Greenwash of the Week: The Dirty Truth About Clean Coal

[Everett345]

this is so biased lmfao

[hankhebert]

lol we will all die unless we stop emitting CO2!! What is it that plants breathe again? Ask yourself why the earth wasn't destroyed during the industrial revolution a long time ago. There is no doubt that humans have some impact on climate but you people are brainwashed crazies who don't look at both sides of a situation. Look at history and learn how the earth's CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING! Coal isn't clean now but technology could one day change that. Wind/Solar will not save us alone

[Seamalicous]

@hankhebert 6 100x100 grids of current solar panels would provide the power needs for the earth for the next hundred years, accounting for increasing usage. The industrial revolution was on a much smaller scale in terms of emissions than current activity, anyone with half a brain could see that. We also have far more deforestation than during the industrial revolution, which (among other things) has created soil degradation which has limited the natural ability of the earth to store carbon.

[wvrescue]

you two are idiots, try fiming your little video in the dark by candlelight next time, and please wash your hair, you look like you havnt had a bath in weeks

[BigBokeh]

I think if she showed her tits and shut her mouth the greenwash would be far more compelling - and stoned boy - read man - if we have two years to act we are all dead - no one - not even if the ENTIRE GLOBE shut down all CO2 emissions - it represents less than 2%. Are you that ignorant - what is your alternative until we can get to zero emissions - you have none - you believe the UN - LEMMINGS - THINK - WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION?

[Seamalicous]

@BigBokeh The point wasn't that we shut down all CO2 emissions in the next two years, just that we begin to take action by 2011-2012 which we hopefully are.

[estrangeddimensions]

Your faces really are not cut out for a camera. Geez, back up the camera! You made the statement to invest in technology that we all know works. To make it short, solar and wind have their own set of problems. Solar power can be very unstable if you used on a large grid and not every american has the money for purchase and installation of a system that can completely power their home. Windmills are not that great either. I wish had more room to write. I think that you have been brainwashed also

[purplepeopleeater77]

"Just because you want something to be, doesnt mean in will be" .

This person obviously has no idea, the rate at which, ... irreversible destruction is being done to our planet, and its habitat. We, in the present, are what you consider to be fortunate,...by that I mean, we will not suffer the consequences of our 40-70 year existance.

What is it you exactly mean by,"just because you want something to be,doesnt mean it can".

Please,do elaborate,,,I believe it would be amusing.

[phantomcharger]

These guys dont exactly strike me as experts, what do they think will run the computer theyre on if half of the energy is shut off?

Wind and solar power is good for subsidizing but in no way could replace what we currently use coal for.

Just because you want something to be doesn't mean it can be.

Grow up

[angelenasexton11]

turn ur lights off ur a.c.& heat then tell me how important coal is you podunk clean freaks

[Underfaith]

@angelenasexton11

wow think of it this way, whatever resourses us "podunk clean freaks" use is to help spread knowledge and information for environmental, animal, and human aid. I, and most others like me, do just that, I use heat in the winter obviously because I have no choice but unlike you I campain and lobby our government to get off coal and use solar, wind, and wave energy for electicity.

[Geistjaeger]

WOW! You guys look so hip and cool! I wanna save the rainforust now!!!!!!!!! I WANNA SAVE IT SO BADLY! I LOVE PANDAS! their almost extingct in the amazon where i liv.

[friedie1jeff]

So tell us where you two deep thinkers got your engineering degrees from. Or maybe you have business degrees?

[m3141592]

Yeah, they're right.

It's total bullshit. The only way to completely sequester the CO2 would use virtually as much energy as the coal generates.

Although if you could get enough power to do it from a safe source (e.g. solar thermal concentrator) you could turn the CO2 back into coal and bury it. Then it would definitely stay there for geological time.

[flyboymd82]

LMAO!!!

Cook Aid drinking, dope smoking stoners! LOL!!!

I take not the lights are on bright in their home & they aren't complaining using it!

STUPID!

[YouDranktheCoolAid]

Tools of the far Left who have drank the cool aid too. hypocrites!

[SpaceOtterAmbassador]

Wouldn't it be cool if apple pie, america, and moms could blend together to make an energy source?

That would be awsome. :)

[shellius]

Excellent work, great videos. Keep it up!

Coal SUCKS.

