Down in Salt Lake City, the National Governors Association is holding a three-day Energy Summit. Tired of federal slacking, the NGA has for the first time in its history drawn up a specific list of priorities for Congress to consider this session. Here's what they said:
At the top of the list - in fact, an "imperative" - is acting to head off the devastation of climate change, Huntsman said during opening remarks at the three-day Utah Energy Summit in downtown Salt Lake City.
The governors want expanded alternative fuels programs, vehicles with better fuel efficiency, continued renewable energy development tax credits, new clean-coal technology that will eliminate emissions of greenhouse gases, enhanced focus on conservation and energy efficiency, and a massive funding infusion for new technology.
Eh. Could be worse. But this, I'm afraid, is 100% Grade-A uncut eeevil:
With a 300-year supply of coal, the nation has no energy shortage, [Montana Gov. Brian] Schweitzer said. Rather, we have a technology shortage that won't change unless Congress spends more money to develop technology that strips and disposes of greenhouse gases that coal-burning power plants generate.
...
"Coal is our future," he said, chiding those who would abandon coal or ignore nuclear power potential. "Are you willing to sit naked in trees and eat nuts?"
Jackass. First off, we don't have a "300-year supply" of coal. That's a bad joke. And more importantly, shifting to renewables and energy efficiency will not leave us naked in trees (though what's wrong with eating nuts?). It will leave us happier, healthier, and safer.
It pains me to say it, since he seems like a good guy and an excellent politician, but I think Schweitzer is having a net negative effect on the energy debate. Coal is the enemy of the human race, and he's one of its most effective lieutenants.
Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things
Comments
View as Flat
bluerock Posted 4:41 am
16 Apr 2007
You may be interested in this: Liquid Coal: Too Expensive, Too Slow, Too Dirty
http://www.worc.org/pdfs/Liquid_Coal_FS_4-06.pdf
Permalink
geos45b5j Posted 2:02 pm
16 Apr 2007
how about toning down the smug self-rightousness and continue to use rational arguments to correct his errors
at least he talks about burying the co2
Permalink
cce Posted 5:15 pm
17 Apr 2007
He didn't say we shouldn't develop renewables. He didn't say that we shouldn't conserve. He said that abandoning coal and nuclear (65% of current electricity production) would leave us naked and eating nuts. Given the current state of conservation and renewables, that will continue to be the case for a long time. "Shift" yes. "Abandon" no.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:35 pm
17 Apr 2007
So Coal cannot be a solution.
_
If they really really wanted to use coal.
Then at very least they should consider using a Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell.
Since it burns coal at 70-80% effeciency.
2x more power for the same ammount of coal.
With no water usage.
(Whats more, it can also eat up pretty much any carbon based fuel. Including biomass)
_
IGCC at it's best is only 55% effecient.
We're squandering money on it.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes2.png
A crude description of IGCC:
Turn Coal into a Syngas
Then burning it in a natural gas power plant
Thats not "Futuristic" at all.
_
We'd be far better off making BioMethane and using that as "Natural Gas".
Best part is, any Biomass, even cow poop works just fine.
Permalink
cce Posted 1:27 am
18 Apr 2007
The question is, even with conservation, what technologies exist today that can completely replace the energy produced by coal and nuclear, and thus make Schweitzer's statement false. Since the reality is that we are going to continue burning coal for decades, we have to make the choice of what type of plant to build using technology that exists today.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:34 am
18 Apr 2007
Hence the need for US government incentives (both positive, and negative)
Some leadership.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:23 am
18 Apr 2007
Yes, if you stipulate that we're going to be burning coal for decades, then you can conclude that we have implement expensive gasification and sequestration technology (which incidentally does not "exist today" in any cost-effective, scaleable sense).
However, I don't accept your stipulation. The convergence of renewables, distributed generation, and smarter grids will render the need for massive, centralized coal power plants obsolete -- maybe not tomorrow, but certainly within "decades."
www.grist.org
Permalink
cce Posted 7:13 am
18 Apr 2007
Schweitzer is trying to get gasification plants built immediately. He's building as much wind power as politically and economically possible. He's also pushing native prairie grass as a biofuel (although, I'm guessing that Grist is against that). Yet, somehow, he's "against" renewables and energy efficiency and should STFU because he believes that "abandoning" coal isn't in the cards? A little less hyperbole and a little more reality.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:08 am
18 Apr 2007
And do you really think Schweitzer is doing everything politically possible on R&E when he goes to coal-sponsored energy summits and proclaims that the alternative to coal is sitting naked in trees? Don't you think that kind of thing affects what is politically possible?
www.grist.org
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 9:41 am
18 Apr 2007
Because IGCC+Seq represents a great "business" (i.e. subsidy/rent-taking) opportunity for a very large, politically powerful industry. While to compete with them, R&E&DG will have to become large and politically powerful, and also re-engineer the grid to take full advantage (which will require more political power).
The barriers are not technical, they are political. The R&E&DG + electranet path is not technically more challenging than developing coal plants that really do sequester CO2 effectively with high confidence over long time periods (although coal plants that appear to sequester carbon effectively, say for a couple of decades, may in fact be easier).
That being the case, we shouldn't let our politicians (or anyone else's) off the hook for supporting the political base of the powers-that-be at the cost of the up-and-coming underdogs.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:56 am
18 Apr 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink