Can somebody help me out here?  There is a law case against TXU down here in Texas - don't worry I'm not trolling here and was rejected for the plaintiffs or the defendants - but the enviros are claiming that synthetic or coal gasification would be the answer, as opposed to burning crushed coal.  That preplexed me, as it seemed like that process, which involves cooking coal with - ahem - more coal could actually create MORE emissions.  Then I asked about all the solid waste and was kicked out of the Texas shoot out, for which I was very grateful.

What say ye?

This is something that The Grist should follow because the TX Governor has "fast-tracked" the coal permits, but switching to a different fuel or process would involve completely new permit applications.  PLus, Texas Legislature just started it's biennial session.  

I tried and tried to say the Syn-Gas and CO2 evaluation was wrong, but apparently telling the enviros what to do is sometimes like barking up a tree, even if things are at best questionable.  Dang, and here I thought I was a progressive liberal.  Combined cycle gas with 2007 BACT and LAER, anyone?  /Sammie

Onward through the fog

   But when you're starving, you'll sup with the devil and hope your spoon is long enough.

patrick

  Thinking about the push for coal despite the rapidly mounting evidence of climate disruption, I realized last night that the utilities are being motivated in part by two things:

    1) A desire to secure as many carbon allowances as possible by building as much CO2-producing capacity as possible before that ship sails.

    2) A belief that regulators and legislatures will respond to carbon caps and limits with stranded cost relief for the utilities.

  In other words, I think utilities are confident that they can build big coal burners on a no-risk, no-lose basis.  Sink a billion or two into coal burners, get a great bump on your rate base, and if anything hampers the operation of the plants, sell the carbon allowances you grabbed by building all that capacity--and then demand that regulators provide stranded cost recovery because they approved construction.

  I suggest that the best thing that concerned environmentalists can do today is to pressure their legislatures and state regulators to adopt a clear and unambiguous policy, to wit:

=> Utilities building coal plants do so at their own risk, and

=> There will never be any stranded cost protection or relief provided if (WHEN) they are not allowed to operate or their operation is constrained by carbon caps.

Texas already dumps more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other state in the nation.

I love the anti-texas sentiment.  Lets see Texas is:

The second largest population in the US
A major center for oil production, importation, and refining
A major source of livestock (see the FDA's long shadow)

Gee, I wonder why it is #1 for CO2.  There are reporters that try to solve problems.  And there are reporters that try to make people "hate the other guy".

Too.  Texan irony.  The utility customers are clamoring for wind because it's cheaper and green, but the back log in wind machine orders is slowing the switch.  In steps coal.  To fill the gap.

Mass production of very large wind machines is a top priority for this energy re-evolution.

The position of governor in Texas is strictly ceremonial, it has almost no authority.  Yet obama is seem as lacking experrience?  The village idiot in chief got zero experience at governance as head cowboy.

Another irony.  Bush has solar panels and a geothermal heating system at the "ranch".

Texas, it's like a whole other country.  Or countries.  It executes minority prisoners willy-nilly and yet its capitol Austin is a bastion of progressive energy and music.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog