Green scientist favors coal-to-fuel plant
Susan Barrows of the Harrisburg University of Science and Technology explains the technology behind a proposed $725 million plant in
In her essay, Barrows says contaminants in coal such as mercury and sulfur must be contained and removed to avoid poisoning the chemical catalysts needed to complete the Fisher-Tropsch conversion. Sulfur oxides are usually emitted when burning coal to produce electricity, which leads to acid rain. She also says the carbon dioxide can be captured and sold to the food and beverage industry.
Wrapping up her comments, Barrows says that as a green scientist she is in favor of the plant as long as this carbon dioxide capture technology is maintained. She believes the project is a good way to reduce tons of waste coal and produce 5,000 barrels of "ultra-clean" diesel fuel per day.
[Source: Patriot-News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Howard Lee Harkness 2:59PM (9/11/2006)
Coal is a FOSSIL FUEL. No matter how much of it there is, we will eventually use all of it up that we can reach. Regardless of how "clean" the derived diesel might be, it will still have a net CO2 contribution.
Just in case we might want our grandchildren to inherit a habitable planet, we need to concentrate on sequestering carbon, getting our energy from renewable sources, and using a lot less energy regardless of the source.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 3:01PM (9/11/2006)
Coal does have *one* thing going for it. We have a domestic supply.
Apropo of the anniversary of the WTC atrocity, the best way to fight terrorism is to quit funding it.
But I think there are better ways than using coal.
Reply
Armand 2:10PM (9/12/2006)
again,
the energy problem is not a matter of one unique solution... Coal diesel is just one of the tiny wedges of the solution.
Reply