• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Japan project takes a step further towards 'clean coal'

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zorba

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 1999
7,375
1,315
126
Um... the fracking damage is really widespread. Coal's been around a whole longer, that's for sure.
Feel free to link that up. I'd love to see any real analysis that shows fracking is anywhere near as damaging as coal, even ignoring the difference in carbon output.

Lithium and rare earth metal mines aren't exactly clean either, but both are needed for clean energy.
 

Ken g6

Programming Moderator, Elite Member
Moderator
Dec 11, 1999
14,862
1,862
55
fracking contaminates ground water in areas where people rely on wells.
Fracking is like nuclear power. Done properly, both are safe and, by themselves, don't contaminate the environment. (Ignoring their respective planned waste products.)

The difference is, when fracking is done improperly, the explosions caused by too much pressure don't happen above-ground where everybody can see them.

I'm in favor of requiring that carbon capture be used in all coal fired power plants. It's cheaper than capturing the carbon from the air after it's already been released. However, it's still expensive, and will increase the cost of energy produced by coal, and will make coal less competitive as against emerging renewable alternatives. This is why the coal industry doesn't want it.
This, in the end, leads to the correct answer. Implement a carbon tax, regulate to prevent accidents and/or make them costly, and let the market sort out the rest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
31,970
5,189
126
This is why I really don't understand Bernie's and Warren's push to ban fracking. Fracking has helped kill coal faster than any other technology. Yes, it is still a fossil fuel, but it is significantly better than coal and I think it is a good stop gap to get us to more widespread renewable and storage use.

I am a pretty massive tree hugger, and I used to experience hundreds of man-made earthquakes a year (due to waste water injection, not the often blamed fracking), but this is one area I think many environmentalist act illogically.
My issue with it these days is all the flaring and venting drillers are doing. Also the entire industry is somewhat careless with methane emissions overall. My objections would shrink if those were fixed. Also along that line a ton of old leaky municipal gas systems, especially in the East, are in urgent need of repair.

I would not support an outright ban in 2025. A phaseout though over the coming 20ish or more years though would probably be fine.
 

Zorba

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 1999
7,375
1,315
126
My issue with it these days is all the flaring and venting drillers are doing. Also the entire industry is somewhat careless with methane emissions overall. My objections would shrink if those were fixed. Also along that line a ton of old leaky municipal gas systems, especially in the East, are in urgent need of repair.

I would not support an outright ban in 2025. A phaseout though over the coming 20ish or more years though would probably be fine.
Yes, I agree with that. Methane leakage is a serious issue that gets a pretty big pass. A phase down is a much better approach than an outright ban.
 

Zorba

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 1999
7,375
1,315
126
My issue with it these days is all the flaring and venting drillers are doing. Also the entire industry is somewhat careless with methane emissions overall. My objections would shrink if those were fixed. Also along that line a ton of old leaky municipal gas systems, especially in the East, are in urgent need of repair.

I would not support an outright ban in 2025. A phaseout though over the coming 20ish or more years though would probably be fine.
I wanted to add most of the flaring is from oil production in areas that don't have NG pipeline infrastructure. They basically treat the NG as a waste product. I think ND is adding tougher regulation against flaring, but probably not enough.

The next generation of ships is moving to LNG as well, which will displace Heavy Bunker Oil. Which is definitely a positive.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
31,970
5,189
126
I wanted to add most of the flaring is from oil production in areas that don't have NG pipeline infrastructure. They basically treat the NG as a waste product. I think ND is adding tougher regulation against flaring, but probably not enough.

The next generation of ships is moving to LNG as well, which will displace Heavy Bunker Oil. Which is definitely a positive.
Wells shouldn't be put into production if the gas can't be captured IMO. A lot of drillers do manage this with minimal flaring and venting but some companies just want at the oil fast and don't care if they burn out an enormous amount of gas to get it. Burning off enough NG to power a small country as a waste product shouldn't be allowed.

There are some portable solutions starting to emerge like a liquefaction truck for places that don't have infrastructure.
 

Zorba

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 1999
7,375
1,315
126
Wells shouldn't be put into production if the gas can't be captured IMO. A lot of drillers do manage this with minimal flaring and venting but some companies just want at the oil fast and don't care if they burn out an enormous amount of gas to get it. Burning off enough NG to power a small country as a waste product shouldn't be allowed.

There are some portable solutions starting to emerge like a liquefaction truck for places that don't have infrastructure.
Yes, I completely agree. At a bare minimum they should have to pay the full royalty and production taxes on everything they flare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brycejones

ASK THE COMMUNITY