Category Archives: carbon sequestration

SB 1821 Is Dangerous – Carbon dioxiode sequestration is wrong

Posted on by
Reply

I know. Barack Obama, Dick Durbin and every other person on this planet is in favor of this Clean Coal technology. But how advanced is it to use a process created in the late 1800s in 2011. The easy answer is it ain’t. Please call your representative to protest.

http://www.riverbender.com/news/wbgz/rfullstory.cfm?newsfile=2011-03-20-20_FutureGen%20Pipeline%20Issues

FutureGen Pipeline Issues

WBGZ Radio | Mar 18, 2011

The pipeline that’s going to carry carbon dioxide from one place to another as part of the FutureGen clean-coal project is the subject of a bill which has passed a Senate committee.  The bill writes a process for Illinois to oversee the construction and operation of such a pipeline.

“This bill is patterned after what the Illinois Commerce Commission currently does with regard to petroleum pipelines, crude oil, water utility lines, and electric transmission lines,” said sponsoring State Sen. John Sullivan (D-Rushville). Opponents include farmers in Morgan County, where the pipeline would be built.  They say the property owners who do want it are the ones who don’t live there.  FutureGen would use a former Ameren plant in Meredosia to convert coal into carbon dioxide, which would be stored near Alexander.  SB 1821 has passed the Senate Executive Committee.

(Illinois Radio Network)

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Nuclear Power Plants Explode – Gas Prices Explode

Posted on by
Reply

I may have crafted the perfect google whore headline. So which do you think is more important? The nukes or the pocketbook? I vote for the nukes. But which source to cite? God what a beautiful day. Actually it is cold and rainy here but I just meant it at a philosophical level. First the ground rules: 1. None of these nukes will create a China syndrome, 2. They will be messy to clean up but produce no widespread radiation meaning spreading any further than 100 miles, 3. They will not kill off the nuclear power movement worldwide.

First the bad news:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2011/0314/Second-explosion-at-nuclear-power-plant-in-Japan

Second explosion at nuclear power plant in Japan

Monday’s blast destroyed the containment building but the reactor is still intact. Japanese officials also said cooling systems have failed at a third reactor

By Jenna Fisher, Staff writer / March 14, 2011

A new explosion hit Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station on Monday, two days after an explosion at a different reactor housing unit at the power plant. Japanese officials said cooling systems have also failed at a third reactor as a result of Friday’s earthquake and tsunami that knocked out electricity to much of the region

Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. said 11 people were injured in the blast, which authorities said was probably a hydrogen explosion causing the roof and walls of the building to blow away, reported Japan Today.

Today’s explosion has increased concern about a possible release of radiation, such as the fallout from Chernobyl that devastated Ukraine in 1986. However, a number of American and European scientists, as well as Japan’s nuclear safety agency, have downplayed that risk.

IN PICTURES: Japan’s 8.9 earthquake

Despite Saturday’s explosion at reactor No. 1 and Monday’s blast at reactor No. 3, Japan’s nuclear safety agency has said there is “absolutely no possibility of a Chernobyl” style accident at the Fukushima I plant, according to the national strategy minister, reports The Daily Telegraph. While the explosions blew the roof off each of the reactor containment buildings, officials said the reactors themselves remained intact.

“Everything I’ve seen says that the containment structure is operating as it’s designed to operate. It’s keeping the radiation in and it’s holding everything in, which is the good news,” Murray Jennex, of San Diego State University, told the Telegraph.

“This is nothing like a Chernobyl,” he added. “At Chernobyl you had no containment structure – when it blew, it blew everything straight out into the atmosphere.”

:}

For a better discussion of why I mandated guidelines, please see the below related article. The bottom line is they will probably have to pump sea water into at least three reactors, making them pretty much a total economic loss. It will take at least a month for them too cool down. But they were 40 years old and this is what you get when you put your hand in the nuclear cookie jar.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2011/0313/Japan-s-nuclear-crisis-and-Chernobyl-key-differences

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Sane Energy Policy Eludes US – Cap and Trade Works

Posted on by
Reply

It’s the coal boss. It’s the oil boss. It’s the natural gas boss. We have allowed industry to control this country for decades and now we reap the profits. Congratulations America.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/01/carbon-survey-idUSLDE7202I020110301

UPDATE 1-Carbon market puts brave face on headwinds

* Japanese, U.S. cap and trade schemes on hold

* Attendance down at flagship industry conference

* Global carbon price seen at about 30 euros in 2020

(Recasts, adds background, analyst quotes)

By Gerard Wynn and Ivana Sekularac

AMSTERDAM, March 1 (Reuters) – Carbon trading firms remain optimistic about a European market, after a 50 million euros cyberattack, but have given up hope on a U.S. cap and trade scheme, they told an industry conference on Tuesday.

Perhaps indicative of the problems facing carbon markets, attendance was well down on previous years at the Point Carbon conference, at nearly 800, compared with 1,700 in 2008.

The reputation of carbon markets has faced headwinds following the hacking in January of electronic emissions permits from a European scheme, the hub of global trade, as well as dimming expectations of a federal U.S. market.

In addition, hopes are fading that the world will agree on an extension after 2012 to the Kyoto Protocol, which sets binding emissions targets for industrialised nations and so drives demand for international carbon offsets.

“It did not impact trading volumes as much as it damaged credibility and that is the big problem,” said Stig Schjolset, a senior analyst at Point Carbon, of the thefts.

“But that problem can be solved.”

A European Union official said on Tuesday that its executive Commission was working on boosting security. [ID:nLDE7201RE]

The thefts were a jolt to the market which recently suffered a 5 billion euros ($6.91 billion) tax fraud, as well as a scandal involving the re-sale of used carbon credits and a phishing scam. [ID:nLDE70J1KT]

“It’s very, very clear that emissions trading has lost a bit of momentum,” said Ruben Benders, head of carbon markets at the trading firm Mabanaft.

Nevertheless, carbon market practioners felt the European scheme, which was launched in 2005, was still solid, said Point Carbon’s Endre Tvinnereim

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Cynthia Tucker And Energy Policy – Nukes are too expensive

Posted on by
1

This was supposed to be a post about Rick Sanchez. I have been using a list of “leftie” journalists and Sanchez’s was the next name on the list. But he poses an interesting problem, he spent most of his time on television so I could find nothing about him in print. He does have a book out but I do not have a copy of it and could find no one who actually quoted extensively from it on any subject. I even tried Youtube and Bing hoping to get video of him talking about the environment. After an hour and 1/2 I gave up. So here is Cynthia Tucker whom I like alot.

http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/02/23/why-do-savannah-nuke-plants-deserve-taxpayer-money/

Why do Augusta nuke plants deserve taxpayer money?

12:44 pm February 23, 2010, by ctucker

UPDATE: As some of you have pointed out, the nuke plants are near Augusta. Thanks for the correction.

Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss were happy to claim credit for the Obama administration’s announcement that it was guaranteeing loans that would help build nuclear reactors on Georgia’s coast. But it’s an odd thing for the two Republicans, who usually argue that the government ought to stay out of private industry.

In fact, economists might argue that the huge government subsidies are little different from the bank bail-outs and bail-outs for the automotive industry.Liberals and conservatives have argued against the federal guarantees. From the WaPo:

Nuclear power plants “are simply not economically competitive now, and therefore they can’t be privately financed,” said Peter Bradford, an adjunct professor at Vermont Law School and a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “There are many cheaper ways to displace carbon, and there are many cheaper ways to provide for electric power supply.”

Jack Spencer, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a supporter of nuclear power, warned: “Loan guarantees do not a nuclear renaissance make.” He said the guarantees would “perpetuate the problems that have plagued nuclear energy for 30 years: the regulatory structure and nuclear waste [disposal] and too much government dependence.”

William O’Keefe, who heads a science-related think tank in Washington, doesn’t think the loans are such a good idea. From the WaPo:

If private companies are unwilling to risk their capital on new nuclear plants, why should the taxpayer take on part of that risk? The answer is: We shouldn’t.

The U.S. taxpayer has been subsidizing nuclear power since its inception, and it has yet to achieve its potential. Some of this is the fault of government policy, but some of it is just plain economics. The cost of a new nuclear plant has been estimated to be on the order of $4 billion, with some estimates being over $10 billion when cost overruns are taken into account. That makes the cost of nuclear-produced electricity very high.

The Obama administration is promoting nuclear power because it does not involve CO2 emissions. But that is only one criterion, and it should be judged on a cost-benefit basis. How much would new plants coming online over the next two decades reduce the climate change risk? And are there more-cost-effective alternatives for reducing that risk? There is growing evidence that the risk of climate change has been exaggerated, and that certainly weakens the case of the administration.

:}

More tomorrow

:}

While We Are In The Midst Of A Meditation On Conservative Talking Heads

Posted on by
Reply

The Illinois Statehouse is in full swing. So I am going to take a break here and post this relatively import piece of information. PLEASE call your representatives.

https://www.ilenviro.org/news/

Taylorville and Leucadia Proposals Heard by the Illinois Senate
January 5, 2011

Tonight, two energy bills were voted on in the Illinois Senate.  There are no additional bills related to the environment expected to be heard this week.  Each of these bills previously passed the Illinois House.

Taylorville Energy Center (SB2485)

Tenaska’s Taylorville Energy Center (SB2485) has so far failed to pass the Senate following the Senate’s adjournment tonight.  Outgoing State Senator Deanna Demuzio presented the bill to the Senate.  Several senators expressed concerns about the increased rates to businesses.  Senator Kirk Dillard explained his concerns, “When you do the mathematical analysis of this project, it doesn’t make sense.”  He also expressed concern over what he called the “legal pledge that binds the state of Illinois to Tenaska for three decades” contained within the bill.

A few senators expressed concerns about the appearance of a subsidy to a particular business.  Senator Don Harmon expressed concerns over the way the bill “allocates the costs and risks over what is supposed to be a competitive market.”  Harmon, who stated that he would be voting for the bill, described it as a “prudent experiment on how to deal with coal in an environmentally responsible way.”  Many speaking for the bill referred to the facility as a very clean way to process coal.

When the question was called, the vote was 25 voting NO, 29 voting YES and 3 voting PRESENT.  The bill’s sponsor, Senator Demuzio, postponed consideration of the bill, which means that the bill can be called for a vote again.  This bill failed in the House at first, but the same mechanism was used to call the vote for a question again, when it passed.  The Illinois Sierra Club and several business groups opposed this legislation.

Leucadia Energy Facility

The Leucadia Energy Facility (SB3388) passed the Senate tonight and will move to the Governor’s desk for his signature.  Senator Trotter introduced the bill in the Senate.  Only one senator spoke about the bill in addition to the sponsor; Senator Risinger rose in support.  This bill passed the Senate with 36 voting YES, 13 voting NO, and 4 voting present.  View the votes here.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Thomas Sowell On Energy Policy – The conservative illiteracy continues

Posted on by
Reply

This  continues the meditation on conservative (read: right wing) public statements about Energy Policy.  According to Thomas Sowell global warming isn’t happening. For conservatives who don’t like facts they either make up their own or claim others are making them up.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell022808.php3

Jewish World Review Feb. 28, 2008 / 22 Adar I 5768

Cold Water on ‘Global Warming’

By Thomas Sowell

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |

It has almost become something of a joke when some “global warming” conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather.


But stampedes and hysteria are no joke — and creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global warming “crisis.”


They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all “scientists” and then claim that “all” the experts agree on a global warming crisis.


Their biggest argument is that there is no argument.


A whole cottage industry has sprung up among people who get grants, government agencies who get appropriations, politicians who get publicity and the perpetually indignant who get something new to be indignant about. It gives teachers something to talk about in school instead of teaching.


Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?


A new and very different conference on global warming will be held in New York City, under the sponsorship of the Heartland Institute, on March 2nd to March 4th — weather permitting.


It is called an “International Conference on Climate Change.” Its subtitle is “Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?” Among those present will be professors of climatology, along with scientists in other fields and people from other professions.


They come from universities in England, Hungary, and Australia, as well as from the United States and Canada, and include among other dignitaries the president of the Czech Republic.


There will be 98 speakers and 400 participants.


The theme of the conference is that “there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming.”

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Anyone Who Does Not Compost Is Part Of The Problem

Posted on by
1

No one and I repeat NO ONE should be throwing out food. Everyone can compost. If you can’t use the resulting dirt (everyone should have house plants if they value their health) then you can just throw it outside. It doesn’t matter if you live in an apartment in a urban center or a house in the country, the message is stop throwing food in the garbage. The problem starts at the store though. Please stop overbuying food…especially meat.

:}

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/07/opinion/la-oe-bloom-food-waste-20101107

Help the planet: Stop wasting food

Producing it and then getting rid of leftovers require a lot of fossil fuel. Just taking a few simple steps can ease the problem.

Op-Ed

November 07, 2010|By Jonathan Bloom

Let me guess: You’re concerned about the environment. You recycle, buy the right light bulbs, drink from a reusable water bottle (preferably one made of metal) and wish you could afford a hybrid. You try to remember your reusable shopping bags when you go to the market and feel guilty when you don’t.

But there’s something you could be doing that would make a much bigger difference, and it’s not one of those really hard things like carpooling to work or installing solar panels on your roof.

All you need to do is minimize your food waste. If you buy it and bring it home, eat it. That alone is one of the easiest ways to aid the environment.

About 40% of the food produced in the United States isn’t consumed. Every day Americans waste enough food to fill the Rose Bowl. And our national food waste habit is on the upswing: We waste 50% more food today than we did in 1974.

Squandering so much of what we grow doesn’t just waste food; it also wastes the fossil fuel that went into growing, processing, transporting and refrigerating it. A recent study estimated conservatively that 2% of all U.S. energy consumption went to producing food that was never eaten. To give you a sense of perspective, every year, through uneaten food, we waste 70 times the amount of oil that gushed into the Gulf of Mexico during the three months of the Deepwater Horizon spill.

That waste of resources continues after we throw away food. There is the energy required to haul the discarded food to the landfill. And once there, food decomposes and creates methane, a greenhouse gas 23 times more potent a heat trapper than carbon dioxide. Landfills are the second-largest human-related source of methane emissions, and rotting food causes the majority of methane there. It’s climate change coming directly from your kitchen.

:}

America should be ashamed. More tomorrow.

:}

India To Burn More Hydrocarbons – That should clear the air

Posted on by
Reply

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101101/sc_afp/indiaenergyoilpolitics

India predicts 40% leap in demand for fossil fuels

by Penny MacRae Penny Macrae – Mon Nov 1, 7:12 am ET

NEW DELHI (AFP) – Premier Manmohan Singh told India’s energy firms on Monday to scour the globe for fuel supplies as he warned the country’s demand for fossil fuels is set to soar 40 percent over the next decade.

The country of more than 1.1 billion people already imports nearly 80 percent of its crude oil to fuel an economy that is expected to grow 8.5 percent this year and at least nine percent next year.

Demand for hydrocarbons — petroleum, coal, natural gas — “over the next 10 years will increase by over 40 percent,” Singh told an energy conference in New Delhi.

“India needs adequate supplies of energy at affordable prices to meet the demand of its rapidly growing economy,” he said, as rising Indian incomes spur industrial demand and more people buy energy-guzzling cars and appliances.

Singh’s call comes as India is locked in a race with emerging market rival China for fuel supplies to feed their booming economies in which analysts say Beijing has taken a strong lead.

India faces “immense competition from China which has been far quicker to react when an asset becomes available,” Kalpana Jain, senior director of global consultancy Deloitte, told AFP.

:}

More tomorrow

:}

Cleanest Places On Earth – I promised I would follow up

Posted on by
Reply

I had my doubts on Friday whether I would find any lists of the cleanest anything. But if a polluter advocate like Forbes has them, everyone must.

Environment

The Cleanest Countries In The World

Christopher Helman, 04.21.10, 12:00 PM EDT

Europeans getting a shower of ash might disagree, but researchers rate Iceland tops in environmental performance.

Iceland is the cleanest country in the world. This may be hard to believe right now, what with the clouds of volcanic ash grounding flights across northern Europe, but according to researchers at Yale and Columbia universities, the Nordic island ranks first out of 163 countries on their Environmental Performance Index.

Researchers ranked countries based on 25 indicators, including water and air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and the impact of the environment on the health of the population. (For more detail on the methodology, click here.) A score of 100 is excellent. Sierra Leone ranks at the bottom of the list with a score of 32. The U.S. ranks in the middle of the pack with 63.5. Iceland took top honors with a score of 93.5 thanks to ample clean water, lots of protected nature areas, good national health care and a plenitude of usually clean geothermal power.

Slideshow: The World’s 10 Cleanest Countries

Will Eyjafjallajokull wreck Iceland’s rating the next time the academics run the numbers in 2012? The answer is no. “We do not score natural disasters,” says Daniel Esty, a professor of environmental law at Yale who heads up the EPI and wrote the acclaimed book Green to Gold. The index is weighted to metrics that track how governments are performing relative to environmental policy goals, such as access to adequate sanitation and water, habitat protection and industrial emissions. The amount of sulfur dioxide released from fuel usage counts, not what’s put out by volcanoes.

There are two paths that can take a country to the top of the EPI rankings. First, a country could be gifted with a rich endowment of clean water, diverse biology and not have sullied it with rampant industrialism. That’s how Cuba, Colombia and Costa Rica placed so high.

Alternatively, a country could have industrialized and polluted its environment, but eventually gotten rich enough to start cleaning it up. That’s the case with the European countries that make up more than half of the top 30.

:}

More Tomorrow

:}

Algae To Fuel – What is the current status

Posted on by
Reply

Jack Lundee asked if he could do a guest post. I am not fond of algae as a fuel source. Well, I am neutral about it. I think it is counter productive to continue to lust after liquid fuels. Still given the second article I list it is plausible as they say on Myth Busters.

http://everythingleft.wordpress.com/

Fed-Funded Algae Fuel Research making a Strong Comeback

Algae fuel is a biofuel, which is derivative of algae. In 1978, Former President Jimmy Carter pulled the trigger on a 25 million dollar research project into algae fuel production. To make a long story short, the project was somewhat unsuccessful because of the inability of scientists to find a way to make the organisms produce lipids gifted enough to be turned into biofuels, that is, in a high volume, low cost style.

One of the biggest concerns during early research was the fact that burning this algae fuel still released CO2 into the air. Nonetheless, the burning varies much so in that it doesn’t produce any new CO2 emissions like that of fossil fuels. This was a minor concern however, as the fuel was never really able to be inexpensively mass produced.

Now, there are definite signs of hope in the field of algae-based biofuels, as a number of firms and fortune 500 companies are delving into the research, investing billions of dollars. Alternative energy and carbon emission reduction efforts are widespread, funded by large collaborate organizations like the Clinton Global Initiative.  Fathered by ex-President Bill Clinton and Doug Band ( http://politicalinsider.blogs.heraldtribune.com/10498/clinton-heaps-praise-on-band-family/ ),  the CGI ( http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/ )  has made large strides in the San Francisco Bay area, reducing fleet emissions in large numbers. Even more recently, Google made an astounding investment of $38 million dollars into wind farm production.

Ultimately, Exxon Mobile has been one of the largest cooperators/investors into algae-based biofuels, setting aside nearly $600 million dollars as of 2009. In their quest for alternative energy, they joined with Synthetic Genomics Inc., to research and develop next-generation biofuels produced from sunlight.[ http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/07/14/14greenwire-exxon-sinks-600m-into-algae-based-biofuels-in-33562.html ]

But why algae? Here are some major reasons why algae would be a great substitute:

  • Grows in a wide range of climates
  • Lower water intensity than corn or cellulosic ethanols
  • Ability to potentially mitigate CO2
  • Liquid fuels formed are the only one of their byproducts
  • Byproducts are potentially the most valuable

All in all, the 40 percent lipid yield of some species (according to some studies) can produce up to 10,000 gallons of oil per annum (1 acre). This is far more productive than Soy or cellulosic ethanol, which range between 50 to 2700 gallons. [ http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html ]

As in any study, there are drawbacks, and for most companies, it’s the failure to indentify the right strains of algae for high lipid concentration. Also, there are elements like contamination or predation, and dealing with the complicatedness of de-watering and oil withdrawal; all processes which have yet to be perfected.

On July 1, the department of energy (DOE) announced the investment of $24 million for approximately 3 different research groups. Their mission is to target all these obstacles in the mass production of algae-based biofuels. Sustainable Algal Biofuels Consortium, Consortium for Algal Biofuels Commercialization and Cellana LLC Consortium will all perform separate tasks in hopes of igniting an algae fuel based society.

Jack Lundee – Follower of all things green and progressive.

:}

http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/08/03/converting-algae-into-fuel.html

By Marlene Cimons, National Science Foundation

The algae that keep salmon and shrimp a bright pink might keep jet airplanes and automobiles running someday.

It’s no secret that government, scientists and industry are devoting considerable resources and talent to developing renewable, cost-efficient and environmentally-friendly energy sources, the path to energy independence and to reducing the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels.

Click here to find out more!

One solution could come from the fatty acids produced by certain species of salt water algae.

“All photosynthetic plants take water, sunlight and carbon dioxide and make either sugar or fatty acids,” said Dr. William L. Roberts, a professor in the department of mechanical and aerospace engineering at North Carolina State University. “We want the ones that produce a lot of fatty acids.”

He and his colleagues, four biologists and three engineers, are working on ways to produce and extract these fats from Dunaliella, a microscopic species of algae, and convert them into fuel on a large scale, much larger than is possible today. Their research is funded by $1.99 million over four years from the National Science Foundation as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The North Carolina State University project is one of several teams in the nation studying the potential of algae as an energy source, and with great promise. This year the Department of Energy has awarded more than $100 million for bio-fuels research, an investment that includes a recently announced $24 million to specifically address the challenges in the commercialization of algae-based fuels.

“This is going to be one of the most important and dominant industries of the future because we will run out of fossil fuel,” Roberts said.

:}

More tomorrow

:}