Category Archives: big coal

Carbon Sequestration The Way It Should Be Done – I am not a huge fan of this but

Posted on by
Reply

The method they are using here is preferable to simply drilling a well anywhere and trying to bury it in the ground. The oil in spent fields never will get out and there was plenty of pressure, so this at least seems safe.

http://www.cbs19.tv/story/18856255/doe-notice-advances-development-of-indiana-gasifications-co2-pipeline

DOE Notice Advances Development of Indiana Gasification’s CO2 Pipeline

Information contained on this page is provided by companies via press release distributed through PR Newswire, an independent third-party content provider. PR Newswire, WorldNow and this Station make no warranties or representations in connection therewith.

SOURCE Indiana Gasification

Transporting CO2 to Gulf States Could Boost U.S. Oil Production by 20 Million Barrels a Year

ROCKPORT, Ind., June 22, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Indiana Gasification welcomed today’s Federal Register publication by the U.S. Department of Energy of an amended notice of intent (NOI) to include an approximately 440 mile CO2 pipeline in the environmental impact statement (EIS) required for DOE financial backing of IG’s state-of-the-art clean fuels facility.

The DOE publication marks the most recent regulatory development in support of the plant, which will be the cleanest coal-fired facility ever built in the United States. In the last two months, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management has filed a proposed clean air permit with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and issued a draft Clean Water Act permit.

In the Notice of Intent, the Department of Energy acknowledges that the proposed project with the CO2 pipeline qualifies for financing under the 2008 appropriations act providing authority for industrial gasification activities. Further, the DOE has determined that the project meets two goals of the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program, encouraging the commercial use of new or significantly improved technology and achieving substantial environmental benefits.

:}

Go there and read. More tomorrow.

:}

Coal Is Going Down Down Down – It couldn’t happen to a nicer industry

Posted on by
Reply

Lets see they lie, cheat and steal. But they also pollute the heck out of the environment and they get people killed. I am going to miss these guys.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/story/2012-06-12/coal-to-gas-project-denied/55557114/1

U.S. coal use falling fast as utilities switch to gas

By Jonathan Fahey, Associated Press

NEW YORK – America is shoveling coal to the sidelines.

The fuel that powered the U.S. from the industrial revolution into the iPhone era is being pushed aside as utilities switch to cleaner and cheaper alternatives.

The share of U.S. electricity that comes from coal is forecast to fall below 40% for the year, its lowest level since World War II. Four years ago, it was 50%. By the end of this decade, it is likely to be near 30%.

“The peak has passed,” says Jone-Lin Wang, head of Global Power for the energy research firm IHS CERA.

Utilities are aggressively ditching coal in favor of natural gas, which has become cheaper as supplies grow. Natural gas has other advantages over coal: It produces far fewer emissions of toxic chemicals and gases that contribute to climate change, key attributes as tougher environmental rules go into effect.

:}

Go there and laugh, I mean read. More tomorrow.

:}

Video About How The Planet Can Be Saved – Environmental claymation

Posted on by
Reply

Here we go again . I am going to try to share a video from a cool website I found. You all know how bad I am at this so do not hold your breath.

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/06/08/the-healing-power-of-new-energy-friday-fun/

The Healing Power of New Energy (Friday Fun)

June 8, 2012 By
Here’s a fun video in support of clean energy and a healthy planet that I ran across on NewEnergyNews recently:

:}

Well for now I failed but if you go to the New Energy News link you can see it.

:}

Go there and see the video from The Colbert Report. More tomorrow.

:}

Oh If This Were True – Humans voluntarily give up fossil fuels

Posted on by
Reply

How cool would the world be if we actually stopped raping the Earth and started responsible stewardship instead. But I am suspicious around humans, so we will just have to see.

http://www.wheels.ca/news/peak-oil-are-we-looking-at-it-all-wrong/

Peak oil: Are we looking at it all wrong?

By as early as 2015, global demand for oil will begin to decline, some scientists say. Not because we’ll have run out of the fossil fuel, but because we just won’t need as much of it.

Published May 31, 2012

I don’t know about you, but when I’m skimming around on the Web and I catch sight of the phrase “Scientists now say” or “Some analysts find” I usually just click right on by. Because that article is going to be a bummer. Those analysts will find that the U.S. educational system is actually removing knowledge from children’s minds, and those scientists will turn out to say that pizza consumption is related to early-onset dementia. So I keep going until I find something about psychic twins or a baby raised by goats.

