Biden, your time for clean coal
The Biden-Obama position on ‘clean coal’ is not a mistake 50
-
Posted 3:52 PM on 3 Oct 2008
by Joseph Romm -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Related Stories
Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Matt G Posted 11:28 am
03 Oct 2008
Certainly he would have called them clean coal plants if that's what he's planning. Or coal with CSS. But he calls them "low emissions" coal plants. Low compared to what? What emissions? Carbon dioxide? Particulate? This reads to me as regular old coal plants with modern scrubbers.
Goodbye glaciers.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 11:32 am
03 Oct 2008
A huge amount of energy is released by converting coal from a solid to a gas. That gas isn't going to be crammed into a small space without another large amount of energy being expended. That makes the small bit of energy left that goes down a wire very expensive.
"Clean Coal" really means burning dirty coal and pretending that some time in the future you'll put a cap on the smokestack. It's never going to happen. Any politician who says "clean coal" is either a moron or a cynic who is buying votes from moron voters in hopes of some future redemption on his sin.
Until we quit burning coal all other global warming mitigations are moot.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
BobG Posted 11:40 am
03 Oct 2008
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 1:26 pm
03 Oct 2008
Permalink
Jay Alt Posted 2:10 pm
03 Oct 2008
Glad you asked
FutureGen was designed to initially capture and store 85% of emissions, with a goal to improve that to 90% later on.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:06 pm
03 Oct 2008
There's There's also this MIT press release.
If one combines wind, solar, hydropower and geothermal power sources with geoexchange building thermal management the energy savings and load flexibility of the latter will eliminate much of the load burden on generation units.
The nasty trick is that the biggest power user is waste. Clean that up and generation is a far more solvable problem.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:33 pm
03 Oct 2008
_
Unless they plan on a massive roll out of electric cars. (Which would be a great idea. Israel for instance wanted to be all electric by 2013)
_
Otherwise it's blatently dishonest.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:45 pm
03 Oct 2008
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
vakibs Posted 6:12 pm
03 Oct 2008
You should give up.
That said, the nation and the world are in a very desperate situation. To avoid 5°C or more warming this century, to avoid ruining the health and well-being of the next 50 generations, we must replace (category-1)most of the world's energy system in the next few decades with carbon-free technology while working with developing countries to ensure they build their economy primarily around carbon-free technology. And then in the second half of the century, (category-2)we're going to have to replace all of the remaining dirty technology with carbon-free technology.
What is this supposed to mean ? You are putting Sarah Palin to shame.
If Clean Coal will not be practical till 2030 (as you say repeatedly in your article, and quote from the McKinsey report), will it come in category-1 or category-2 ?
I thought that we are using coal, dirty coal in the energy sector (so category-1) ? If you want to know what clean-coal means, please check pangolin's comments
"Clean Coal" really means burning dirty coal and pretending that some time in the future you'll put a cap on the smokestack. It's never going to happen. Any politician who says "clean coal" is either a moron or a cynic who is buying votes from moron voters in hopes of some future redemption on his sin.
Clean-coal is a greenwashing excuse to tell the voters that (1) we will continue to use coal (2) none of the jobs in the coal sector will be lost.
Frankly, Obama-Biden have not the courage to tell the voters the truth. Neither (1) nor (2) is good for the mother planet.
And before you refer to Dr Hansen, and distort his position, please refer to his latest article, where he clearly expresses the following
Cap & Trade is a dangerous delusion for the developed countries. It doesn't matter who burns the fossil fuels and where they get burned. For the atmosphere, it is all the same.
The CO2 emissions of the countries continue to rise. Most of the increase in emissions is due to coal, particularly for China.
What we need to agree on is the amount of coal we decide to keep underneath the earth. Because all the oil and natural gas reserves will be used up in the long run. We need to have hard limits on the use of coal, otherwise we will be dangerously past the climate tipping points.
Developed countries should issue a moratorium on coal, and this should happen in the next decade or so. Then, we can have hope for China and India to agree with the moratorium in some 30 years (this procedure is exactly how the ozone-layer crisis was averted).
Developing 4th generation nuclear technology is vital for achieving this target.
