This Idea Paid for by the "Clean" Coal Lobby
The first things chemical engineers learn are the mass balance and the energy balance. In a closed system, assuming no nuclear reactions, the number of each type of atoms remains the same and joules of energy remain the same. This bit of chemical engineering is the foundation of all environmental science, though from my perspective, I would say all environmental science is a subset of chemical engineering. Environmental dogma such as "reduce, reuse , recycle" is actually basic engineering design, though no engineer would ignore costs and many "environmentalists" do.
When coal is burned, a chemical engineer sees carbon reacting with oxygen to form carbon dioxide. No atoms are gained or lost in the closed system. Energy is conserved as the potential energy of the coal (prior to combustion) plus the potential energy of the oxygen that is burned equals heat of combustion of the coal plus potential energy of the ash plus potential energy of the carbon dioxide. We see more carbon dioxide in the air, which will contribute to climate change.
Research is ongoing to convert carbon dioxide from coal burning plants into algae that produces oil. But, why must the coal be combusted? Instead, burn algae and recycle the carbon dioxide from the combustion of the algae back into producing more heat energy and more algae. Use algae to reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Do not continue to burn coal, and with your process which can not be 100% efficient, create more climate change.
But, chemical engineers have a second question. What about the energy balance? Let's say we burn algae and capture the carbon to make more algae. We are running a power plant by capturing the heat of combustion of the fuel. From what source does the energy come from to make more algae? One assumes that the answer must be solar energy, and that is fine. But, if that is the case, let's put our algae burning facility in the tropics, rather than next to Mt. Coal.
We can assume the new Secretary of Energy, Nobel prize winner, Stephen Chu, understands mass and energy balances well enough to counter, at least intellectually, the fraud of the "clean coal" lobby.
When coal is burned, a chemical engineer sees carbon reacting with oxygen to form carbon dioxide. No atoms are gained or lost in the closed system. Energy is conserved as the potential energy of the coal (prior to combustion) plus the potential energy of the oxygen that is burned equals heat of combustion of the coal plus potential energy of the ash plus potential energy of the carbon dioxide. We see more carbon dioxide in the air, which will contribute to climate change.
Research is ongoing to convert carbon dioxide from coal burning plants into algae that produces oil. But, why must the coal be combusted? Instead, burn algae and recycle the carbon dioxide from the combustion of the algae back into producing more heat energy and more algae. Use algae to reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Do not continue to burn coal, and with your process which can not be 100% efficient, create more climate change.
But, chemical engineers have a second question. What about the energy balance? Let's say we burn algae and capture the carbon to make more algae. We are running a power plant by capturing the heat of combustion of the fuel. From what source does the energy come from to make more algae? One assumes that the answer must be solar energy, and that is fine. But, if that is the case, let's put our algae burning facility in the tropics, rather than next to Mt. Coal.
We can assume the new Secretary of Energy, Nobel prize winner, Stephen Chu, understands mass and energy balances well enough to counter, at least intellectually, the fraud of the "clean coal" lobby.
Labels: Don't Vote 2012, energy
posted by David Rasmussen at 2:53 PM
<< Home