02-11-2008, 07:28 PM
Nareshji i will check the pdf file and will later comment on the transportation costs of LNG but first about 'Clean Coal'.
Googled the words 'Clean Burning of Coal' and the first link is this
Some excerpts
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But for all the talk, clean-burning coal will likely remain an oxymoron for years to come. The utility industry, which uses coal to generate 52% of its electricity, faces formidable political, economic and technological obstacles to getting "clean."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->During the 1980s, Congress ponied up <b>$2.75 billion</b> for the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology program, which sponsored <b>31 demonstration projects</b>. The cleanest projects, called "combined-cycle coal-gasification plants," turn coal into gas, which is burned to generate electricity.
<b>So far, there have been no commercial orders for them.</b> In recent years, utilities have almost exclusively built natural-gas-fired plants, which meet environmental standards and use a fuel that -- until last year -- was abundant and cheap. <b>In fact, $467 million of the demonstration money remains unspent.</b>
Hundreds of industry executives and politicians have recently trooped through a gasification plant built by Tampa Electric Co. in Polk County, Fla., <b>with $140 million of help from the DOE</b>. Situated amid a 1,511-acre "recreational preserve" that includes five fishing lakes and bird-nesting islands designed with help from the National Audubon Society, <b>the plant is 10% more efficient than most coal-fired plants.</b>
<b>But it still is far from clean. Coal contains dozens of noxious chemicals, including lead, arsenic and other heavy metals; sulfur dioxide, which creates acid rain; nitrogen oxides, which create smog; tiny soot particles, which can invade and collect in human lungs; mercury, a toxic metal that accumulates in animals, fish and the humans who eat them; and carbon dioxide, which many scientists believe is artificially warming Earth's atmosphere by trapping more heat from the sun.</b>
While the Tampa power plant collects more of these than traditional plants, plant officials say that it was not built to cope with mercury, which is facing federal regulation, or CO2. Both continue to go right up the stacks.
The government has money for incentives: Besides the $467 million in unspent demonstration money, the Bush budget would add another $2 billion in the next 10 years. In addition, the administration proposes to extend tax credits to support research and development projects and directs federal agencies to "explore new regulatory approaches" that will encourage advances in clean-coal technology.
<b>"Clean-burning coal is a complete oxymoron," declares Lori Ehrlich, a Marblehead, Mass., housewife who has taken on PG&E National Energy Group, a unit of San Francisco-based PG&E Corp. that bought two old coal-fired plants in Massachusetts. The fight began after one plant, in Salem, left part of Ms. Ehrlich's house coated in soot.</b>
<b>He figures the process will take at least 20 years to develop and could double the price of electricity</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Millions of dollars are spent on 'Clean burning of coal' and yet there is no new proces through coal could be used in large scale power plants without adversely harming the environment.
Think about the situation in china. They dont have the money so that they could conduct such research and even if they somehow conduct the research and achieve success in inventing an new method of using coal 'cleanly' they cant afford the cost of changing their present coal fired plants.
Rather china's decision to go with Iranian pipeline looks more feasible since iran has received chinese made long range missiles and during the present Iranian nuke spat with US, china is the security council member which is threatening to use the veto if any new UN sanctions are sought to be imposed on Iran.
Iran may well reward china for this help by lowering the selling price of the gas.
Googled the words 'Clean Burning of Coal' and the first link is this
Some excerpts
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But for all the talk, clean-burning coal will likely remain an oxymoron for years to come. The utility industry, which uses coal to generate 52% of its electricity, faces formidable political, economic and technological obstacles to getting "clean."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->During the 1980s, Congress ponied up <b>$2.75 billion</b> for the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology program, which sponsored <b>31 demonstration projects</b>. The cleanest projects, called "combined-cycle coal-gasification plants," turn coal into gas, which is burned to generate electricity.
<b>So far, there have been no commercial orders for them.</b> In recent years, utilities have almost exclusively built natural-gas-fired plants, which meet environmental standards and use a fuel that -- until last year -- was abundant and cheap. <b>In fact, $467 million of the demonstration money remains unspent.</b>
Hundreds of industry executives and politicians have recently trooped through a gasification plant built by Tampa Electric Co. in Polk County, Fla., <b>with $140 million of help from the DOE</b>. Situated amid a 1,511-acre "recreational preserve" that includes five fishing lakes and bird-nesting islands designed with help from the National Audubon Society, <b>the plant is 10% more efficient than most coal-fired plants.</b>
<b>But it still is far from clean. Coal contains dozens of noxious chemicals, including lead, arsenic and other heavy metals; sulfur dioxide, which creates acid rain; nitrogen oxides, which create smog; tiny soot particles, which can invade and collect in human lungs; mercury, a toxic metal that accumulates in animals, fish and the humans who eat them; and carbon dioxide, which many scientists believe is artificially warming Earth's atmosphere by trapping more heat from the sun.</b>
While the Tampa power plant collects more of these than traditional plants, plant officials say that it was not built to cope with mercury, which is facing federal regulation, or CO2. Both continue to go right up the stacks.
The government has money for incentives: Besides the $467 million in unspent demonstration money, the Bush budget would add another $2 billion in the next 10 years. In addition, the administration proposes to extend tax credits to support research and development projects and directs federal agencies to "explore new regulatory approaches" that will encourage advances in clean-coal technology.
<b>"Clean-burning coal is a complete oxymoron," declares Lori Ehrlich, a Marblehead, Mass., housewife who has taken on PG&E National Energy Group, a unit of San Francisco-based PG&E Corp. that bought two old coal-fired plants in Massachusetts. The fight began after one plant, in Salem, left part of Ms. Ehrlich's house coated in soot.</b>
<b>He figures the process will take at least 20 years to develop and could double the price of electricity</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Millions of dollars are spent on 'Clean burning of coal' and yet there is no new proces through coal could be used in large scale power plants without adversely harming the environment.
Think about the situation in china. They dont have the money so that they could conduct such research and even if they somehow conduct the research and achieve success in inventing an new method of using coal 'cleanly' they cant afford the cost of changing their present coal fired plants.
Rather china's decision to go with Iranian pipeline looks more feasible since iran has received chinese made long range missiles and during the present Iranian nuke spat with US, china is the security council member which is threatening to use the veto if any new UN sanctions are sought to be imposed on Iran.
Iran may well reward china for this help by lowering the selling price of the gas.