Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ROCKLOBSTER
The gasification concept is practically pollution-free other than the dust and exhaust from ground equipment.

I don't know where you came up with that concept, but it is far from true. The same impurities in the coal still exist when you gasify the coal. They same sulfurs and the like still have to be recovered.

Coal Gasification is also VERY energy intensive. You have huge losses of energy, orders of magnitude greater than the transmission line losses you were trying to save.

Plus pipelines generate no electromagnetic induction issues.

No, they produce exhaust along the pipeline at every compressor station. They have EPA monitoring and special NOX limitations. They are far from pollution free. And electromagnetic radiation from transmission lines are only a problem for people wearing tinfoil hats.

We also have tons of NG

Yes, over a 1/3 of it is used to generate electric power in this country.

NG is almost free

Dream on. Although it is far cheaper than petroleum, it is far more expensive than the coal you are trying to replace.

Being sold as a cleaner/safer technology, think of the jobs it would create.

Only to the ignorant. First you waste energy and release the same pollutants in the coal gasification plant.

Then you added more engines at the compressor station spreading them along the pipeline as they approach the population center.

Now you have the power plant burning gas, at the population center (EPA attainment area with greater requirements for pollution controls). Also, since the most efficient thermal power plants (combined cycle gas turbine, using waste heat recover) are around 60% efficient, you have to move far more energy in the pipeline than you would have in the electric transmission line.

20 posted on 03/09/2012 6:38:06 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: thackney
It's nice to see someone speaking from knowledge, rather than speculation. I don't know if this is your specialty, but I'll ask anyway:

We have coal. Lots of it. But, some of it is dirtier than others. In East Texas, I think we have the dirtier coal (high sulfur content), which requires more scrubbing or results in more pollution.

But, don't we have a huge amount of low-sulfur coal in the upper Midwest and Western states? The same stuff that Clinton put off-limits by executive order?

Is there really a huge difference in the emissions? If so, wouldn't it be more efficient to build the power plants right on the edge of the coal deposits and feed the power into the grid?

23 posted on 03/09/2012 6:47:34 AM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson