1. “Fan discovered a way to heat coal, using iron-oxide pellets for an oxygen source and containing the reaction in a small, heated chamber from which pollutants cannot escape. The only waste product is therefore water and coal ash — no greenhouse gases.”

    Coal, reacting with oxygen. Sounds a lot like oxidation to me. Pollutants [sic] cannot escape. Sounds like sequestration to me. How many small, heated chambers will be needed to make a power plant? Are the pollutants to be left in the chambers in perpetuity?

    I think they are hiding the truth. Until they tell us more, I assume this is grossly impractical.

    Methinks it’s grant renewal time.

  2. “Claiming that coal is clean because it could be clean — if a new technically unproven and economically dubious technology might be adopted — is like someone claiming that belladonna is not poisonous because there is a new unproven safe pill under development,” wrote Donald Brown at liberal think tank Climate Progress. Funny, this is just what Climate Progress claims for “alternative” “green” energy.
    Is this method an improvement over burning? I dunno. CO2-AGW is not a reason to embrace this or any technology. If this technology means an end to particulate emissions and smoke, and if its costs are comparable to current methods after amortizing the new tech, maybe this is a very good thing.
    Coal ash as a waste product is still a considerable waste product and coal production still has a serious environmental footprint, as do most human activities that we need.

  3. I’m not surprised the Green Left is against the project, regardless of whether it’s workable tech. Like I’ve said before, it’s never really been about atmospheric phenomena.

  4. believing the gas of life is a pollutant should exclude you from discussions with people of reasonable intelligence…. BUT it does make you eligible for membership in the gullible fools club……

  5. I’m with Richard. If you were to have told me years ago (not too many) that CO2 would be considered a pollutant, I’d have thought you completely nuts or on some drugs. Sigh.

  6. Coal ash consists of fly ash, small airborne particles captured by electrostatic precipitators, and bottom ash, non-combustible material that accumulates at the base of the combustion chamber. Fly ash consists primarily of oxides of calcium, silica, alumina, and iron; bottom ash consists of particles from natural minerals found in coal such as quartz, feldspar, calcite and clay minerals as kaolinite and illite. So, what happens to the carbon? Gamecock is right…carbon sequestration is assumed although not explicitly stated in the article, and carbon sequestration is an expensive waste of time and energy.

  7. I’m forseeing an absurdly low output that is dwarfed by the production cost of the rustballs.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *