Why Clean Coal Is A Myth

[@Master_Therion]

I can confirm that it is a myth. No matter how much you scrub a lump of coal you'll never get it clean... I tried.

[@Moscato_Moscato]

Master Therion did you use soap?

[@pierreuntel1970]

carry on, it will clean

[@Master_Therion]

Deebo Molina I tried soap, bleach, detergent... I even tried to launder it in the washing machine. My clothes are now fifty shades of grey :(

[@haziqthebiohazard3661]

bleach will solve it

[@Moscato_Moscato]

Master Therion bummer

[@jessiebullock]

Worst intro joke ever.

[@TehbearofDoom]

Yeah I didn't even watch the video after that intro.

[@senab3218]

then why are you here

[@commenttroll5809]

Yeah, forced puns are the very worst jokes you can come across.

[@Darkruins12]

Well its better to put that sulfur underground then into the air. So yes i would believe it is cleaner

[@jasonwitman1385]

Also it increased the life of the parts by reducing hot corrosion.

[@simonedaniel]

But then that's cleaner coal. Doesn't fix the problem.

[@Darkruins12]

Hugh Mungus The problem is that sulfate gets released into the atmosphere and mixes with H2O to make Sulfuric Acid and ruin forest

[@bcubed72]

"Clean" is a relative term. (I spent my teenage years telling my mom that, anyway.)

[@simonedaniel]

bcubed72 Not in this particular case, clean is defined as no harmful environmental effects, but this storage of emissions is only 'cleaner'.

[@ryanf6050]

So he said coal is abundant and listed several carbon capture solutions that's would solve carbon emissions, but the problem is that we would use more coal and coal companies would maintain they're image. If we're not polluting, but using an abundant resource, what is the problem? This seems more directed at coal companies rather than a solution.

[@Zelp789]

Carbon capture and storage doesn't work.

[@MrStaybrown]

Coal companies don't own the power plants

[@AkDragoon]

I actually work for an electric company now (for 2 months) and it's had MANY issues with its Clean Coal power plant because the group that built it didn't account for the EXPLOSIVE nature of its by-products.

[@shinlanten]

If coal still gives off emissions but just at a lower level then it's just *_"cleanER coal"_* , not clean.

[@inactiveusertypeofaccount181]

co2 is good for the environment and the plants in the US give off far less mercury and sulfur than China. If we reached jurassic levels of co2 we could see way more plants

[@hellrazor117]

@@inactiveusertypeofaccount181 this guy knows whats up

[@phillycheesetake]

So you go on explaining how clean coal removes all of the problems of coal, and then tear it down with "environmental groups say". You just dismissed all of the benefits without justifying it at all. So what if the pollutants are being pumped underground? That's where they were in the first place. The biosphere doesn't extend 5km under the ground, who cares how dirty it is down there?

[@jasonwitman1385]

The benefit of gasification/syngas is that it can be ran in a combined cycle gas turbine system. These systems can achieve an efficiency of 60%, greater than any current commercial power generation method. Additionally, the advances in supercritical CO2 will increase the power output of these systems and their efficiency. Clean coal is a viable solution for the near future if restrictions were lifted. Yes, initial coast for these systems are high, but in comparison to wind and solar farms they have a lower pay back period.

[@alexanderfreeman3406]

Lol, this comment aged like milk. Renewables like solar and wind have come down in price by nearly 90% while literally all of the DOE’s clean coal projects have been scrapped due to being exorbitantly expensive and wildly inefficient.

[@potatopotato8360]

You know how much filters they use in coal fired plants. Yes it can be clean.

[@nacdaddy5591]

Oh a Psychology major explaining clean coal 🤯 "If you don't comment about things you don't know anything about no one will know you're a fool"

[@aelux4179]

Why don't they ask Ikea for help with carbon capture and storage? Their flat-pack storage system is ingenious after all.

[@_Super_Hans_]

Is that supposed to be a joke? Fail.

[@aelux4179]

Wow someone on the internet salty over nothing. How uncommon.

[@RR-us2kp]

I'd prefer an informative video rather than a simple opinion piece.

[@MrRee0014]

He make coal sound good for most of this

[@zackeryzackery9381]

Because it is. Clean coal has the promise of reducing co2 output by 90%. That would be a massive reduction in carbon. Clean coal is worth pursuing

[@weirdnomad8868]

How about doing a video on how toxic it is to make solar panels and that wind turbines are impossible to recycle when they wear out

[@evilplaguedoctor5158]

no mention of the Gypsum used in drywall? (a by product from removing the sulfur dioxide)

[@Stacy_Smith]

I delivered diesel to a power plant one time. They use limestone in their scrubbers. The byproduct is gypsum which is used to make Drywall.

[@brandonhobby7435]

so anthracite and bismuth are the same? have you seen/smelled them side by side?

[@Diamond_Hanz]

coal, clean coal, cleaner coal, cleanest coal. never said it was the 'cleanest or cleaner' coal. just clean coal, which is better than just coal. I LOVE IT. I GET IT

[@dumat100]

In Dragon Age, there is a dwarven Smith who becomes a living God because she invented a safe, smokeless coal. Clean coal is a literal fantasy.

[@crowstakingoff]

Fascinating. Though we should remember that many of the ideas in science fiction (or science fantasy) have since become reality

[@viking_9994]

Don't plants absorb most of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans?

[@jeffswenson4264]

Yes and trees being one of them. Trees and other plants are huge carbon consumers. However when the plant dies it remits carbon dioxide as the rots away. This is why wood would be the most carbon neutral to burn for energy because whether it’s being burned or rotting it still emits the same amount of carbon.

[@NikeMikey101]

Just go Nuclear. Cheap, super clean, lots of supply

[@RubySapior]

Go thorium.

[@elizabethlehuta]

And a lot of workers have to deal with cancer for the rest of their life.... We need energy solutions that are safe for the workers, too.

[@RubySapior]

Lizzy L thorium has a half life of 14 billion years compared to uranium 238 is 4.5 billion then there are other uraniums that are in millions and even thousands of years. So thorium is not that radio active

[@treasurehunter3744]

www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

[@dandavis8300]

LizzyL--"And a lot of workers have to deal with cancer for the rest of their life.... We need energy solutions that are safe for the workers, too." Nothing like that available. People get killed in all heavy industry: Building bridges and tunnels, mining coal, drilling and transporting oil, maintaining windmills. And mining lithium for solar power has plenty of environmental impact. Thorium nuclear and the Molten Salt Reactor is probably something we should be using.

[@ericjacobs7795]

I do not think the reasons listed at the end of the video justify not pursuing and working with these technologies. Every form of energy production has its drawback. 1. 25% less efficient. Response: So what? We’ve done that with vehicles to clean up emissions, and it’s pushed the automotive industry to develop new great tech to overcome and produce same or greater output. Arguing efficiency levels would be the worst stance for the green energy enthusiasts (unless you consider nuclear green energy). 2. Relocating of byproducts. Response: The issue with these compounds is their role in the atmosphere and/or potentially waterways. If we can sequester them, then I don’t see an issue, but I am not an environment scientist and would be interested in what the counter is. 3. Tech isn’t there yet Response: We push tech by embracing it and experimenting to see if it is worth it. I know this is old and timed with a campaign that this channel obviously had a bias towards, but I would have preferred a more informative and exploratory video than an opinion piece.

[@msms47]

Clean coal is like Healthy mcdonalds lol

[@AKNSW]

is that a oxymoron?

[@burger-jd8cx]

no it's a simile

[@genkisudo]

Hi Seeker, are you able to post the entire transcript on here? I'm looking to create test questions/content.

[@BenReillySpydr1962]

You guys need to do another Fracking video #WikiLeaks

[@bcubed72]

Well, make up your mind: if coal is "super bad," and natural gas is "kinda bad," it's a benefit (on net) if we frack, right? Going from "lousy" to "somewhat less lousy" IS an improvement, after all. You realize that if you stop fracking...all those power plants that switched to gas...will SWITCH BACK to coal, right?

[@stuartmiller1260]

+bcubed72 Bit of an infrastructure difference between coal and gas power stations. you don't just put fuel in. Clean coal should be used where existing non clean coal is used but economically it's not worthwhile so people deny climate change to justify not having to bother.

[@ryanf6050]

So he said coal is abundant and listed several carbon capture solutions that's would solve carbon emissions, but the problem is that we would use more coal and coal companies would maintain they're image. If we're not polluting, but using an abundant resource, what is the problem? This seems more directed at coal companies rather than a solution.

[@hotwaterintub1]

When I was very young there was clean coal and dirty coal. It meant the clean coal is just not as dirty, it did not mean it was clean. I knew as a child what the difference was. Other words a certain grade of coal. Some people just dismiss that fact.

[@Palamite316]

Are you un-ironically wearing a trump hat? Boomer

[@brianbauer3148]

@@Palamite316 Are you un-ironically using boomer on a 4 year old comment? OK..(whatever describes you generation)

[@Waddledee13]

Is the water used in the scrubbing useless afterwards? Is it treated as waste?

[@DirtMcGert29054]

All coal power plants in the US are clean coal , but not in China , he also forgot to mention the ammonia system that converts the oxides of nitrogen to nitrogen and water

[@freddowel1611]

I am not defending trump, but coal also makes a lot of jobs. If you ban coal then unemployment goes up. Clean energy is a tricky topic.

[@Ninjamagics]

But renewable tech creates more innovative jobs and unlocks industries that can then create a technological advantage

[@annaong9939]

we are full grown coal adults no wonder we are so dirty....minded

[@cawley37]

Hm.... So if the coal contains sulfer which is removed before burning to reduce SOx pollution and if the coal is then burned with flue gas and pure oxygen to reduce NOx pollution and increase the efficiency of the burn, then the clean coal technology isn't burning the coal cleaner?

[@Trainfan1055Janathan]

OR... Bare with me, we could just use nuclear power which emits NO fumes, just water vapor.

[@S.I.M.P.L.E.T.O.N]

Where do the carbon scrubbing amine gasses go after they are pumped underground? Do they leach into groundwater or eventually cause other contamination?

[@protennis365]

Carbon scrubbing has improve since this video been made. Algae has become a great product for carbon scrubbing.

[@saulgoodman2018]

Solar and wind power alone won't produce enough electricity that we need.

[@IJoeAceJRI]

Why not free energy?

[@Sup-jz2ow]

Nuclear can more than make up for the difference while battery tech improves and we upgrade our grid. Only problem is the illogical fear of nuclear energy Americans have that's holding back tech like thorium reactors

[@Serrot304]

I've wondered so how would coal and oil how would they back into the environment naturally? they come from dead plants and animals but it doesn't seem like it works it's way back into the environment. so does it just sit or does it do something else?

[@daviddrake5991]

I am not sure it could be done. I mean yeah it came form dead plants but it was also removed form the equation long ago.

[@neeneko]

They basically do, it is just a really slow process.

[@uws75th]

I was looking for information.... I got manipulation...

[@nowonmetube]

Wrong

[@InsideMLM]

So, coal byproducts being stored within their plant, rather than released into the atmosphere, is “more of a storage solution than an environmental one” (3:21)? Seriously? Isn’t that as nonsensical as saying when sanitation companies haul our trash to the dump, rather than letting it just pile up around our neighborhoods, it is “more of a storage solution than an environmental one”? And this claim is almost as ridiculous: “Clean cole helps stem pollution as the source, but it seams to help coal company’s maintain their image more than it helps the environment maintain itself” (3:39). Maybe it helps maintain the image of coal companies because, even thought it costs them more, it HELPS STEM POLLUTION! Basically, this video just told us that “Clean Coal is a Myth” because clean coal technologies just make it a little cleaner, but not completely clean. I like most Seeker videos, but this one was a waste of four minutes and 47 seconds of my life, and an insult to my intelligence.

[@pnachtwey]

So what is the alternative when the lights go out?

[@matthewconley9869]

Isn't part of it moving from bituminous to anthracite as well?

[@zackeryzackery9381]

Clean coal is a very promising solution. We need to pursue it and find cheaper ways to implement it

[@undefined69]

its impossible

[@peterdvornik]

So its not a myth, its just more expensive....

[@nowonmetube]

Yes it is a myth. Watch: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gnbVY2SBrKaihLs Coal efficiency: 43%

[@kishoryedur7591]

what is a tar and their different types of production. please share link above information . thanks

[@nathanmontgomery5878]

nuclear power is the way to go.

[@archdukeferdinandofthe3rdc9]

I knew a guy who worked in nuclear waste transportation. Nuclear power itself isn't all that bad (as long as there's no meltdown or spill), but holy shit the byproducts are f*cking nasty. And the space we have to bury that shit is finite. I think it would be better to invest in the refinement of solar, which is getting cheaper and more effective by the year.

[@nathanmontgomery5878]

Just shoot the byproduct into the sun it's gone before it even touches it..

[@STSWB5SG1FAN]

SpaceX just lost a rocket a few weeks ago, I'd hate to have seen the same thing happen but with a cargo of nuclear waste.

[@hoodiefoodie9393]

I bet its just a giant fan with a filter lol and they call it "technology"

[@Fantazzim]

This video is misleading. In the US newer plants very efficient and only emit C02 and steam. They burn very hot, in the process breaking down harmful chemicals, and there is also a very elaborate post burn multi step scrubbing system that captures particulates. I have a high pressure stationary engineer license, so I was forced to learn about this stuff. The burned coal is used in building material and concrete. Older plants are being fazed out because they are inefficient and expensive to maintain.

[@OldieBugger]

Btw, Carbon Dioxide is not poisonous until it reaches 90,000 ppm (we are having the 'alarming' 400 ppm at present). Up until then it just boosts the growth of vegetation (corn, barley, weed and such) tremendously, which will balance the carbon dioxide in the air to non-lethal levels. The rest of the things he mentioned as poisons are truly harmful in the air.

[@lokalkakan]

I remember that i had to debate for coal and oil plants in highschool. I got the highest debate score, because I had to rely on everything else on every trick in the book

[@andreipopescu5342]

Must have also been the easiest debate for you ever, on the basis of 2 arguments: abundency and reliability.

[@TheFairKnight]

Terrible and misleading title. No one ever said clean coal was perfect, it has tradeoffs like everything else, that doesn't make it a "myth". The cost increase is not nearly enough to make coal more expensive then "green" energy, and they do take away the most harmful pollutants out of the atmosphere, the reduction in emissions more than compensate the higher energy usage, making a net positive effect. And what do they even mean by "just to get a little electricity"?? As we stand coal is an indispensable source of energy for businesses and households, without it energy costs would be unbearable

[@hornypervert3781]

Ancap2112 Finally something the capitalists and communists agree on.

[@UltimateReaperStudio]

These are some poor arguments. That's like saying solar power is hopeless for the same reasons. Clean coal is better than not clean coal.

[@k1productions87]

to a point. But the additional coal demands for no increase of output, as well as increased costs are not only a negative impact upon efficiency, but also incentive for many coal companies to totally avoid it. Especially if said companies are profit-driven. the best way to make a cleaner energy viable is to ensure it is also cheaper to produce. This way, said for-profit company would have a marked savings in cost, as well as produce the same output AND stay in business. They damned sure don't care about the environmental impact of what they're doing, so you must appeal to what they DO care about... their bottom line.

[@KILLKING110]

that's because its scientifically impossible to make anything %100 efficient we are extracting power from coal at %95 efficiency now days while wind and solar are at only %35 efficiency still that should scare you

[@UltimateReaperStudio]

***** Solar power is still incredibly inefficient, doesn't mean we should stop funding/looking into it, same deal with clean coal. I hate the energy industry as much as the next guy, but we should do what we can.

[@BosonCollider]

Clean coal is only clean when you literally eliminate every single non-coal alternative from the discussion. Even oil and natural gas are significantly cleaner.

[@Brandon_letsgo]

Coal is important because it generates 41% of world's electricity. Solar and Wind are scams.

[@fen4554]

Clean Coal? Pretty sure it's a simcity upgrade for your powerplant. Don't forget to get a university!

[@dikidolma2554]

Is burning incense bad for the environment ?

[@AKNSW]

co2 and co so yes

[@IJoeAceJRI]

What is incense?

[@Ghorda9]

It's a fragrant oil

[@IJoeAceJRI]

Ghorda9 So its like a candle?

[@Ghorda9]

I just found out that its usually some sort of wood and the oil version is just left open to the air, and yes the wood version is sorta like a candle.

[@vijucat]

The company CCSL claims to have revolutionized this. Can you please review the paper, "Demonstration of Advanced APBS Solvent at TNO's CO2 Capture Pilot Plant" in Energy Procedia Volume 63, 2014, Pages 1657-1666? Also see the newspaper article titled, "Clean coal: Firm claims world’s first commercially viable, zero-carbon power plant is ‘game changer’" (not sure KZbin allows direct links, hence avoiding those). While there's a lot of hype in that newspaper article, I'm still hoping it's not for real!

[@tjr14]

If you washed crap, it`s still crap & the residue from washing still has to go somewhere.

[@chris2323cn]

0:56 These leak in to the air and water and result in Global warming, Global warming, Global warming also Global warming.

[@Keefed]

Still better than oil and numerous times more efficient than solar. Why bash an industry that is at least trying. And given this is one of the best forms of energy and job production it's a start.

[@sadmanh0]

DNews, my country, Bangladesh, is building a giant coal power plant 14km from a mangrove forest which is a UNESCO World Heritage site but the govt claims it'll use several technologies that'd prevent any harm. Can you please make a video about how accurate the govt claims are?

[@MrJord274]

My hometown was the first in the world to use carbon capture at its power plant!

[@Chronic2112]

Clean Coal is great. And we have a TON of it in North America - when we import fuels that don't have our same stringent regulations, we cause more damage to the environment.

[@chaosopher23]

Even if the atmospheric problems could be solved with coal, there's still the matter of what to do with the very toxic ash left over from burning it.

[@bcubed72]

Makes excellent concrete. (Better that standard; more like "Roman Concrete" that used volcanic ash in composition.)

[@STSWB5SG1FAN]

A two step problem, the government has to ensure coal companies are responsible for the waste they produce and not just brush it off. The second would be, like +bcubed72 suggested, to think of the waste as more a resource to be used, than something to just be gotten rid of. What other uses besides making concrete could it be put to? Get the coal companies thinking about their waste in those terms and hopefully we'll see some improvements in how they treat and store it.

[@chaosopher23]

Bernard Gilbert While the ash makes a good concrete, this particular concrete will still have arsenic and mercury in it. Semiconductors have use for arsenic, but not all that much (gallium arsenite LEDs and FETs, for example), and there may be recoverable amounts of other elements that could be used, but recovery is very expensive and usually difficult.

[@bcubed72]

So long as any trace heavy metals remained entombed WITHIN the concrete, it's a non-issue.

[@chaosopher23]

bcubed72 In case you don't know, concrete is water-soluble to a degree, and acid-soluble to a much higher degree. Acid rain will flood the surroundings with coal toxins. A better solution is required: a market for coal waste metals.

[@peter2kx]

Clean coal? That's like saying a reasonable trump.

[@IJoeAceJRI]

Its more like saying, Hillary instead of HitLIARy

[@androidunderground40]

+JoeAceJR you butthurt because trump is losing?

[@peter2kx]

***** I hate both with a burning passion.

[@RodrigoRanaMendoza]

Coal-burning passion

[@beaconrider]

Or honest Hillary.

[@discountconsulting]

Ultimately, energy itself is a pollutant that will have to be mitigated to prevent climate warming and other problems. This is because all energy dissipates as heat and heat evaporates water. Atmospheric water vapor acts as a greenhouse gas in addition to wilting plants and depleting fresh water by destroying the watershed that corresponds with the living trees and plants. So the more heat we add to the atmosphere by using energy, the more water vapor circulates within the atmosphere before precipitating, which means more heat is blanketed. In simpler terms, we are stirring up the biosphere into the atmosphere instead of allowing it to settle and condense into the various forms of living organisms it coagulates into naturally. This 'stirred up' bio/atmosphere then soaks up sunlight and blankets heat until the land is allowed to reforest and thus soak up the water vapor, carbon, and sunlight/heat/energy as life coagulates from its atmospheric building-blocks.

[@simonsmith7294]

>What other science issues that've come up in this election you want to know more about? I'd like to know more about the gender pay issue. Is it a real thing or is it a myth?

[@arcanehero1247]

couldnt we use the byproducts of coal and those those to create other things

[@triger1]

Installing the clean coal tech to existing power plants and deal with the 25% lose of power in exchange for stoping climate change, how is this bad again?

[@Zelp789]

I need proof that carbon capture and storage works before I support using coal.

[@protennis365]

As carbon capture and storage over time, they actually work very will. Force example algae capture more carbon then trees and has a lot of useful utility. Producing biodegradable plastic, clean ethanol, and etc.

[@shade01977]

Are there any uses for stored carbon dioxide, be they industrial or for research?

[@JoshuaHowley]

Well lets talk about the myth of renewable energy. Last I knew we didn't have fans keeping the air moving, we aren't dropping more hydrogen on the sun, we aren't sloshing the oceans to keep the tides moving, and we aren't producing more water to refill the water above hydroelectric plants. None of these are "renewable", they just are sources of energy and is piss poor use of words. Greener (still issues with all of them) energy, yes, renewable, no

[@CVilla49]

All these people say "we need more nuclear energy". I say try and make fusion a viable source of energy.

[@Ry_TSG]

Cody Villarreal both at the same time. I don’t understand why people are so one-track minded. It’s always “nuclear or solar, no in between” with some people

[@MikeSmith-cl4ix]

When you get it all worked out let us know.

[@bolerie]

Was I the only one who just heard that first joke and was like "NOPE"!

[@taylorkalister]

What's your thoughts about the NASA discovery of exoplanets. Also any thoughts of the years to come and the new discoveries.

[@silentofthewind]

Trump got trumped

[@PresidentialWinner]

What? The video explains what clean coal is. Its terrific. Whats the problem?

[@TraceDominguez]

PresidentialWinner it's still coal, it's still dirty. It's still a major pollutant. The "clean coal" branding is just a way of hiding that. In reality the pollution levels are the same, they're just moving that pollution around.

[@silentofthewind]

Chiiiiiiiilllllllllll

[@Talltrees84]

Trump can bring back coal if he tears down all the wind farms and solar panels, rescinds 40 years of energy efficiency standards, and replaces electric and diesel trains with steam locomotives. While he is at it he will bring back horse carriage and black smith jobs. LOL. SMH.

[@Chronic2112]

You are a complete idiot and obviously either didn't watch the video, or didn't understand it.

[@Bearthedancingman]

ALL of the pictures you showed of "pollution" were actually STEAM vapor. The actual pollution produced by coal is nearly clear and isn't visible for more than a few seconds. The idea of "clean" coal is not as bad as people think. Burning hotter by boosting oxygen burns cleaner and is both environmentally better AND more cost effective over time. Plus the higher temps make more steam. Steam is what powers power plants. And coal, oil, natural gas or biomass is needed to make that heat. Dollar for dollar heat energy is the least costly over the life of the components. Even solar costs more over the life of the parts its made from. It is possible to burn coal with higher overall efficiency than your car or truck will ever dream of. That is why while coal still pollutes, the modern large volume methods of burning any form of heat energy fuel pollute less per unit of energy than any other method of heat energy production. (obviously solar, wind and wave energy has extremely low pollutant production.)

[@adamthornton7880]

Why is increasing coal consumption such a bad thing, given that that pollutants aren't going to be released into the atmosphere, and that coal reserves aren't anywhere near being depleted? Also, making fossil fuel energy more expensive will make other energy sources more competitive.

[@josephang9927]

Sorry, but wind and sun energy production is very INNEFICIENT. that's the reason they need public money to survive, and still die out or produce too little for its price. We need more MIDDLE GROUD solutions.

[@sharsasuke01]

They were going to build a "clean" coal plant here in Jamaica until everyone made a big deal about it then they instead built a LNG plant.

[@hrushikeshavachat900]

Clean coal is required in the short term. However, in the long run we need to get away from coal and teplace the same with Natural gas.

[@Alex-nv4oi]

what about the diffrent kinds of coal

[@doctorwork]

Reminds me of a limerick: If your industry's known to pollute, And you can't, with mere facts, this dispute, You should paint yourself green, Saying coal can be clean, And make sure that your spokeswoman's cute.

[@rigglesnz]

So given clean coal isn't perfect we should just stay using dirty coal? Maybe if we actually invested into developing it and upgraded our old power plants we could get some environmental benefits while we wait for everyone to install solar panels on their roofs.

[@huitzilopochli1976]

Actually Anthracite Coal burns brighter and creates no smoke but is less abundant and more expensive

[@boggybolt6782]

Y not just seperate the C(carbon) from CO2(carbon dioxide) to make 02(oxygen), and use the C to make more coal, and use that to make more C, and so on. The only problems in my plan would be seperating C from CO2 and making more coal from the C.

[@matty9460]

Because to get the CO2 back into C you'd have to put in all the energy you just got out from burning the coal in the first place and then some due to efficiency losses. Say you were to use solar panels to provide this, you may as well use the panels directly.

[@legoyoda9]

diminishing returns. The same reason we can't separate H(hydrogen) from O2(oxygen) that is in water and use those as fuel sources. Separating atoms requires energy and even with a catalyst to preform the reaction, the energy that must be used is rarely efficient.

[@InternetLaser]

Because you get all your energy by combining C with O not strictly all, but with coal, most. There's two major types of coal: C240H90O4NS and C137H97O9NS you get 171840 kJ from oxidation of carbon in the first type, and 98092 kJ from carbon oxidation in the second type of coal You get 41670 by oxidizing hydrogen in the first type of coal, and 44911 from hydrogen in the second type the rest of the bits are negligible. not even factoring in the energy required to begin the combustion process, the fact that heat engines are nowhere near 100% efficient, etc, trying to reduce the carbon in coal would leave you with a net of -130170 or -53181 I'm sure you see the problem there, trying to do what you're proposing would be a net loss of energy, so that power plant wouldn't generate electricity. with short chain hydrocarbons your plan is possible, but coal has way to much carbon to make it possible, let alone feasible.

[@bcubed72]

How's that perpetual motion machine treating ya?

[@IJoeAceJRI]

Dude Dami Bang you stole my fucking idea

[@kreigdernier9553]

25% more coal is not unreasonable. I bet that number would be reduced as the tech gets more refined.i think the real problem is that any pursuit of this tech is just for show more than an earnest attempt to change. Big money doesn't like change.

[@AlterSniper0]

that intro made me roll my eyes

[@carval51]

I used to be a warrior like until I took arrow on the knee

[@bjmgraphics617]

Politics and government need to get out of the way of companies wanting to build clean coal power plants. We can measure these power plants pollution output and thus determine if it was a myth or a positive gain. We won't know until such a plant exist and measurements are taken. I'm with POTUS on wanting to push for cleaner use of coal.

[@growurown207]

clean coal tech is just intensification, more effort and energy put in with a steadily declining output, and acid rain is still reported in places like Acadia National Park to the extent that visitors are restricted from the top of Cadillac Mtn

[@hemshah4127]

Nice video 📹 D 📰

[@collinobrien9396]

So rather than just condemning coal for being dirty, maybe you could explain how America is supposed to function without 1/3 of it's electricty

[@David_Last_Name]

+Collin O'Brien Spend this time we have now to build up a base of renewable energy before the coal runs out. Or we can do nothing and then in 40 or 50 years when the coal actually does run out we'll be asking that question again, only with no options. Better to deal with it now.

[@Talltrees84]

Elon Musk of Tesla Motors currently has on the market solar panels that look like roof tiles and stationary home battery packs that store and use energy when the sun doesn't shine (bad weather and night time).

[@treasurehunter3744]

Good. We can focus on Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors, Subcritical Reactors and more. Advanced Nuclear Energy!

[@albertjackinson]

And fusion. And renewables in there too.

[@TheRealDragonblood45]

So if we are going to keep using coal since its an industrial need... then wouldnt it be better to use 'cleaner' coal and methods?

[@emrezkc]

i suggest you read a little more

[@josephang9927]

Why reinvent all energy sources? We can invent new ways to use the fossil energy we have until we develop more efficient energy sources that really work.

[@onemadhungrynomad]

people need to stop calling VR new. VR was new in the 80s, now its just becoming cheaper.

[@poitsplace]

Important things to note: AKA, this video is pure propaganda The visible "smoke" shown coming from the exhaust is water vapor. Global warming issues aside, CO2 and water vapor are not toxic. Incredibly expensive? Sequestering the CO2 is incredibly expensive. The other methods are all relatively inexpensive and have been in use for decades. Special note: the smoggy picture is almost certainly from china where such measures are not used Finally it should be noted that studies assuming deaths from minute levels of pollution are not very reliable and I truly encourage you to look into them with a critical eye. You're often struck by how tenuous the assumptions are and how they utterly ignore the fact that driving up energy prices even by a small amount is likely to cause more poverty, which is much more stongly linked to shorter lifespan than trivial amounts of pollution. Literally...reasonably clean coal use saves lives.

[@Jfreek5050]

Isn't storage solution of pollution a viable answer? In the same way we layer used plutonium and bury it, where it cannot affect the local environment, wouldn't it work to somehow condense the pollutants associated with coal, then bury it? It would solve a large portion of the climate change issue dramatically.

[@zizimugen4470]

I'm finding an issue at the concept of liquid carbon dioxide, which boils bar below Earth surface temperatures, and we send it underground where it's actually hotter than the surface the further you go.

[@jeanlabrek8454]

_ WRONG _ modern plants are clean when using silica sand-limestone fluidised bed or pyrolitic gasification - flox technology like in the Valmet plants __ Germany had old plants, did not want to invest in new ones.

[@rtswift]

we should just make really tall smoke stacks that push the co2 out of our atmosphere and into space

[@EvilNeonETC]

You should write a book

[@rtswift]

EvilNeon haha that seems like a lot of work

[@EvilNeonETC]

***** I tried it once, it is XD

[@archdukeferdinandofthe3rdc9]

It would be simpler to invent portal guns and teleport that nasty shit to space

[@rtswift]

Erik M. simpler yes but do you know how much portal guns cost? smoke stack technology has been here for ages and is dirt cheap by the foot.

[@TheWizardGamez]

using higher-grade coal is more carbon-dense and more energy-efficient than shitty old lignite

[@JarrodBaniqued]

Using captured CO2 to make pumping oil up easier...That kind of defeats the purpose of using CCS to reduce emissions, doesn't it? The least you could do is pump it into a greenhouse or a forest...