy, perhaps as steam, the utilities are forced to buy the rest.

I know nothing of this company, I just found it while looking for a comprehensive info source for you. Mavenpower

Problem is,

We are selling it to the local city public works.

Otherwise, the utilities where we sell it, are buying it cheaper off the grid.

The reason if we build a cogen, is not only the initial costs, but the environment licenses for it.

With the amount of charcoal we produce, its not enough.

It hard enough now.

Seems obvious to me - first, sell it for the carbon credits in exchange for a promise not to burn it. Then sell it physically for soil amendment or whatever as suggested by some of the other commenters, as long as it's not burned. But, of course, the big $ is the carbon credits .

We have people willing to take it of our hands if we would give it away, but then it would be considered industrial waste and the environmental agencies would make it more difficult on us. So we do charge a symbolic fee.

It does have value. juyst have to find the correct outlet.

RE: 17M lbs of carbon dust..... just brainstorming here....

Have you contacted tire manufacturers, and manufacturers of parts from rubber/elastomers?

Perhaps steel or titanium mills have use for scavenging O2?

Paint companies might have use for that carbon. Perhaps the stuff used to re-black parking lots?

While it is a limited market, the pyrotechnic chemical supply companies certainly have use for air float or lampblack carbon.

ideas is what I was looking for. I knew I could count on people here CR4.

I have though of pyrotechnics company, but I never fully implemented it.

This carbon dust comes from (2) of our plants, with different processes. One process, the dust is finer.

We are the only government supplier for this type of dust, but surprisingly its not a big outlet.

And being dust its LLE is makes it difficult but not impossible to handle.

Thanks, I'll look into that.

I see you've already considered turning it into activated carbon. If the process is something that your company wouldn't want to get into, you could simply sell the raw material to a company that is already set up to make it.

We actually having a meeting tomorrow, seems another utility is switching from coal to gas, no more deliveries after next month.

It not like this just happened, this was in the wind for a few years.

And like everything, we like to with the lack of a better word, unload this with little input. But it doesn't look that way.

Activated the charcoal is still on the table. What is the biggest drawback is shipping charcoal dust. Looking into railroad cars and then purging and introducing nitrogen.

We are already running it through a controlled environment.

But there are still issues.

Before we commit to a process, we need a market. i.e., 'If you built it, they will come' is a poor business model.

Everything is on the table yet. I am even using some of the suggestion here, thanks.

We are contacting companies, but we need to be prepared or at least knowledgeable on the need, that's why I posted here.....to get a little push.

The focus was on heat capacity, just due to the fact that it has clean emissions. We burn some for our boilers and monitor emissions, last time when we submitted our emission report, the government agencies questioned that there must be something wrong with the calibration of our testing equipment, because the emissions where so clean. after recalibrating and retesting emissions, same results.

I'm in the water treatment field where powdered activated carbon is used extensively.

I'd suggest starting a conversation with a major producer (like Siemens) to see if they'd be interested in buying the output from your process. Then you'd just have to deal with the packaging and transport.

Thanks C.I.,

I hate these cold calls, but to get anywhere you have to start with a first step.

Steelmaking might be another use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_furnace

Your material might be better described for marketing purposes as "coke dust." Or better still, "biochar." "Charcoal" doesn't sound like valuable material, and in the US charcoal is usually impregnated with chemicals to make it easier to light, so when you say "charcoal" it sounds like you are offering scraps of VOC-impregnated toxic waste from making barbeque fuel.

Airborne coke dust is a problem that might be solved by a dynamic filter, for example this or this. Not a dead-end filter, which will clog. Baghouse and ESP setups for collecting the dust still leave the worst part, the small particles, and they take up a lot of space.

thanks wilmot,...........instead of calling it charcoal......hows gold sound?

Yes, we have a huge baghouse on our property.

Hey, any relation to the inventor, Wilmot H. McCutchen?

If you are, I have another question for you.

Yes, that's me.

I have some feed back about on this here:

The Value of CR4 with Feedback from a discussion,

.... the new draconian Life saving CO2 emission requirements imposed by the EPA.

As opposed to the planet killing methane.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XYiC6n0CCk

Got any in self-basting?

The Cap and Trade Bill was suspose to transfer some of the profits from Natural Gas to the Coal Industry because Coal is a Vital Military Resource to make steel. But the Politicans defeated it only because of the party that presented it was not in power at the time.

Have to wonder whether they fully understood what they were doing. Blaming the speculators made absolutely no sense.

'....Cap and Trade Bill was suspose to transfer some of the profits from Natural Gas to the Coal Industry....'

Uh....

What???

How?

Was the coal industry aware of this, because they have lobbied hard to kill cap and trade....

Seems like a source for hydrogen to reduce the CO2 to CH4 and CH3OH is required, but I missed that if they mentioned it. If it comes from water, what else is given off? What does pH do?

I believe the whole process is dome while the coal is covered with Ethanol or fuel oil of some type. At least that was the process the Eastman Chemical came up with using a Federal Grants about 15 years ago in Tennessee.

Did I miss something?

no one raised the question about the other pollutants that are emitted by burning coal, which as much as I know are worse than those of hydrocarbon fuels!

That's the EPA trade-off. Burning coal produces C02 which is converted into methane using gold/copper catalizers which in turn is used as a fuel the end product being carbon monoxide. This technology addresses the issue of reducing C02 emissions by 20%.

I'm wondering whether the amount of energy produced by burning methane equals the value of the gold and copper catalyst technology.

It is possible for it to be cost effective now. Just wait until the catalyst needs to be replaced in ~20 years. It probably won't be cost effective then.

<Sniff, sniff...> Horse? No.

<...sniff, sniff...> Dog? No.

<...sniff, sniff...> Bull?

Soooo... We're burning coal to make electricity which created CO2, and using the electricity and some un-named hydrogen source to reduce the CO2 to CH4 and CH3OH which can be burned with the coal to make more electricity to repeat the cycle? Seems like we could eventually skip the coal and just recycle the CO2 from burning CH4 in this process. Kinda sounds like perpetual motion, until I see more details and a mass/energy balance.

You are forgetting the energy used to mine the metals and to create the catalyst. That energy is always left out of these equations to make it look like an energy gain.

If the problem with describing carbon dioxide being converted or turned into CO₂ => CH₄ is set aside;

.

and also setting aside the problem of how converting CO₂ to CH₄ is of any benefit in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, since burning CH₄ puts you right back where you started (minus all the energy lost playing that shell game);

.

there is a gross misunderstanding of why coal is not clean. The big problem with coal isn't CO₂ . What makes coal dirty is every thing else it releases into the environment. The average 1000MW coal plant releases 5 tons of Uranium and 12 tons of Thorium (both strong alpha emitters) along with massive amounts of mercury into the environment every year.

"Clean coal" is of course a good objective. But before the end zone dancing at MIT gets out of hand, let's consider some realities.

Energy must be added to convert CO2 into CH4. That energy must be coupled into a huge waste stream through gold nanoparticles. Even if, somehow, a clean stream of concentrated CO2 could be extracted from the hot and dirty flue gas, and even if coking of the catalysts could be prevented, the juice is not worth the squeeze.

Two elements ((1) post-combustion CO2 capture, and (2) some way to dispose of the CO2 that is captured) will be necessary for clean coal, and -- despite the assurance of Green zealots that "we have all the technologies we need" -- these two elements are not in place. The MIT research on gold for cracking CO2 addresses only the second element, disposal.

Disposing of CO2 by underground dumping (sequestration) is a bad idea because there simply is not enough room underground for storing the CO2. The pore space is filled with brine. No one has a plan for dealing with the highly saline brine that must be extracted to the surface. Even if we believe the assumption that the CO2 could somehow dissolve into the brine fast enough to keep up with the waste stream, the fizzy brine would be sure to leak out somewhere and intrude into the fresh water aquifers that people depend on.

The oil companies say they can use the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), but neglect to mention that the lifetime emissions of an average coal plant would require the pore space of a giant oil field. EOR projects are a drop in the bucket, since there are few giant oil fields. "Clean coal" is a way for oil companies to get taxpayer funding to supply free CO2 for their EOR.

Coal power is not going to be replaced by wind and solar and biofuels any time soon. In the developing world, coal demand is increasing, so any coal plant shutdowns in the US are futile for avoiding world climate catastrophe.

Sorry Duckinthepond,

I seemed to hijacked your post.

While the catalyst research may prove beneficial and useful (and kudos to the researchers for doing it), it most certainly won't be in the way they describe. The words of my thermo prof echos in my ear... 'Not only can you not win the game, but the laws guarantee that you can't break even.'

Not only will this process as described not reduce emissions, but would actually increase them (for the same reasons people have already pointed out).

It surprises me that MIT would have added garbage into what otherwise might be a useful breakthrough.