No more gobbledy-gook, joseph.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 3:14 am
04 Oct 2008
Here is the crux of the argument. As long as our objective is to 'replace' the existing system capacity we are playing a fool's game. I and others have pointed out that the scale and complexity of such an endeavor with supposed alternative energy sources, combined with the issue of true sustainability make it infeasible to think that we will simply replace one form of energy production with another and problem solved.
Even with all of the supposed solution wedges, efficiency, solar (thermal and PV), etc, in place we will never come close to the energy flow afforded by fossil fuels. The energy densities of all the various forms (excepting nuclear) are simply not sufficient to power the kind of economic engine we have evolved.
In order to assuage people's fears of having to give up their consumptive lifestyles, our politicians and their enablers, economists, and talking heads in the media (the experts) continue to claim that all will be well if only big oil (fossil fuels) would stop blocking us. But the sad truth is that the one wedge that will, either voluntarily or by force of nature, produce a feasible solution is powering down and giving up consumption as a modus operandi. Combined with prudent investment in those alternative energy solutions that can supply a reasonable energy flow, albeit a much lower rate, and a reduction in population, the future can be a good one. But it will be a very different kind of culture from the present Western form.
As to why it is probably not a good idea to waste time and effort with CCS is unfolding right before our eyes. Our global financial system has become completely inverted from what is rational and prudent. We now run things by borrowing against the production of future wealth as opposed to borrowing from historical accumulation of wealth (savings). But with the peak of oil we are witnessing the beginning of a down slide in net energy flow available to do useful work. Ergo, in the near future we are going to see a complete collapse of all the phony money that has buoyed the world economy and a constriction of ability to finance worthy projects. As money becomes less available (and don't bet on the bailout working) and things in general become more expensive, our margin for error are rapidly disappearing. A shotgun approach to new energy technologies is probably not going to pay off.
It would be good to get real. To stop believing in magic. To accept that we overdid it and now we have to pay the true price. It would really be nice if the 'leaders' in our world would face this reality and start telling people what they really need to hear to face the future. Otherwise there are going to be a lot of pissed off people when that reality takes them by surprise.
Question Everything
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
randino Posted 3:17 am
04 Oct 2008
We have to consider the following issues: mountain top removal coal minining and its impact on Appalachian forests and their role as carbon sinks, mine waste killing streams, coal slurry ponds which hang like a Sword of Damocles over coal country communities and residents, the fine particulate material that comes from burning coal even with scrubbers, the undermining of farm land and disruption of underground wells and streams from traditional coal mining. I am sure I have forgotten half a dozen other problems.
We often find ourselves in a situation like Hercules. We chop off one of the Hydra's heads and two sprout in its place.
We say switch to biofuels, and in so doing sign a death warrant for the world's tropical forests - another carbon sink down the drain. Then we say burn natural gas as an alternative to coal. This leads to a boom in natural gas production. Pipelines and well heads spread throughout the landscape, fragmenting forests and disrupting biosystems.
We see this in Ohio where the much beloved Mohical Memorial State Forest has been shredded by NiSource clear cutting buffer zones around its pipe lines and well heads. To make matters worse, NiSource has now applied for a permit that will give it 50 years of relief from any Endangered Species Act reviews along a mile wide corridor of its pipelines and well heads in Ohio - about 3,000 square miles of territory. Never smile at a crocodile as the old song goes.
So beware the fine print on technological miracle cures for global warming. Such cures can turn into snakes, just waiting in the grass to bite you.
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
ids Posted 5:06 am
04 Oct 2008
Biden's racism that Chinese are not smart enough to change course is typical of them Dems.
Also, $150B over ten years is about 1% of the Pentagon's budget over that same time, bfd.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 7:28 am
04 Oct 2008
Saying biofuels are a death warrant for the world's tropical forests is simplistic and a distortion. No one seriously involved with next generation biofuels (i.e. cellusic ethanol) proposes clearing any rain forests. Of course, we have no tropical forests in the US, so any discussion on using biofuels or biomass to replace coal (in the US) clearly bypasses this issue entirely.
George,
Your statement that there are no alternative energy sources that have sufficient energy density to replace coal and oil (other than nuclear) is incorrect. Biomass can be easily turned into a direct coal replacement with the exact same energy density as coal. Combine this with other renewables and we could replace all the oil and coal (and natural gas) we use within some acceptable period of time. It's just a matter of committing to do it.
