Coal Smart by Coalsmart
Sep 10, 2017
You have provided a great deal of rationale for continuing to use coal and other fossil fuels as a way to soften the transition to RE but such proposals and efforts have been attempted many times before with disappointing results. This proposal would benefit from much more detail about what distinguishes this process from its predecessors, which have not delivered the "clean coal" that they promised.
Also, coal has many associated disbenefits, beyond GHG emissions, and it is important to recognize that reducing the downstream emissions does little to eliminate the upstream impacts on local ecosystems and communities.
I would be reticent to invest further in coal infrastructure.
Sep 11, 2017
2030 is where nations are trying to target for near zero emissions. Scalable GHG emissions reduction for coal plants require alternatives. Our solution is one such that provides hydro power from CO2 and waste water (already available in coal plants). We would be applying the same technology solution to provide hydro power from rivers without storage or diversions(which is solar/wind and river water) and also for sea waves (which is waves and sea water). Appreciate your comment and our rationale is to enable nations still using coal to reduce their usage as drastically as possible while not affecting the energy security. Compared to failed solutions and expensive solutions, our technology increases the kWh generation for same plant while most failed solutions focus in reducing or reusing CO2 for other purposes than increasing plant generation capacity with same tonnage, which is the key here.People investing here would be investing in a new Hydro technology than coal infrastructure as impact even on existing or new plants would be very high.