[kimberleycalling]

Pumping sludge into the earth forever. Yep, a real sustainable plan. We're starting to discover what climate change looks like in Australia at the moment and it ain't pretty. In fact it's diabolical. We should have acted in the 1980's, but who obfuscated and lied and covered up, bought off and buried the facts? Our mates in the fossil fuel industry, that's who.

[tim13a]

This is a good one. Your delivery is great, information sound, and edited in a nice DIY style. You guys don't have to play cute. You're engaging as is. Good job.

[coal4life]

Turn off your lights. Don't even think about using any electtric things like your green car or your cell phone. And go get a real life life ya fuggen cave dwellers.

[russellmf1]

I'm an operator in a coal plant in Ontario, Canada; one of the cleanest in North America actually. Power generation is a lot more complicated than you think. I'm also an environmentalist at heart, but I can tell you that solar or wind power will never be viable on a large scale. Electricity is made only as it is used, it is not storable. So simply pray the sun shines or the wind blows if you wanna go that route. Newer technology drastically lowers coal emissions, and that makes a lot more sense.

[6boomer9]

russsellmf1- Cleanest in North America!?...Have you checked out the strip mines or looked at where they store the fly ash?....There is NO SUCH THING as clean coal!...Your paycheck is clouding your judgement.......I live near a coal storage facility and regularly follow those coal filled semis (on my way to work) heading to a power plant....That shit is FILTHY!!!.....Hell, NUCLEAR is even cleaner than coal!

[pippi4444]

hahah yeah I'd like that

[pippi4444]

if you think the messenger makes no difference you need a reality check. creating more clean energy will require a large social change so yeah the actual people working on creating the change make a difference.

[stopstripminingnow]

Typical "ad hominem" attacks. You can't argue with the fact that burning more coal is not a morally legitimate option, so you attack the appearance of the speakers. Get over yourself.

[RANVideo]

I'll have to track down some burlap sacks for our next filming ...

[Underfaith]

@SterlingPlanet

You would seriously attack someone based on thier choice of style and/or clothing? how petty are you? they are spreading knowledge that would generally be hidden from you by company's who just care for your money and not you, your children, or the environments well being. Have some respect..they are making a difference, a positive one, I applaud them and you attack them? shame!

[wysoft]

This is all very interesting, but you might consider dumping your nose ring and getting your boyfriend to shave his face and lay off the pot before filming, or else average Joe isn't going to take you very seriously.

[djangobelgo]

"We only have 2 to 3 years to act. This is our defining moment".

Well, if that's really your case, then you understand that we will *never* get there with solar and wind and nuclear. Never.

The only way to get there is by using technologies that actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere. That is: biomass+CCS, biochar, reforestation and avoided deforestation.

[RANVideo]

Political will is what has to shift immediately, and that's far trickier than the technological side. Biomass isn't too bad, provided it really is waste that doesn't divert agricultural production. The sheer scale of sequestration is still a problem, and so is resulting environmental damage. If developing CCS requires making a deal with the devil / coal industry to allow new conventional plants, it's nowhere near worth it. And that's the deal that's on the table.

[djangobelgo]

Look, I fully agree with your assessment, I think we are on the same line about what needs to be done.

But I think we need the James Hansen trick: develop CCS now, and let the coal industry pay for it. Once a cost-effective technology is there (and we're almost there), you force coal plants to stop using full coal and co-fire biomass. A while later you force them - by law - to use pure biomass.

And yes, the biomass must be sourced from sustainable production. But that's feasible. [next]

[djangobelgo]

[3] Then you have a very very radical carbon-negative *baseload*.

All the while you have been investing in wind and solar on a higher pace.

And then you combine these renewables (as in the German example). A robust, carbon-negative baseload, with a robust set of carbon-positive renewables.

That's one route forward.

But here we differ: even if you can't force the coal sector to stop using it, after you've developed CCS, I still think the technology is worth it.

Why? [sorry, next].

[djangobelgo]

Why still support CCS in that case? Well, because coal is becoming hugely expensive. Coking coal has increased by 100% over the past year; thermal coal even more (120%).

I believe the market will begin to shift in favor of biomass for baseload energy.

Now if you think of it: if you use CCS+biomass, you get carbon credits *two times* (one for the CCS component, one for the biomass component).

This competitive edge will make biomass+CCS the big winner of the future.