Richard
Permalink
gmobus Posted 12:49 pm
04 Oct 2008
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 11:21 pm
04 Oct 2008
It doesn't sound like you are familiar with the EROI of biomass... particularly versus coal. I'd challenge you to back up your conclusions. I don't believe you can.
Biomass competes effectively with coal on price alone today. This does NOT include the huge external costs of burning coal, not currently factored into the price of coal. These include damage to the environment from extracting coal, coal being seriously carbon positive versus biomass being potentially carbon negative, and damage to the miners extracting the coal (injury and long term impacts). When factored in, coal is far more expensive and damaging than biomass. We are starting to factor these items in now, and as we do, the outlook for coal will continue to diminish.
Richard
Permalink
vakibs Posted 12:20 am
05 Oct 2008
George is right.
The EROEI is unimportant. What is important is the amount of land required for cultivating biomass (known as power density). As we have discussed earlier in another thread, the best estimates of biomass derived energy are around 1000 GW to 1500 GW (which assumes that we are harvesting several "billions" of acres of forests). This is not even close to the total power requirements of the world. The total power consumption of the world (when you account for transport+food+everything) is around 15000 GW. In the absence of reasonable alternatives, all the gaps will be filled up by coal. This is why whenever you talk of replacing coal, you should look at the figure of 15000 GW and not the current coal usage figure.
Biomass cannot step into the shoes of coal for this very reason.
The only solar technology that can practically supply all the energy by itself is concentrated solar power (The requirements are around 2 million square kilometres) But this plan will be disastrous for the environment, and get into logistical dead ends. Even if all the solar technologies chip in together, they still cannot replace coal in an environmentally acceptable way.
This is the point of George Mobus, and it is a valid point. If you are serious about eliminating coal usage, you should be seriously considering to reduce consumption.
Unless you support nuclear energy (which I do), in which case you have more than sufficient bargaining power for eliminating all fossil-fuel-usage, and still power the world in a better manner than right now.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 12:45 am
05 Oct 2008
This argument of yours makes absolutely no sense. I'm surprised you would make it. It undermines your credibility.
You are saying biomass can't do the job because it can't create all the energy requirements of the world? What kind of silly statement is that?
The discussion was simply around replacing coal... period. I don't know the total energy contribution of coal, but I'm willing to bet that if biomass can contribute 2000 GW of power or more worldwide from sustainable, carbon-negative sources, this... combined with other renewables... would eliminate the need to burn coal. This is my only point. The ones you have made sound bizarre to me.
Richard
Permalink
gmobus Posted 1:10 am
05 Oct 2008
One of the key aspects of EROI analysis is the choice of boundaries. I remember when analysts from WSU Energy Extension were so excited about their numbers on corn ethanol. They had 'proved' that it was a net energy gain. The only problem was they forgot to factor in some of the more distal energy input factors (like fertilizer). Subsequent analysis with a much wider boundary showed the more realistic fact that corn ethanol was barely break-even for energy. And after factoring in the food-price effect, and the runoff effect in the dead zone below the Mississippi delta in the Gulf, corn turned out to be a negative.
All I tried to do is point out that there are as many so-called externalities wrt biofuels as with coal. I am not arguing FOR coal. But I am not convinced that biofuels in general are as clean as you seem to think. BTW, my area of research is modeling the sustainability of alternative energy sources. If and when I get a usable model together everyone who is interested can do comparative analysis of any energy sources they want. The devil is always in the details. Even current solar PV appears to be a net energy loss if you dig deep enough!
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:02 am
05 Oct 2008
The use of coal has rapidly dropped down in the last 60 years or so, because of the discovery of better fossil fuels such as gasolene and natural gas.
These reserves are now drying up. People will inevitably fall back on coal. Fortunately, this has not happened yet but there are indications of things to come.
Natural gas is being touted as an alternative to gasolene for the transport sector. As less natural gas will be available for electricity generation, coal will be used up more. At a point in the future, natural gas will be completely dried up along with oil shale.
Then we will step into the era of liquifying coal.
There is enough coal to keep us all going for another 100 years to come.
Ofcourse, this is madness. But this is how people operate in this world. It is a given. If it's possible to change people just by speaking to them, John Lennon would have done long before you or me.
People won't change. They will drive this planet to destruction. And they are going to do that by coal.
So let's be careful when we talk of replacing coal. It is a 15000 GW question. It is not as easy as it sounds.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 4:05 am
05 Oct 2008
you people are against energy period.
I think the fraction of people here whose financial mainstay is some kind of government cheque might be a little higher than in the general population. In that case, natural gas royalties are significant, although typically this is not acknowledged.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, author of How fire can be tamed
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 4:36 am
05 Oct 2008
My discussion was entirely about replacing coal with a densified form of torrified biomass. I never mentioned biofuels. The two have very little in common. Your comments clearly indicate you know nothing about the former. So why do you bother to state conclusions about something you know little or nothing about? I stand by my statements about the EROI of direct-burned biomass vs. coal.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 6:05 am
05 Oct 2008
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 9:06 am
05 Oct 2008
Here are a few links to get you started:
http://www.scbiomass.org/Publications/TorrefiedWoodPresen ...
http://www.eubia.org/fileadmin/template/main/res/pdf/publ ...
http://www.airless-systems.co.uk/torrefying.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar
http://www.btgworld.com/index.php?id=117&rid=36&r ...
Permalink
gmobus Posted 4:02 pm
05 Oct 2008
All I can say is that photosynthesis is the boundary condition for any biological production and at averages of less than 1% efficiency and at the average power level of insolation in higher latitudes it is fundamentally the case that bio-fuels (or biomass if you prefer) are not sustainable if you are going to leave nature some sunlight to use. On the other hand if we reduce our power requirements per capita and reduce our population then we can get back to sustainable agriculture and your favorite fuel source might work out.
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:49 pm
05 Oct 2008
Commit all farmland within a five mile radius to biomass production and you have a coal plant that can be fed by pyrolized biomass. Run the smokestack waste through the Eprida process, bury the biochar as fertilizer and you have a carbon-negative, base-load power plant that you can still burn coal in.
Innovation needed zero. Installable, modular, job-creating, carbon-negative energy.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 9:16 pm
05 Oct 2008
I looked through the link you provided (at PeakOil) covering Charlie's work, but there was nothing there about biomass.... only corn ethanol and biodiesel. These figures are irrelevant. Can you point me to any specific information he provides that discusses the EROI for direct combustion of sustainably-harvested biomass or even cellulosic ethanol (which I believe is lower than torrification)?
Here's one very firm link showing a 7.7 EROI for cellulosic ethanol... and this is still early in the game. Many researchers expect the EROI for CE to exceed 15:1 over the next few years.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN06279 ...
Unless you can point to specific studies by Charlie that cover (certified) sustainable biomass harvesting operations based on carbon negative systems tied into more advanced biomass energy production methods, your argument is really quite weak.
Richard
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 9:23 pm
05 Oct 2008
Good plan. I don't know enough about the feasibility of using solar mirrors in all (or even most) regions where coal is burned, but if it can be done and coupled with pyrolyzed biomass, it sounds like a winning approach to me.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:16 pm
05 Oct 2008
How about running the coal plant at 30% capacity, requiring more coal plants to be built to make up for the difference ?
How about discovering that 75 square miles of land around the coal plant doesn't come for free.. to planting all the biomass ?
How about discovering that the supplied biomass is not even sufficient for 10% of the requirements and there by keep burning coal 90% of the time ?
How about discovering that neither China nor India nor South Africa nor Brazil want to waste their money in this plan .. and that they just keep burning coal ?
I will say we have a recipé for disaster.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 11:30 pm
05 Oct 2008
How about saying we discover even trace amounts of radiation from nuclear plants cause cancer?
How about discovering waste nuclear material is being used to create far more bombs than previously expected.
How about learning that nuclear facilities are easily destroyed by earthquakes?
Now, I'm not saying any of that makes a lot of sense, but it does make about as much sense as your statements.
We can either have intelligent discussions here, making the assumption that reasonably intelligent people are not presenting ideas that are inherently destructive and completely unworkable, or we can throw out silly statements to quickly dismiss the suggestions of other. Take your choice.
Richard
Permalink
vakibs Posted 11:54 pm
05 Oct 2008
Each of the objections that you have raised are about a disaster. Considering the validity of the objections, we might have disagreements. But in computer programming terminology, the nature of these objections are all around uncaught exceptions.
The objections I have raised against a pure solar economy (CSP + biomass + whatever) are not about a disaster. They are about the fundamental viability of this economy. If this economy is not viable, then we will all be walking into a fool's paradise.
We will keep burning coal, and that's a risk completely unacceptable at this moment of time.
This is how I see both the anti-nuclear and anti-renewable objections in perspective.
To be frank, I am not anti-renewable at all. I love renewables and I would like to use them as much as possible, wherever they make environmental sense. I am not even concerned about how much they cost in dollars.
But I want to use CSP (or solar baseload) only in areas which have the least impact on ecosystems (such as deserted martian landscapes). I want to use biomass harvesting only in places where we do not disturb natural ecosystems and animal behavior.
In a world that I envision there will be a lot of CSP and a lot of biomass. And for sure, we will have to use energy very efficiently. But, these things are not sufficient by themselves. And we cannot risk continued usage of coal.
This is why, we will definitely need nuclear power to complete the mile. About your specific objections on nuclear power (a) even if minor radiation spills from nuclear power plants are indeed dangerous (not yet proven in science), they are less than natural radiation exposure in normal sorroundings (b) nuclear bombs are a reality and we need to solve the problem, the best way to do it is to have complete supervision of fissile material, not just restriction of sensitive technology (c) nuclear plants cannot be destroyed by earthquakes. and even if they do, they will not suffer a meltdown
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 12:47 am
06 Oct 2008
I'm still wondering how any bio-mass/fuel process plans to get by the limits of photosynthesis wrt the size and demand of our current population. The algae folk are trying to genetically modify the oil production of their little photosynthesizers. I've seen very little attempt to actually boost photosynthesis efficiency, say to about 5%, which is what it is going to take to make any biomass production (possibly) sustainable. It's the land area and time. Plants are photo capture devices only if they have a large and long exposure to sunlight.
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:15 am
06 Oct 2008
Nuclear power could be mass produced.
Wind, wave, solar, and biogas power and smart grid technology can be mass produced. So can conservation systems like ground source heating/cooling and plugin hybrids.
Could coal with CCS be mass produced? Sure the fluidized bed burners and turbine generator systems can be.
But how asbout the pipelines and drill fields and repositories to store the cO2 underground? This is more like oil exploration, first a repository will need to be drilled and tested for leakage.
This could be difficult and time consuming. No reliability experiments have been conducted. Will the cO2 stasy unmderground? How much ernergy will it take to transport and pump the CO2 under high pressure down the wells into the underground repository?
These are all theoretical calculations based on past experience using CO2 to get extra oil out of the ground, and leakage didn't matter. Was data on this even kept?
CCS is like fusion or better, safer, waste eating, modular mass producible nukes; these technologies will need a decade at least of testing. Small scale experimental deployment, a few plants and maybe one CO2 repository area, to determine which systems are practical and affordable.
So test coal and CCS, test biomass addition, test modular mass producible zero waste/fuel recycling nukes, keep working on fusion, try refining coal and tar sands with the better, safer modular nukes.
Biden and Obama are right to back research and development in these areas. But deploying them before they are fully rested and the best designs are decided on by actual results.....?!?
...That's not CHANGE, that's more of the SAME! hehehey.
But seriously, wouldn't everyone here vote for Obama if that's what he and biden are proposing? Of course he is all for present wind, solar, and conservation efforts to go forward immediately with subsidies and government purchasing.
I think Obama is exactly right on this. Even his mention of biodiesel, the most egregious destroyer of wilderness since paper production, could come from algae grown on the waste stream in solar collectors.
Phoenix, for instance, could have collectors mounted on public building and large commercial structures that would convert their waste stream into biodiesel, biogas, cogenerated electricity, and clean water. Any city on a very sunny area could do the same.
Although the efficiency of producing biodiesel with sunlight is relatively low, when you combine that with biogas, electricity, and water recycling the total efficiency would be excellent.
And this sort of system is mass producible, panel by panel, they are connected together to form a system sized to the roof or industrial area or parking lot. Over parking lots these could provide backup fuel and electricity for plugin hybrids. If even half the parking space was covered it would power enough plugin hybrids to replace gas guzzling.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:12 pm
06 Oct 2008
pangolin's solar plan
How about denuding 3 square miles of land around every coal plant - destroying every single plant, insect and bird living in that area ?
Sure about that are you? It looks like mirror arrays are mounted on posts with bit of separation from the ground. That probably leaves a bit of room for sheep and goats to graze grasses that will grow in part shade. It's not Shangri-La but then neither is a cornfield.
How about running the coal plant at 30% capacity, requiring more coal plants to be built to make up for the difference ? Considering that we could still burn coal in this coal plant until capacity was made up elsewhere or demand destroyed by ground-coupled heat pumps this isn't a problem. I want to eliminate the coal remember. But I have to do it stepwise.
How about discovering that 75 square miles of land around the coal plant doesn't come for free.. to planting all the biomass ? Coal is free? In most of the land East of the Mississippi you don't plant biomass, you try to keep it from overgrowing your crop, house, lot or billboard. If all you have to do is let nature grow what grows best, chop it and chip it, there are lots of easier options than growing corn.
How about discovering that the supplied biomass is not even sufficient for 10% of the requirements and there by keep burning coal 90% of the time ? I'm only using the biomass as a clean carbon source to bury biochar with remember? Reduced methane and NOX emissions from cropland offset some of the emissions and the CST eliminates more.
How about discovering that neither China nor India nor South Africa nor Brazil want to waste their money in this plan .. and that they just keep burning coal? We're going to build umpteen thousand nuclear plants instead in these areas? I don't think so. Coal is expensive and damaging anywhere it's burned. The sun is free everywhere.
I will say we have a recipé for disaster
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
by vakibs at 5:16 AM on 06 Oct 2008 . The status quo is a recipe for disaster. This would be a means of minimizing conversion costs from status quo operations. Use existing turbines, condensors, power lines and distribution networks. Retain base-load capacity. Engage in cheap, proven, carbon capture and storage. Supplement distributed PV and wind power installation.
Rather than protesting a nuclear plant installation the locals will welcome reduced emissions and increased job opportunities.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
vakibs Posted 11:53 pm
06 Oct 2008
Sorry Pangolin.. Coal is cheap. Bad news.
In energy speak, coal is the lowest common denominator. Nothing is cheaper than that for producing electricity. That is why google is breaking its heads with the RE < C campaign. I don't have much hopes that it wil succeed.
I have much higher hopes that the NE < C will succeed, though I am not completely confident over there either.
People are going to keep burning coal if your plan doesn't work. And poor people are not going to shell out money when the solar costs remain skyhigh.
If all you have to do is let nature grow what grows best, chop it and chip it, there are lots of easier options than growing corn.
The best energy crops are not natural, but developed in laboratories. All kinds of biomass have hard limits of power density, imposed by photosynthesis, which is very inefficient. When we are hard pressed for land and water, we should do the best possible with what is available.
Engage in cheap, proven, carbon capture and storage.
Sorry pangolin, you are producing some weird-speak . Biomass should not be called CCS. Call it bio-mass. If not, you are just rolling out excuses for burning more coal, which is very dangerous. No amount of biomass can offset coal emissions.
And whatever CST that is available, if at all it is available, is not cheap even in your wildest dreams.
If the be-all and end-all of your existence is to opposes nuclear power, then I can't argue with you . But if it is about preventing climate tipping points, then I repeat you should be serious about using a huge chunk of nuclear power, along with all your other favorite power sources.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 1:02 am
07 Oct 2008
If the be-all and end-all of their existence is to protect governments' CO2 emission revenues, then they'll be amenable to varieties of nuclear power that have no history of effectiveness in preventing those emissions and revenues, and do not appear to threaten the money in the future.
--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be tamed)
Permalink
Backcut Posted 2:12 am
07 Oct 2008
You can't "win" here, Richard. To them, you are tainted with tree "blood".
That is all.....for now.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 2:19 am
07 Oct 2008
I've warned you several times already about making statements that are flat out wrong, because it seriously compromises your credibility (which is just about shot with me, anyway). I don't think you want to be seen in that way.
You say nothing is cheaper than coal, but this is so close to being untrue that's it's not worth saying. Direct burning of biomass is so close to the cost of burning coal that the difference is not worth discussing. Add just the slightest bit of a carbon tax to coal and it becomes more expensive. The bottom line is that if every coal system was converted to biomass, end users would not see a prohibitive rise in their energy bills.
You then make a statement pertaining to choices one has to make when pressed for land and water, but this has nothing to do with North America. Yes, it's true in India, but we're not focused on India here... we're focused on the US. Here in the US, land and water are not constraining issues for biomass. Or better put, there's far more likelihood to be able to grow biomass for power on a local basis throughout the US than there is to mine and burn coal locally.
You then say no amount of biomass can offset coal emissions. To begin with, this is absolutely untrue. We could replace all coal everywhere in the world with biomass if we wanted to. We definitely have the land area. But it's not a practical way to go. That said, biomass plus solar, wind, geothermal and hydro could certainly do it, especially in the US.
Finally, if one is really serious about climate tipping points, we're far better off switching to a carbon negative system than a carbon neutral one like nuclear.
That said, I reiterate again that I do not inherently oppose nuclear and can imagine some variation of it that makes sense. It already fills an important role and may end up being a reliable, safe, renewable source. But it has some hurdles it still needs to pass.
Richard
Permalink
gmobus Posted 3:39 am
07 Oct 2008
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
vakibs Posted 6:52 am
07 Oct 2008
The fundamental communication gap between me and you is this : you are thinking of current coal usage, I am worried about future coal usage.
Finding sufficient biomass to replace existing coal plants is already a big problem, even in the USA. If you want to just use the wood chips obtained from existing forestry, the collective biomass is around 510e6 tons. This sounds like a lot but it has fewer carbon atoms than present in the annual gasolene consumption of USA.
To make a difference, biomass should be harvested in a major manner. And I strongly support doing that. We need to suck CO2 from the atmosphere, and growing trees is a much better thing to do than something like Lackner process.
But, where I diverge from you is that I really want to have a comprehensive and viable non-carbon energy plan. And nuclear energy has an important role to play in this. At the least, it should be considered the plan (b). If we do not all the energy that is required, every single gap will be filled up by coal. The future demand for coal energy is bound to be much higher than right now. You might be replacing one coal plant with biomass, and another coal plant will pop up in no time. We need to attack this multi-headed monster on all fronts.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 8:31 am
07 Oct 2008
No, I think it is less good, for two reasons. Biofuel enthusiasts, and others who want to grow non-biofuel trees, presumably irrigated with dry water, are going to want the money that might be gained by selling any charcoal they may produce, to people who will burn it. It would not end up underground. No carbon sequestration is promised.
Two, photosynthesis is too inefficient. Much less land is taken by strewn olivine than would be taken by plants able to take down equal CO2, even if the people farming them were not certain to burn them right back into the air.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, author of How fire can be tamed
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:10 am
07 Oct 2008
It says in HIS (Gore's) book:
"Burn 'n destroy . . .
'N repent, 'n redeem
'N revenge, 'n deploy
'N rumble thee forth
To the land of the unbelieving scum on the other side
'Cause they don't go for what's in the book
'N that makes 'em BAD
So verily we must choppeth them up
And stompeth them down
Or rent a nice Earth First bomb
To poof them out of existance
While leaving their real estate just where we need it
To use again
For temples in which to praise
OUR GAIA
("Cause she can really take care of business!")
And when your humble TV servant
With humble brown hair
And humble glasses
And a nice big mansion
And maybe a blonde wife (Tipper) who takes phone calls
Tells us our GAIA says
It's okay to do this stuff
Then we gotta do it,
'Cause if we don't do it,
We ain't gwine up to hebbin!
(Depending on which book you're using at the time . . . Can't use theirs . . . it don't work . . . it's all lies . . . Gotta use mine . . . )
Ain't that right?
That's what they say
Every night . . .
Every day . . .
Hey, we can't really be dumb
If we're just following GAIA's Orders
Hey, Let's get serious . . .
GAIA knows what she's doin' . . .
Gore wrote this book here
An' the book says:
"She made us all to be just like Her," so . . .
If we're dumb . . .
Then GAIA is dumb . . .
(An' maybe even a little ugly on the side)
Blindly following ANY religion is soooo 16th century. Enjoy your dead forests!
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:52 pm
07 Oct 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:24 pm
07 Oct 2008
In Zappa's "opera" "Joe's Garage", the narrator (Zappa talking through a toy megaphone) is "the central scrutinizer", who eventually becomes the voice of a totalitarian society in which music is banned. The albums (3 vinyl records) is about all the terrible things that happen to the protaganist, Joe. Finally, on the last side, the central scrutinizer talks about Joe giving in to a nonmusic reality -- in one of the most incredible displays of dissing a huge part of a story I have ever seen, he says, "and ultimately, who gives a f**k, anyway", which cracks him up. He then says something like, "And now he goes back into his dirty little room, and imagines his last imaginary guitar solo", followed by maybe Zappa's best guitar solo, "Watermelon in Easter Hay".
