Fast-tracking global warming

[one...two...tree 2,762]

These days if you live in a low-lying island state, like say, Tuvalu, pack your bags. If you live in Bangladesh, pack your bags too, or even coastal areas of Florida. The waters are rising and the waters are warming.

If you are a poor nation and can't build higher dikes to protect your vulnerable coastal cities, pack your bags. And, if you live in New York or London, you're not in the clear either -- watch out for catastrophic storm surges.

Of course it's not just too much water that will be the problem, but also too little. The next few decades will be a bad time to live just about anywhere in Africa. Glaciers from the region's tallest peaks like Mount Kenya, the Rwenzori, and Kilimanjaro have lost nearly all their ice caps.

And similar things are happening in the Himalayas, the Andes, the Alps...

But don't worry; the world is aware of the problem and working on change. Over 150 nations gathered recently in Nairobi to talk about the climate crisis and the U.S., the largest contributor to global warming said via representative Harlan Watson: "I do not see any change in our policy." The "policy" in question is to effectively do nothing. In fact, he added, "We feel very comfortable."

OK, so not everyone is doing something about the problem. Here in the U.S. we are doing something worse than nothing -- we are actively working in the wrong direction.

Never has this been more apparent than in Texas where utility giant TXU Corp. is seeking $11 billion to build 11 new coal-fired power plants in the state.

If these plants are built, TXU will become the country's largest corporate emitter of greenhouse gases. To put this in perspective, TXU would be contributing more greenhouse gas emissions than a combined 21 states and more than entire countries, such as New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark, and Sweden. They will also be negating all of the emissions that Japan had planned to cut and 80 percent of the U.K.'s pledged reduction.

Despite the fact that 79 percent of Texans are in favor of renewable energy and just six percent are in favor of more coal production, TXU's project is being fast-tracked by Gov. Perry (who received more than $80,000 in campaign contributions for TXU interests). By trying to quickly push through the permitting process, Perry will be allowing the state to skip the normally mandated period where alternative energy sources would be considered. But don't worry, it's not like there's a lot of wind or sun in Texas or anything.

Even with Perry's best efforts on behalf of polluting energy, there is still a lot to be done to stop the project: just ask the ever-vigilant folks at Rainforest Action Network (RAN).

Sure, Texas might not be in your backyard, but with an international problem like global warming, all of our backyards just got a whole lot bigger.

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.

[peejay 327]

Talk about NIMBY (Not In My Backyard)! This is the first I have heard of it.

Unfortunately, guys like Governor Rick Perry are more concerned with $$$ than quality of life for Texas residents. Welcome to Texas! The mentality is to fill the entire state with tacky shopping malls, McMansion suburbs, and traffic jams from horizon to horizon. And, of course, it all has to be air conditioned to make the inhospitable Texas climate tolerable. And they can't do that without more power plants to crank out more kilowatts.

Coal is by far the cheapest, most practical, and most plentiful route today; but it is also the most polluting (even with modern scrubbers). Natural gas would be a lot cleaner, but I have read that supplies are not adequate to meet future demand.

I really don't know if wind turbines could feasably and reliably replace the capacity of 11 coal fired power plants. Even if wind turbines were a little more expensive per kilowatt hour than coal it would let us all breath easier. Is our health worth paying a few more $$$ per month on electric bills? Global Warming is a problem a lot of people deny, but it is a known fact that burning coal pollutes the air we breathe.

I will definitely be writing and calling my state legislators to find out what is going on. My health is not worth the price of enriching someone elses pockets!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's quite frightening. Back in the 80's and 90's the UK earned the nickname of "the dirty man of europe" after Scandinavian countries complained that emissions from Britains power plants and heavy industry were drifting northwards with the wind and causing air pollution up there.

Similarly you need only look at Southern California to see the result of a laissez faire attitude to environmental issues. Heavy smog and a correspondingly high incidence of respiratory diseases.

Coal should really be abolished as fuel source - though the debate typically focuses on oil, its coal that is the most polluting. Getting rid of it would make a major difference to emissions levels. Of course very many people still choose to disregard the environment altogether by rubbishing global warming. Whether or not you believe in the phenomenon - there are clear advantages to a clean environment.

Edited December 17, 2006 by erekose

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Even if wind turbines were a little more expensive per kilowatt hour than coal it would let us all breath easier. Is our health worth paying a few more $$$ per month on electric bills? Global Warming is a problem a lot of people deny, but it is a known fact that burning coal pollutes the air we breathe.

I say it's about time we put a price tag on emissions. There's definitely a cost associated with pumping carbon dioxide and toxic fumes into the air and thus far, nobody is really paying for that. These costs, until now, are mainly absorbed by the taxpayer. Just another way of subsidizing those that make handsome profits. Once there's a charge on polluting the environment, the economics of clean energy will look a lot better. And that is what it will take to steer away from the backward ways of our energy industry.

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

Liquid coal: A cheaper, cleaner 21st century fuel?

NEW YORK (Reuters) - When railroads ruled, it was the sweating firemen shoveling coal into the furnace who kept the engines running.

Now, nearly two centuries after Stephenson's "Rocket" steam locomotive helped usher in the Industrial Revolution, that same coal could be the fuel that keeps the jet age aloft.

But with a twist: The planes of the future could be flown with liquid fuel made from coal or natural gas.

Already the United States Air Force has carried out tests flying a B-52 Stratofortress with a coal-based fuel.

And JetBlue Airways Corp. supports a bill in Congress that would extend tax credits for alternative fuels, pushing technology to produce jet fuel for the equivalent of $40 a barrel -- way below current oil prices.

Major coal mining companies in the United States, which has more coal reserves than Saudi Arabia has oil, are investing in ways to develop fuels derived from carbon.

The technology of producing a liquid fuel from coal or natural gas is hardly new. The Fischer-Tropsch process was developed by German researchers Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in 1923 and used by Germany and Japan during World War II to produce alternative fuels. Indeed, in 1944, Germany produced 6.5 million tons, or 124,000 barrels a day.

And coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel is already in use elsewhere, like South Africa, where it meets 30 percent of transportation fuel needs.

In addition to being cheaper than oil, advocates point out that the fuel is environmentally friendlier and would also help America wean itself of foreign oil imports.

"America must reduce its dependence on foreign oil via environmentally sound and proven coal-to-liquid technologies," said JetBlue's founder and chief executive, David Neeleman. "Utilizing our domestic coal reserves is the right way to achieve energy independence."

In a recent briefing to power and energy executives, Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, said bio-diesel fuels offer little in the way of reduced carbon dioxide emissions, have enormous production costs and present "serious transmission and infrastructure" problems.

In contrast, CTL transportation fuels are substantially cleaner-burning than conventional fuels.

Popovich warned that the United States risks falling behind economic competitors such as China, which plans to spend $25 billion on CTL plants.

America is "already behind the curve" when it comes to tapping the vast liquid fuel potential that coal offers, said John Ward, of natural resources company Headwaters Inc. which builds CTL plants.

He said plants in America would likely each produce 40,000 barrels of CTL fuel per day, with a typical plant using 8.5 million tons of coal per year. In contrast, China is focused on building plants capable of producing 60,000 barrels of CTL fuel per day, he said.

"There is significant investor interest in what could be a major growth opportunity," said Paul Clegg, an alternative energy analyst with Natexis Bleichroeder.

"It is a viable technology, but the question is where do hydrocarbon prices go now? Will we continue to see oil above $40 a barrel forever?"

In October, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and a consortium of energy and technology companies announced the state will be home to one of America's first CTL energy plants.

The $1 billion Bull Mountain plant is slated to produce 22,000 barrels per day of diesel fuel and 300 megawatts of electricity -- enough to power 240,000 homes -- in six years.

Schweitzer and the companies behind the plant, including Arch Coal and DKRW Advanced Fuels LLC, say the production of fuel and electricity will not release the greenhouse gases associated with coal-generated electricity.

Arch has a 25-percent stake in DKRW and the companies are also developing a CTL plant in Medicine Bow, Wyoming.

At a recent coal industry conference, the heads of two of America's Big Four producers talked up CTL development.

Arch Coal Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Steven Leer said it "could be a game-changer." Chemical companies and railroads were asking him about using coal-based liquid fuels.

"It's a whole new group of potential customers," he said.

Peabody Energy Chief Executive Gregory Boyce said of CTL: "Stay tuned, as the sector continues to evolve.

"I have heard reports that China can produce oil for $25 per barrel from coal. We see it more in the $45 range here."

Peabody recently announced an agreement with Rentech to evaluate sites in the Midwest and Montana for CTL projects. The plants could range in size from producing 10,000 to 30,000 barrels of fuel per day and use approximately 3 million to 9 million tons of coal annually.

Another alternative fuel company, Syntroleum, said recently that its ultra-clean jet fuel was successfully tested in a USAF B-52 at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. The bomber flew with a 50/50 blend of CTL and traditional JP-8 jet fuel.

"The program ... is the first step in opening up new horizons for sourcing fuel for military purposes," said Bill Harrison, a fuels expert with the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.