[RANVideo]

CCS has everything to do with coal, because it is the primary strategy by which the coal industry is seeking to delay its demise. It's great to talk about theoretical carbon-negative power generation. The reality of how CCS is being used to justify the construction of "ccs-ready" conventional coal plants is quite different. If CCS is so great and is possible, let's just not build any coal plants without it. Which means not building any at all.

[djangobelgo]

Look, I understand that you would rather not see CCS coupled to coal. And I agree with your view.

But discarding CCS as such is not wise. If we succeed in scaling up the cost-effectiveness of CO2-capturing technologies, then we have the most effective tool against climate change: the coupling of CCS to biomass.

You know NASA's James Hansen? He's quite an authority on which technologies we need to become really green. He's in fact not interested that much in solar or wind [next].

[djangobelgo]

[Hansen] not that interested in solar or wind, because they can never withdraw CO2 from the atmosphere, which is really what we need.

So what does he suggest we do? He says: CCS+biomass, biochar, reforestation in the tropics and protecting existing C-stocks.

By the way, the DOE announced today that FUTUREGEN is back. I think it's good.

The talk is already very much about CBTL+CCS. Now make that pure BECS and we're saved.

Wind and solar are useful, but will play a marginal role.

[djangobelgo]

PART 1. Basically everything these two young non-experts say is wrong.

-CCS is not about coal, it's about capturing carbon dioxide

-CCS coupled to biogenic CO2 results in carbon-negative energy

-leaking geosequestered biogenic CO2 does not contribute to climate change because it's biogenic

-CCS is proved on a very large scale in many existing projects, in Norway, in Algeria, in France, and elsewhere

-wind, solar and other renewables are not competitive because they don't do baseloads.

[djangobelgo]

PART 2.

-wind and solar are carbon-positive, contributing to between 30 to 50 grams of CO2/Kwh (wind) to 150 grams of CO2/Kwh (solar photovoltaic)

-carbon-negative energy with biogenic CO2 yields a Kwh of electricity with *minus* 1000 grams of CO2. Yes, that is right: minus.

-the two young people in this video thus contradict themselves: investing in solar and wind is inefficient, because they can never withdraw CO2 from the atmosphere (they are carbon-neutral technologies).

[djangobelgo]

PART 3.

-carbon-negative energy with biogenic CO2 can withdraw CO2 from the atmosphere - the other renewables cannot.

-wind, solar and other renewables cannot provide baseload power; CCS+biogenic CO2 does; you cannot build an economy on energy technologies that can't provide baseloads.

-the EU invests €2 billion in CCS

-top scientists like NASA's Hansen fully support CCS with biogenic CO2

Sorry, these two young novices need to go back to school.

[RANVideo]

Biogenic CO2 from via biofuels, huh? Biofuel production is far from carbon negative; in fact it's worse than fossil fuels when deforestation is accounted for. Also just the current uptick in biofuels production has contributed greatly to the current global food crisis. Proposing biogenic carbon -> CCS is worse than not being a solution, it's actually harmful.

[djangobelgo]

According to the IEA Bioenergy Task 40, there is a sustainable potential for the production of 1500Ej of biomass without cutting a tree and without impacting food, fiber, fodder and forest product needs. Case closed.

According to the FAO, high petroleum prices are by far the biggest factor in rising food prices. Liquid biofuels made from grains contribute 10%.

Biomass contributes 0%. Case closed.

1500Ej.

[RANVideo]

Dynamic load balancing for renewables is quite promising and has actually been tested at scale in Germany. In contrast, no 100% capture fossil fuel plant exists anywhere, period. You should do your homework before attempting to correct others. Futhermore, note that it's quite hard to run an economy if you're experience resource shortages due to climate change, too.

[djangobelgo]

Yes, I (Bioeconomy) uploaded and translated the German film, so I know pretty well what we're talking about.

As you can see in the research report describing the experiment, the baseload in the scheme was provided by biomass (the biogas plants).

Sorry to burst your bubble, but wind and solar never succeed in providing reliable baseload. Unless efficient energy storage is invented, but that's not the case today.

CCS+biomass is available, feasible, cost-effective today, and the most radical...

[djangobelgo]

And the most radical of the options.

Each dollar invested in inefficient wind and solar is a greenwash. Because it is a dollar not invested in CCS+biomass.

[frankodelic]

Love the greenwash of the week, keep 'em coming!