Coal is the least expensive and most plentiful energy source available to the United States. Unfortunately it is also one of the dirtiest fuel sources to use. Acid rain, killer smog, and large emissions of CO2 gas are just some of the negative side effects from coal use. For carbon dioxide emission, in one year the world burned five billion tons of coal and emitted 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from 280 ppm to 380 ppm. Plus, as oil supplies dwindle, more coal is used and many of the coal plants are decades old and not environmentally friendly. As more coal is used, a larger push for environmentally sound coal plants is being made. New coal burning plants have been made recently, but not in any large quantities. One new plant in North Dakota pumps their CO2 through a pipe into Canada. There, an oil field pumps the gas into the ground to push oil out for a higher recovery. Underground has enough space to hold all of the projected carbon dioxide emissions “for centuries.” Also, in Tampa, FL a new IGCC, integrated gasification combined cycle, plant was built and produces cleaner air than traditional coal plants and is at least 15 percent more efficient. As more coal is mined in the future, the pressure for new and cleaner coal-burning plants gains more momentum, but the cost still represses building of new, environmentally friendly plants.

Answers:
The IGCC plant is not the solution to global warming because there are still many other forms of pollution that further global warmer besides just coal burning, plus, the IGCC plant still produces flue gases that contain carbon dioxide that contribute to global warming so carbon dioxide emissions are not truly reduced, but the plant can easily be changed to fix that. The reduced pollutants expelled, though, would be a large step towards lowering coal-burning part of global warming. The IGCC plants could help energy crisis, but not as a final solution. At 15 percent more efficient than normal coal plants and can be changed for carbon dioxide storage and shipment for other energy production, but coal will only last for so long and will still produce some pollution, so new energy sources need to be researched.

Questions:
1) Can the emitted carbon dioxide be sent through pipes and pressurized so it can be pumped and spin a third turbine in the IGCC plants for further energy production?
2) Instead of just sending extra carbon dioxide to pump oil out of an oil field, can it be sent to empty oil fields and stored there from not just coal plants but other carbon dioxide producing plants as well?
3) The reading suggests that IGCC plants would be more cost effective over the long run, how much could IGCC plants save over pulverized coal plant adaptations from new legislature?

Vocabulary: Iridescent-property of a surface to appear to change colors as the view angle changes