The flight test was part of the Department of Defense's Assured Fuel Initiative to develop secure domestic sources for the military's energy needs. The Pentagon hopes to reduce its use of crude oil and foreign producers and get about half of its aviation fuel from alternative sources by 2016.

link

[peejay 327]

Liquid coal: A cheaper, cleaner 21st century fuel?

Maybe. The devil is in the details. I'm sure at some point that if the price of crude oil gets high enough or if crude supplies are disrupted for a long period that CTL could be feasable for at least some of US consumption of diesel / jet fuels.

As far as being cleaner...the article didn't go into details. However, I believe the method mentioned probably involves sequestering. This is decarbonizing of coal by refining out a separate stream of carbon dioxide that is captured and disposed of. But where to safely dispose of all this greenhouse causing carbon dioxide? Ah, the devil is in the details.

I am no expert on this stuff, but have just recently read 3 books that address these issues and more. So it is fresh on my mind. One thing is certain...there is no one thing that is the 100% solution and cure all for the world's increasing energy demands and the negative effects associated with it. There is a long way to go...if we are even able to get to that point at all.

Big Coal: the dirty secret behind America's energy future

by Jeff Goodell - 2006

The End of Oil: On the edge of a perilous new world

by Paul Roberts - 2004

The Long Emergency: surviving the end of oil, climate change, and other converging catastrophes of the twenty-first century

by James Howard Kunstler - 2006

All are interesting and informative reading if you have the time. The Long Emergency is the most entertaining, but the least optimistic.

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

Liquid coal: A cheaper, cleaner 21st century fuel?

Maybe. The devil is in the details. I'm sure at some point that if the price of crude oil gets high enough or if crude supplies are disrupted for a long period that CTL could be feasable for at least some of US consumption of diesel / jet fuels.

As far as being cleaner...the article didn't go into details. However, I believe the method mentioned probably involves sequestering. This is decarbonizing of coal by refining out a separate stream of carbon dioxide that is captured and disposed of. But where to safely dispose of all this greenhouse causing carbon dioxide? Ah, the devil is in the details.

I am no expert on this stuff, but have just recently read 3 books that address these issues and more. So it is fresh on my mind. One thing is certain...there is no one thing that is the 100% solution and cure all for the world's increasing energy demands and the negative effects associated with it. There is a long way to go...if we are even able to get to that point at all.

Big Coal: the dirty secret behind America's energy future

by Jeff Goodell - 2006

The End of Oil: On the edge of a perilous new world

by Paul Roberts - 2004

The Long Emergency: surviving the end of oil, climate change, and other converging catastrophes of the twenty-first century

by James Howard Kunstler - 2006

All are interesting and informative reading if you have the time. The Long Emergency is the most entertaining, but the least optimistic.

i think we should go back to nuclear power. the us navy has used them for decades and not had problems.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Liquid coal: A cheaper, cleaner 21st century fuel?

Maybe. The devil is in the details. I'm sure at some point that if the price of crude oil gets high enough or if crude supplies are disrupted for a long period that CTL could be feasable for at least some of US consumption of diesel / jet fuels.

As far as being cleaner...the article didn't go into details. However, I believe the method mentioned probably involves sequestering. This is decarbonizing of coal by refining out a separate stream of carbon dioxide that is captured and disposed of. But where to safely dispose of all this greenhouse causing carbon dioxide? Ah, the devil is in the details.

I am no expert on this stuff, but have just recently read 3 books that address these issues and more. So it is fresh on my mind. One thing is certain...there is no one thing that is the 100% solution and cure all for the world's increasing energy demands and the negative effects associated with it. There is a long way to go...if we are even able to get to that point at all.

Big Coal: the dirty secret behind America's energy future

by Jeff Goodell - 2006

The End of Oil: On the edge of a perilous new world

by Paul Roberts - 2004

The Long Emergency: surviving the end of oil, climate change, and other converging catastrophes of the twenty-first century

by James Howard Kunstler - 2006

All are interesting and informative reading if you have the time. The Long Emergency is the most entertaining, but the least optimistic.

i think we should go back to nuclear power. the us navy has used them for decades and not had problems.

No problems? Has the NAVY come up with a way to safely dispose of the nuclear waste?

[mawilson 2,133]

No problems? Has the NAVY come up with a way to safely dispose of the nuclear waste?

Of course! Dump it in African countries

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

No problems? Has the NAVY come up with a way to safely dispose of the nuclear waste?

Of course! Dump it in African countries

the navy takes a dump in african countries?