What this has to do with Backcut's ridiculous comment I'm not sure (maybe midnight is not the best time to comment), but I thought it might convey the sense that he doesn't know what he's talking about, Zappa-wise, because Zappa was very worried about right-wing religious fundamentalists, not environmentalists.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:51 pm
07 Oct 2008
Lyrical dialectic, it's a good thing Back.
All this forest based energy reminds me of raising dental floss. Put the forest in a box? It's the american way, manif-lost destiny.
I might be movin' to Montana soon
Just to raise me up a crop of Dental Floss Raisin' it up
Waxen it down
In a little white box
I can sell uptown
By myself I wouldn't
Have no boss,
But I'd be raisin' my lonely Dental Floss
Raisin' my lonely Dental Floss
Well I just might grow me some bees
But I'd leave the sweet stuff
For somebody else...
but then, on the other hand
I'd Keep the wax N' melt it down
Pluck some Floss N' swish it aroun'
I'd have me a crop
An' it'd be on top
(that's why I'M movin' to Montana)
Movin' to Montana soon
Gonna be a Dental Floss tycoon
(yes I am)
Movin' to Montana soon
Gonna be a mennil-toss flykune
I'm pluckin' the ol' Dennil Floss
That's growin' on the prairie
Pluckin' the floss!
I plucked all day an' all nite an' all Afternoon...
I'm ridin' a small tiny hoss
(His name is MIGHTY LITTLE)
He's a good hoss
Even though He's a bit dinky to strap a big saddle or
Blanket on anyway
He's a bit dinky to strap a big saddle or
Blanket on anyway
Any way I'm pluckin' the ol' Dennil Floss
Even if you think it is a little silly, folks
I don't care if you think it's silly, folks
I don't care if you think it's silly, folks
I'm gonna find me a horse
Just about this big
An' ride him all along the border line
With a Pair of heavy-duty
Zircon-encrusted tweezers in my hand
Every other wrangler would say
I was mighty grand
By myself I wouldn't
Have no boss
But I'd be raisin' my lonely Dental Floss
Raisin' my lonely Dental Floss
Raisin' my lonely Dental Floss
Well I might Ride along the border
With my tweezers gleamin'
In the moon-lighty night
And then I'd Get a cuppa cawfee
N' give my foot a push...
Just me 'n the pymgy pony
Over the Dennil Floss Bush
N' then I might just Jumb back on
An' ride Like a cowboy
Into the dawn to Montana
Movin' to Montana soon
(Yippy-Ty-O-Ty-Ay)
Movin' to Montana soon
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:03 am
08 Oct 2008
Permalink
Backcut Posted 12:12 am
08 Oct 2008
And exposing religions was a big part of his message(s). Be sure to sample the songs in "Broadway the Hardway", as they so ring true today regarding the right wing stranglehold on our nation...."Oh please tell us when? We'll be rid of these MEN!"
I won't bow down to religious fanatics of either side. Many eco's "practice" their religions with all the ritual and ignorance of other controlling churches.
And whatever happened to "Gloom and Doom, with a humorous twist". If you can't laugh at yourselves, then maybe you need to rethink your lives and start enjoying them. It isn't inconsistent with wanting to make this a better world.
Unfortunately, balance in ANY form is in such short supply these days. Neither side is willing to compromise so, "ultimately, who is willing to give a f**k" and worship science as our savior?
The elite left here finds that my demands for scientifically-sound forest management are just totally UNACCEPTABLE. Their "religion" eschews science and embraces idealistic dogma drama. That being your only beef against me, does that warrant you labeling me as a troll, unworthy of even a response? Yes, I AM onboard with a great many of the ways we can save our environment.
(I'm not singling you out, Jon...thanks for the cool remark.)
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:27 am
08 Oct 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:33 am
08 Oct 2008
Hehey.
DOW 6000 by spring?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Russ Posted 3:13 am
08 Oct 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:16 pm
08 Oct 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink