--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Michael Murphy wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <no_reply@>
wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/business/05coalfuel.html
"The coal in the ground in Illinois alone has more energy than all
the
oil in Saudi Arabia. The technology to turn that coal into fuel for
cars, homes and factories is proven. And at current prices, that
process could be at the vanguard of a big, new industry."
It's interesting to see that this is being taken seriously by the
commercial sector. It will
increase pollution most likely, but at least it give us some
options. My guess is that when
push comes to shovel and there is a choice between compromising the
american life style
and compromising the atmosphere, our current government will choose
to maintain our
wasteful life style.
What they (the coal industry) will do I suspect is promote research
which will show that particulate matter released into the atmosphere
from coal burning actually helps mitigate the Greenhouse Effect.
Therefore this will not only be a viable interim solution, it will
help reverse global warming till "cleaner" solutions are in place and
viable. The new WMD.
Actually, as the article points out, and has been the trend for 20
years, coal is much cleaner than it used to be for traditioanl
pollutants: SO2, CO, ozone, No2, PM10 etc. The article says the
current [scrubbing] technology makes coal burning cleaner than natural
gas -- which if true -- is phenomenal. NG has long been the
quite-clean burning fuel of choice for new plants coming on line. And
is the by far largest generation fuel in areas like California.
But CO2 (not CO) is not a traditional pollutant and is not eliminated
/ greatly reduced by these modern scubbers. But, again as the article
points out, as has been the trend, carbon sequestration technology is
advancing. There are experimental plants that pump all CO2 into the
ground. So the generation is CO2 neutral. And quite low in traditional
pollutants.
Some areas, as the article points out cannot pump the CO2 into the
ground, but can pipeline it to industrial areas. The latter needs more
pipeline infrastructure to be truly viable.
Sequestration of carbon is as or more important than i)
energy-efficiency -- getting same power out of less energy input, and
ii) conservation (consuming less, substituting energy intensive
consumption for products and services with lower input. Both would be
greatly enhanced, and "solved" by the market if fuels were priced
efficiently and not laden with huge subsidies (direct and indirect --
that is, not including all costs incurred on society.
Welfare-energy-consumers are of course resistant to efficient market
solutions.
Sequestration can be direct, like the coal plant pumping CO2
underground, or indirect, such as reforestation. 95% of CO2 produced
on earth (not the same as that escaping to atmosphere) is 95% or so
from natural sources. But nature has an abundance of carbom "sinks"
which traditionally have kept CO2 in balance. The 5% man-made carbon
had tipped the balance, thus causing a 30% or so increase in
atmospheric carbon. By increasing, or even re-establishing, natural
carbon sinks -- such as forests -- the greenhouse gas problem looming
for future generations could be substantially mitigated.
If energy were price to reflect its full costs, and thus sending the
correct price signal in all markets -- hugely important to market
economies -- large scale sequestration projects could be funded with
no increase on regular taxes. Then those who want to drive a lot,
and/or drive SUVs, can do so to their hearts content, pay the full
cost of such consumption, send the corrrect price signal for energy,
and provide for more forests (recretion lands) which could keep CO2 in
(or greatly towatds) balance.
Drive and create forest recreation lands! Who doesn't love that.
