With the continuous development of coal power technology, its power generation technology and pollutant treatment technology are constantly improved.At present, coal power is still classified as non-clean energy, but compared with natural gas, the emission of some pollutants can be lower through technological means.With the further development of future technologies, can coal power become a clean energy source?
"Clean energy" is a political statement, not a scientific one. I'm not suggesting that burning high sulfur coal without a wet scrubber is good for the environment, just that words like "clean" are opinions, while 3.54 volts is not an opinion. Science is based on facts, not opinions; so "clean" is not a scientific designation. Six million metric tons of SO2 per year is a scientific statement.
Yes, if highly washed and high calorific value coal can be used, it may be called as source of clean energy. Unfortunately those type of coals (of Grade A, B, C, ..) are known as metallurgical grade coal and kept reserved for addition of carbon for strengthening metal, such as, making High Tensile Strength (HTS) Steel. In power sector thus high ash-contained and / or Sulfur-contained coal is available to generate power.
Clean energy is not a political statement. It is objectively quantified by air quality standards, emission rates, and operating permits. Coal (and other ash-forming, low-grade fuels such as biomass, black liquor, municipal/industrial waste and bunker fuel) commonly have pollutant emission rates much higher than natural gas in terms of SOx, NOx, PM, and Hg. Even current cleanup technologies leave coal flue gases dirtier than natural gas with comparable cleanup efforts. However, there is at least one carbon capture technology that also removes these pollutants (www.sesinnovation.com - full disclosure - this is my company) and in several cases produces a product cleaner than ambient air with respect to Hg, SOx, and in some cases NOx and PM. It does so with flue gases from any technology (biomass, coal, NG, etc.). So, in my view, there is such thing as clean coal, but it is not yet commercially demonstrated.
My contrasting "clean" vs. "3.54 volts" arises from the widespread misunderstanding of what constitutes science, which is based on the Experimental Method. If there are no experiments, then it's not science, regardless of how important a concept may be. Science (i.e., 3.54 volts) is not an opinion, though it will have some uncertainty associated with it (i.e., ±0.08 volts). We must also question how a measurement was taken or experiment performed. One might well measure the lethal concentration of SO2 (surprisingly low) and count the number of patients dying from mesothelioma, but that's not how regulators typically arrive at "standards" and "limits". A current regulation for SO2 or NOx may be much too lenient—we don't know yet, but may find out through a painful process. I'm not suggesting we generate more pollution. I'm just saying that we should base our comparisons (e.g., coal vs. natural gas) on experimental values of pollutants generated as well as other impacts on the environment by extraction, transport, processing, utilization, and waste disposal. We need to consider the whole process (complete life cycle analysis) in order to get an accurate picture and make wise decisions. Gas explosions can be spectacular (e.g., Refugio and Spearman), as can be ash pond disasters (e.g., Kingston). People are dying right now in poor countries making solar panels and lithium batteries for rich Americans. No solution will be perfect or without risk. The challenge is to do the best with what we have and that requires science.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Materials Engineering