What's the future of coal?
A US study calls for more investment and focus on carbon capture and storage to make for cleaner coal.
After two years of work, an interdisciplinary group of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professors released their report on The Future of Coal yesterday in Washington DC, making recommendations about how the United States should use coal for energy.
Read the story here.
Comments
MIT’s report appears to believe we can segue from the current burning of oil/natural gas/coal to a future system based on tar sands, shale oil and liquid fuels from coal. They appear to completely ignore the higher value of hydrocarbon reserves as feed stocks for chemicals. Their suggested energy plan is to burn the carbon compounds and sweep the carbon dioxide under the rug for future generations to manage. They promote a puerile plan called sequesterization. They appear to have no clew as to the stability of the sequestered carbon dioxide. They need to look anew at Lake Nyos in Cameroon. In 1984 the lake released sequester carbon dioxide and suffocated 1700 people, all their live stock, wild life and destroyed most of the vegetation. As this is being written a high gas pressure underground is causing a mud volcano to destroy thousand of hectares of Indonesia. MIT has no clear plan to provide safety far into the future for their stored carbon dioxide. Their plan appears to be to pump the carbon dioxide into the ground AND HOPE FOR THE BEST. If some time in the future the sequester gas comes bubbling out it is just tough luck for those who suffocate. It is my opinion that sequesterization is a very poorly though out plan. It does not provide intergenerational equity and is probably morally wrong.
Fission nuclear energy is probably also unsatisfactory. Thus far there is no satisfactory solution to the transportation and storage of high level radioactive waste. There is not enough uranium to sustain a fission based energy system for more than about 75 years. This leads to a scenario in which we become dependent on fission and must segue to a breeder reactor based energy system. A breeder system augments all the shortcomings of burner reactors and in addition adds the threat of large quantities of fissionable material as an article of commerce. This will delight the terrorists of the world.
I think NATURE and their readers should support the development of fusion nuclear energy. Sir David King, the chief science advisor for the United Kingdom, recommends that fusion (not uranium fission) is the answer to future energy needs (King, David, ‘Fast Forward to Fusion’ New Scientist, Issue 2442, 10 April 2004). Unfortunately, for 50 years within the United States the Department Of Energy (dedicated to fission), and the fossil fuel industry have successfully discouraged the development of fusion.
In 1992, a fusion reactor produced power for a short time; a scheme to build a full size reactor with a multi-nation team was unveiled. In July 2005, NATURE reported that after 13 years of procrastination and haggling the multi-nation team finally reached agreement. International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) will be located at Cadarache, France; this is good news! In other reports, Raymond L. Orbach of the United States Department Of Energy (DOE) told the United States press that the ITER might lead to a power plant in the year 2040. This is bad news. The agreement that approved the ITER design provides a reactor one-half the size desired by the technical team; this is also bad news. The small size is reputed to save money, but it magnifies the potential for failure.
In rebuttal to Mr. Orbach’s schedule, see the 1976 report, FUSION POWER BY MAGNETIC CONFINEMENT, ERDA-76/110/1, UC-20, Page 8. (ERDA is the United States Energy Research and Development Administration, a precursor to the current DOE). This 1976 ERDA report states that building a pilot fusion reactor would take 10 to 13 years with a Maximum Effective Effort (using 1976 computers and technology). The world should demand that a Maximum Effective Effort for all fusion development programs.
To save the world from global warming and depletion of value carbon reserves we need to harvest all the renewable energy practical and develop nuclear fusion for the base load supply, and we need to do it soon.
Posted by: Laurence Williams | March 28, 2007 03:41 AM