But it’s a good thing I broke with tradition when I came to the New Scientist article “Dump the pump: When oil will lose its luster.” Guess what these scientists and analysts now find? You know that whole problem with oil, how eventually it’s going to run out and trigger a global depression and maybe a breakdown of civilization and is it really such a good idea to bring children into this crazy world? Well don’t sweat it, everything’s going to be totally fine. It’s all going to be one hundred percent a-okay.

All right, that might be a somewhat simplistic rendering of the argument. What the scientists and analysts are arguing – and presenting evidence for – is that although we’ve been worrying this whole time about peak oil supply, the operative force will actually be peak oil demand. Due to a variety of factors – the article focuses mainly on advances in automotive fuel efficiency – global demand for oil is only going to keep increasing for a few more years, after which it will begin to decline and will continue on a downward path.

:}

I just printed the premise. Go there and read the rest. More Next week.

:}

Coal Is A Thing Of The Past – Some people are slow on the uptake

Posted on by
Reply

As my great Grandfather used to say, this guy is so full of pig manure it’s running out of his ears. But then he was a hog farmer.

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/from-the-right/governments-war-on-coal-is-a-war-of-regulations-against-americas-way-of-life-148006215.html

Governments “war on coal” is a war of regulations against Americas way of life

Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2012 at 04:21 PM

The new EPA rulings will finally bring to fruition President Obama’s promise his policies will necessarily bankrupt the coal industry.

Four years ago, then-candidate Barack Obama explained his anti-coal energy policy in an editorial board meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad.”  “So if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can – it’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

But the 2010 elections saw a landslide defeat of those politicians in the house and senate who supported skyrocketing our utility rates through cap and trade and put an end to President Obama’s aspirations in a new energy tax.

But that didn’t put an end of efforts to kill the coal industry and the day after the landslide defeats of the 2010 elections, President Obama said  “Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.”

After that the EPA began to enact regulation by bureaucratic fiat rather than the legislative process.

Even staunch supporters in the labor unions are beginning to wake up to the fact that they are being regulated out of a job if the Obama administration has its way.  The Keystone Pipeline rejection already has hit the labor unions hard by halting the creation of 20K plus jobs in the construction industry.

:}

Regrettably I must say, go there and read. More tomorrow.

:}

Building The Buildings Of The Future – No Air conditioning is a place to start

Posted on by
Reply

This is an old piece but it is still as true today as it was then. Air conditioning and by that I mean cooling air when it is hot is very expensive both financially and with regards to energy consumption.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/buildings-without-air-conditioners-the-latest-in-energy-efficiency-5413/

Buildings Without Air Conditioners: The Latest in Energy Efficiency

Air conditioners consume an inordinate amount of power in the U.S. and they aren’t very efficiently used. To save energy, some say leave them out.

Michael Kanellos: December 22, 2008

Sometimes the most efficient air conditioning system is not having one at all.

To curb energy consumption, architects with projects in temperate cities – Seattle, Portland, San Francisco – have started to design buildings without mechanical air conditioners. These buildings will have heaters in all likelihood, but not air conditioning (see Can Greentech Make Housing Cheaper and Green Buildings No Subsidies Needed).

“There are only five days a year you need cooling in Seattle,” said Amanda Sturgeon, an architect and senior associate at the firm Perkins + Will, who recently designed a building without a mechanical conditioner.

In some cases, architects are putting in air-side economizers, i.e., computer-controlled windows that open to let in cooling breezes (see The Solar Window). The General Services Administration building in San Francisco uses openable windows on 12 of its 18 floors that let in cool breezes at night that, ideally, keep the offices cool in the daytime.  There is no mechanical cooling in the open office areas.

This shift comes courtesy of two trends. One, building developers and contractors have latched onto green buildings as an economic opportunity. Designing a building to LEED Silver or Gold standards – the environmental building standards promulgated by the U.S. Green Building Council – only adds around 2 percent to the overall cost or less, according to various contractors, architects and researchers. Designing to the LEED Platinum standard can add only 6 percent if carefully planned. The trick, say Sturgeon and others, is to exploit as many passive, design-centric techniques for scoring LEED points before moving on to the potentially more expensive, equipment-centric ones like biomass boilers or new types of lighting systems.

:}

Go here and read. More tomorrow.

:}

Wind And Solar Cheaper Than Coal – Or so says Michigan

Posted on by
Reply

Since we are in a Utility state of mind this week, the PSC of Michigan just released this report according to the folks at AWEA.

http://www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1699=14546

Mich. Public Service Commission: Renewable energy cheaper than coal

Posted: 2012-03-02 Tom Gray

We often run “Fact check” articles on this blog when fossil-fuel-funded “experts” exaggerate the cost of electricity generated with wind power (for a particularly bald-faced recent example, see Fact check: American Enterprise Institute epic FAIL on study of wind costs, Feb. 29), but perhaps this one should be titled “Reality check.”

Reality: the Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) recently issued a report that finds that electricity generated from renewable energy sources, at an average cost of $91 per megawatt-hour (9.1 cents/kilowatt-hour), is almost one-third cheaper than the cost of electricity from a new coal-fired power plant ($133 per MWh, or 13.3 cents/kWh).

Further, the report notes, “The actual cost of renewable energy contracts submitted to the Commission to date shows a downward pricing trend.  This was the case as of the filing of this report in February of 2011 and continues to be the case, as the two most recent contracts approved by the Commission for new wind capacity have levelized costs of $61-$64 per MWh.  This is significantly lower than the levelized costs of the first wind contracts submitted in 2009.” (emphasis added)

The report is one in a series required annually from the Commission to the state legislature, reporting on the impact of the state’s Renewable Energy Standard (RES), which requires utilities to obtain 10 percent of the electricity they provide from renewable energy sources by 2015.

Other highlights from the report:

– While utilities are allowed to charge customers extra for renewable energy, customers are also seeing savings due to wind.  Said the Commission, “While … surcharges have an impact on electric rates, there are also economic benefits attributable to an increase in renewable energy generation sources and improved energy efficiency. As noted in previous sections, the cost of energy generated by renewable sources continues to decline and is cheaper than new coal-fired generation.

:}

Go there and read. More tomorrow.

:}

Utility Sized Storage For Electricity Has Never Been A Problem

Posted on by
Reply

The alledged lack of utility size storage has always been the coal and gas minions excuse to the public for distrusting alternative forms of energy. It also has never been true. One of the easiest storage system was proposed in the 50s. That would be pumping water up hill to a reserve and then at night letting it run down hill through a turbine. This creates a complete energy loop that could in theory last forever. Another proposed in the 70s was to heat molten salts and then extract the heat later. The one that always excited me the most was actually proposed in several different places and times; and was actually proposed to capture lightening. All it is is a giant battery in the ground which uses the earth as an insulator. But now that the tech guys are getting into the act, I am sure the utility companies will just throw up their hands and toss in the towel.

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/18/new-flow-battery-does-that-cheap-energy-storage-thing/

 

New “Flow” Battery Does that Cheap Energy Storage Thing

February 18, 2012 By

Scientists on the lookout for utility-scale, high efficiency batteries are developing new “flow”systems that that store energy more effectively than lead-acid or lithium-ion batteries, but there’s a catch. The flow batteries in operation now are about the size of a house and they cost more than the equivalent in lithium-ion batteries. The race is on to find smaller, cheaper alternatives and researchers at Sandia National Laboratories believe that they are on to the solution, which is, in fact, a solution of liquid salts called MetILs.

The limits of lithium-ion for wind and solar

Lithium-ion batteries have been the gold standard of energy storage solutions for a long time, but they fall short when it comes to the utility-scale systems needed to keep up with new high efficiency wind turbines and advanced solar technology. The cost of lithium-ion batteries is one factor. Another is their relatively short lifespan, compared to flow batteries. According to Sandia chemist Travis Anderson, a flow battery can withstand about 14,000 cycles, which adds up to about 20 years of energy storage.

Flow battery basics

Flow batteries work by converting chemical energy into electricity. Stephanie Hobby of Sandia explains it thusly:

“A flow battery pumps a solution of free-floating charged metal ions, dissolved in an electrolyte — substance with free-floating ions that conducts electricity — from an external tank through an electrochemical cell to convert chemical energy into electricity.”

Flow batteries charge and discharge rapidly, and they have a long lifespan, but all is not perfect in flow battery land. The most promising systems so far use zinc bromine and vanadium, both of which are “moderately toxic” according to Hobby. In addition, the price of vanadium can spike wildly on the open market.

:}

Go there and read. More tomorrow.

:}

Rightwing Rant From A Probable Oil And Gas Stock Holder – Or is it coal

Posted on by
Reply

I normally would not put up a rant against alternative forms of energy which I believe are the energies of the future. But I love how they all make the same mistake. We as a society must use the CHEAPEST forms of energy. Yet we as a society get to SAY what kinds of energy are used and then it is up to businesses to get on with what they do best – steal us blind. Resources are not free to those that just dig them up and they can not be allowed to destroy the world while they are at it. This shouter and denier from Northern Wisconsin is all about preposterous side arguments that are not even true in his political wet dreams.

http://madisle.info/2012/01/30/renewable-green-energy-yields-very-poor-results/#axzz1lLKfgK9z

Renewable “Green” Energy Yields Very Poor Results

avatar

Yeah, yeah. I know. You’re tired of me telling you “I told you so,” but once again, as usual, I am right and you are not.

Why we’re even fiddling around with this green alternative energy crap is beyond me. It doesn’t work for the most part, and what does work is extremely expensive and highly inefficient.

Renewable electric energy from nonhydroelectric sources — chiefly wind and solar — contributed only 3.6 percent of total U.S. generation in 2010 — yet received 53.5 percent of all federal financial support for electric power.

And wind power alone, which provides 2.3 percent of generation, received 42 percent of all support.

Wind and solar renewable energy have failed to thrive despite government support because they face substantial “market impediments,” according to Benjamin Zycher, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

“Energy policies in the United States for decades have pursued energy sources defined in various ways as alternative, unconventional, independent, renewable, and clean in an effort to replace such conventional fuels as oil, coal, and natural gas,” Zycher states on the AEI website, and “renewable electricity receives very large direct and indirect subsidies from the federal and state governments.

“These long-standing efforts have, without exception, yielded poor outcomes.”

 

:}

Go there and read the rubbish. More tomorrow.

:}

City Council Turns Down CWLP Ratehike – Doesn’t even get one vote to get out of committee

Posted on by
Reply

I am not as funny as Ray Lytle but the Springfield City Council was on a roll with CWLP last night when they tried to ask for a WHOPPING 9.3% increase in the rates they charge their electric customers. First they blamed the spot market, then they blamed the EPA’s new regulations, then they blamed the increase in the price of coal and finally they blamed the bond markets. They never explained why they borrowed 6,000,000 $$$ from the water fund.

http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x715338997/Council-rebuffs-CWLP-rate-hike-seeks-alternatives?zc_p=0

 

Council rebuffs CWLP rate hike, seeks alternatives

Posted Jan 31, 2012 @ 11:00 PM
Last update Feb 01, 2012 @ 05:52 AM

Springfield aldermen Tuesday rejected the idea of a 9.5 percent electric rate increase and directed City Water, Light and Power officials to come up with alternative plans.

Eric Hobbie, the utility’s chief engineer, told reporters after the meeting that the possibilities are limited and might mean “substantial changes to the way we do business.” He declined to elaborate on what those changes could be.

CWLP officials and Mayor Mike Houston have said a rate increase is needed to give CWLP a sufficient revenue cushion to repay its bonds and maintain the utility’s bond rating.

The immediate rate hike would raise $19.1 million annually, Additional, smaller rate hikes also are being sought in future years.

However, no city council member even moved Tuesday to put the matter on next week’s city council debate agenda.

Several aldermen said they are concerned about hiking electric rates.

“We can’t do that to the citizens today,” Ward 1 Ald. Frank Edwards said. “We need to find some different means, some different alternative. … There’s a lot of people really hurting out there.”

Ward 3 Ald. Doris Turner agreed.

“I just cannot in clear conscience vote for a 10 percent increase,” she said. “I just think that is just too much to put on the ratepayers.”

“There’s got to be a better way,” Ward 4 Ald. Frank Lesko said.

Utility officials say CWLP’s revenue problems began in the fall of 2008, when the economy collapsed and energy prices dropped. Prices for power CWLP sells on the wholesale market have continued to decline ever since, and the utility’s wholesale revenues are $20.5 million below budget, officials say.

:}

Really funny guys. Go there and read the rest. More tomorrow.

:}