Aloha, Doc!

A drive-by zed…! I got called today to fill-in up atop the Mountain! Couldn’t say no! Aloha Oe!!!

Hasn’t his campaign pledged to enact the 10 year renewable energy plan?

good luck and have fun Ctuttle

Kirk, good informative post. thanks. Would you please explain what the theory of “clean” coal is? I am trying to imagine it but I grew up when people burned coal in their fireplaces and I don’t know how you make coal clean.

yep they have though I am most unhappy about the clean coal bit. Put the pressure on not to include that rot in the mix and we have a winner

Guess who is going to Roswell tomorrow?

That’s one of the things my Blue Dog representative talks up. Clean coal technology, and energy from switch grass. Miners and farmers like it.

Ok who?

I am not in much mood for anti-Obama sentiment. I think he is working very hard; he has so much talent to bring us along in a different direction. He is to be held accountable like anyone else. But please let him get launched.

Glad the post is useful: thank you.

Starting around 2000, the term “clean coal” has been a marketing device:

In 2000, in an effort to combat the erosion of public support for coal power, the Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) created Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), a multimillion-dollar public relations campaign aimed at emphasizing the importance and downplaying the environmental impacts of coal-fired power production. CEED, which owns the domain name for ABEC’s website, was founded by Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, Southern Company, and DTE Energy.[1]

The quote above from PR Watch discusses one meaning of “clean coal”. PR Watch also describes other meanings:

As described in the article Clean coal, the meaning of the term “clean coal” has evolved over time, with two main current uses:

* Incrementally cleaner coal: One usage generally refers to efforts to reduce the amount of air pollution created by coal-based power generation. As used in government programs, the term typically refers to measures to reduce air pollution through practices such as chemical processes for washing coal of minerals or impurities, smokestack scrubbers, or coal gasification. It should be noted that most such processes create new waste pollution streams.

* Futuristic promises of “zero-emissions coal”: The other usage of the term is typically found in coal industry advertising and messaging, where a future in which coal can be used without environmental damage is implied, often indirectly rather than explicitly.

[James] Carville family reunion?

Beautifully, if not frighteningly written. Ninety-five months. So much to do, so little time.

In keeping with Ian’s last post and some comments I made earlier in the day, so much of what happens in our government and politics is nothing other than a series of cons. Corn-based ethanol is one of these. Clean coal is another. The recent buzz about drilling is yet another.

The clock is running not only on global warming but also on peak energy. What we need is an energy audit in this country. We need a plan. And we need to stick to it and not get distracted by cons. Such a plan would have to look at our energy needs, alternative energy sources, conservation, mass transit, community planning, but population size as well.

The window for action on global warming is much smaller than that for peak energy. Still, we can not effectively address global warming without controlling how we use energy, especially since so much of our energy is carbon based.

Has Obama stated which definition he is going by?

Add nuclear power to the mix and we have a double whammy. McSFB says that because nuclear powered ships have been around for long time that the storage problem is not a problem. Problem is he doesn’t say how or where the waste is stored.

Pretty much every pol sees coal, which provides 50% of the nation’s energy, as a continued part of the energy mix — and there’s a big push to clean it up, though cleaning it in one way may leave dirty residues in other ways: http://features.csmonitor.com/…..al-anyway/

From the comments section of http://features.csmonitor.com/…..al-anyway/

The national debate about so-called “clean coal” has settled into two entrenched positions. On one side are proponents of “FutureGen” carbon sequestration, a far-off technology that if even possible would collect billions of tons of coal emissions and then pipe them into deep underground caverns. On the other side are environmentalist activists who call clean coal an industry-perpetuated myth, and who demand that all future energy needs be met by alternative energy sources including solar, wind, thermal and even a renewed faith in nuclear power. What’s common to these concepts is that most of us will be gone before any of them come to fruition.

In the meantime, America’s demand for energy will continue to increase at least ten percent faster than our ability to supply it. It doesn’t matter if we never build another coal plant, or if tomorrow morning we break ground for all the wind farms and nuclear plants that we would ever need. The fact is that burning coal provides half of all America’s electricity, and will have to continue being our primary energy source for at least the next 50 years. This is not any side’s political, environmental or industry rhetoric. It’s just fact. But this reality underscores an option that despite its logical promise has been largely ignored in the nation’s energy debate. Far from the futuristic extremes of clean coal versus no coal is the ability to make the coal we must use both cleaner and more efficient. And we are able to accomplish this right now. Without the benefit of billion-dollar federal grants or publicity from celebrity environmentalists, companies like my company, Evergreen Energy and its development partner Bechtel, have spent years perfecting technology that refines western lower-quality coal before being burned. This “pre-combustion” method literally multiplies coal’s energy value so that it produces considerably more heat while spewing less mercury, sulfur dioxide, chlorides and nitrogen oxides. In some cases refined coal even shows real promise of lessening CO2 emissions. Considering technology advances in just the last 20 years, there’s good reason to believe that American ingenuity will figure out how to reconcile today’s conflicting energy and environmental agendas. In the meantime, refined coal offers a stable bridging technology, a way for America to get far more out of its 200 years worth of coal reserves while significantly improving the air we breathe. Yes, there are going to be opponents to refined coal. Some have all their money and political capital invested in carbon capture. Other activists will undoubtedly argue that making dirty coal cleaner just makes us even more dependent on it, to the detriment of alternative energy development. These are all legitimate concerns. But they shouldn’t justify leaving the potential, immediate benefits of refined coal technology out of the conversation altogether.

The path to America’s new energy economy is not a mile-wide chasm lined by coal lobbyists and environmentalist all debating how to best make an impossible leap to the other side. The first step is to get this country serious about the using hotter, cleaner coal right now.

That’s what we did for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in late 2006 and early 2007. It didn’t work out so hot, and I remember the arguments about “just give them a chance” really, really well. Why don’t we skip the “unearned trust” phase and let him earn trust rather than taking it for granted?

And even if you think he’s more wonderful than sunshine and kittens, keeping the pressure on from the left is important. “Make me do it”.

That’s a good question to which I don’t have the answer. WIth no snark intended, i tend to focus more on actions.

Obama’s action on “clean coal” is notable for his active support for the futuristic vaporware variety.

Even the other variety simply generates new immense waste streams…..

thanks, Kirk. I remember how it smells when burning and if used long enough it leaves a sooty residue on everything. We don’t need that in our air or lungs.

Off topic: Looks like Joe the Plumber may be driving illegally in Ohio because his license was suspended in Arizona in 2001, his fine remains unpaid and went to a collection agency, yet he got an Ohio license in 2001. According to Ohio law, he’s not allowed to have a license until he resolves the Arizona situation. Source: East Valley Tribune in Arizona.

The Digg is now open Pups!! So go ahead and Digg this Post from Dr Kirk and in Support of OUR Lake!!

God? ha

Baseline assumptions that assume you don’t do either a large buildout on other technologies or a large push to reduce the amount of energy used, which is actually dead easy to do and sure a lot better way to spend a trillion dollars than what the money is being used for now. There isn’t an environmental scientist I’ve talked to who thinks that clean coal is anything but a complete scam.

This is another case of “look, it doesn’t matter. You can say it “must” be coal, what we’re telling you is that if you don’t find another way, you’re going to kill hundreds of millions of people. Your choice. We think there are other ways. Maybe you should listen.”

I’ll see about getting a serious enviro in here to debunk specifically.

How about we go on the FDR meme…… “Make me do it”…… I would like to hear that from Obama……. IF you want single payer Healthcare……. “Make me do it” …..

And there a few topics that cannot be brought up while a candidate is running without a corporate sh*tstorm raining down on them…….. think of Howard Dean scream….. just a few days before he talked about breaking up media consolidation…… poof the media takes him down…….

Are they building a new coal fired plant in Wassila?

God seems to have gotten lost.

“Evergreen Energy and its developmemt partner Bechtel….”
Bechtel = Bad.

more on Clean Coal upstairs

Though Obama’s reflexive supporters and others more focused on pols than upon the pols’ actions may find the fact uncomfortable, Obama could choose to support options that do not require “clean coal”.

The complete universe of energy options is not circumscribed by the CSM’s comment section.

Lester Brown’s Earth Policy Institute has more information about just one such option:

With concentrating solar thermal power (CSP) capacity expected to double every 16 months over the next five years, worldwide installed CSP capacity will reach 6,400 megawatts in 2012—14 times the current capacity. (See data.)

Unlike solar photovoltaics (PVs), which use semiconductors to convert sunlight directly into electricity, CSP plants generate electricity using heat. Much like a magnifying glass, reflectors focus sunlight onto a fluid-filled vessel. The heat absorbed by the fluid is used to generate steam that drives a turbine to produce electricity. Power generation after sunset is possible by storing excess heat in large, insulated tanks filled with molten salt. Since CSP plants require high levels of direct solar radiation to operate efficiently, deserts make ideal locations.

Two big advantages of CSP over conventional power plants are that the electricity generation is clean and carbon-free and, since the sun is the energy source, there are no fuel costs. Energy storage in the form of heat is also significantly cheaper than battery storage of electricity, providing CSP with an economical means to overcome intermittency and deliver dispatchable power.

[snip]

over 90 percent of fossil fuel–generated electricity in the United States and the majority of U.S. oil usage for transportation could be eliminated using solar thermal power plants—and for less than it would cost to continue importing oil. The land requirement for the CSP plants would be roughly 15,000 square miles (38,850 square kilometers, the equivalent of 15 percent of the land area of Nevada). While this may sound like a large tract, CSP plants use less land per equivalent electrical output than large hydroelectric dams when flooded land is included, or than coal plants when factoring in land used for coal mining. Another study, published in Scientific American in January 2008, proposes using CSP and PV plants to produce 69 percent of U.S. electricity and 35 percent of total U.S. energy, including transportation, by 2050.

a year and a half ago i was getting beat up (not literally) on these threads for calling pelosi out wrt to caving on the iraq war. last summer similar thing but that time it was on the games pelosi played wrt the fisa scam.

if having been right matters, then those of us who were are the ones who should be getting the benefit of the doubt now. not the guy who’s already sold us out on fisa (and lied to us about it) and sold us out on the bailout. it’s not about giving the guy a chance, it’s about paying attention to what he’s done with the chances he’s already had.

I am still waiting for the City planning Department to approve my modest 11 KW home Solar system. I know they will but dam the waiting still sucks.

Here’s Amory Lovins from the Rocky Mountain Institute with Amy Goodman

What nuclear would do is displace coal, our most abundant domestic fuel. And this sounds good for climate, but actually, expanding nuclear makes climate change worse, for a very simple reason. Nuclear is incredibly expensive. The costs have just stood up on end lately. Wall Street Journal recently reported that they’re about two to four times the cost that the industry was talking about just a year ago. And the result of that is that if you buy more nuclear plants, you’re going to get about two to ten times less climate solution per dollar, and you’ll get it about twenty to forty times slower, than if you buy instead the cheaper, faster stuff that is walloping nuclear and coal and gas, all kinds of central plans, in the marketplace. And those competitors are efficient use of electricity and what’s called micropower, which is both renewables, except big hydro, and making electricity and heat together, in fact, recent buildings, which takes about half of the money, fuel and carbon of making them separately, as we normally do.

[snip]

[W]ind power….is booming.

Let me give you some numbers about what’s happening in the marketplace, because that’s reality, as far as I’m concerned. I really take markets seriously. 2006, the last full year of data we have, nuclear worldwide added a little bit of capacity, more than all of it from upgrading old plants, because the new ones they built were smaller than the retirements of old plants. So they added 1.4 billion watts. Sounds like a lot. Well, it’s about one big plant’s worth worldwide. That was less than photovoltaics, solar cells added in capacity. It was a tenth what wind power added. It was a thirtieth to a fortieth of what micropower added.

AMY GOODMAN: What’s micropower?

AMORY LOVINS: Again, it’s renewables, other than big hydro, plus co-generating electricity and heat together, usually in industry.

In 2006, micropower, for the first time, produced more electricity worldwide than nuclear did. A sixth of the world’s electricity is now micropower, a third of the new electricity. In a dozen industrial countries, micropower makes anywhere from a sixth to over half of all the electricity elsewhere. This is not a fringe activity anymore.

[snip]Take a look at 2007, in which the US or Spain or China added more wind capacity than the world added nuclear capacity. The US added more wind capacity last year than we’ve added coal capacity in the past five years put together.

Kirk is talking about survival of species that depend on a healthy biosphere. Life that has evolved in the presenr climate window will be history if this life and death issue is not solved in the time frame mentioned.
Sending this message to our new leader of the democratic party id not bashing it is informing. He is dead wrong…coal will not make the climate change grade. It will take investment of a massive scale in solar thermal amd wind etc. This cannot be achieved without a carbon tax as the investors will not pony up with that risk.

I have heard that criticism should be after the fact…that is folly. The forces pushing for coal and nuclear need our push back. Sorry RevBev your argument does not hold water.
I vote for the Doc.

You are right on. Clean Coal depends on “”scrubbin” the Co2 from a power station’s emissions (flue gases).

WTF do you think are a power station’s flue gases? Co2, So2, flyash, and some other noxious products (Hg).

Over 90% of the emission are Co2. The “remove” the Co2 requires compressing 90% of the flue gas. That’s one f…… big compressor plant. Then the Co2 has to be pumped deep into the ground (good luck keeping it there).

Ok, the the numbers. A heat engine, such as a power plan converts 30% of the energy from coal into electricity. The other 70% is blown off as heat (typically as steam — a lot of water is required). Oh there’s a water shortage? Oh shit!

So we are going to use 30% of the energy to compress the flue gases and pump them underground. That will use 15-20% of the total energy input into the power station. The remaining 10% is available for us; 50% of this is lost in transmission, leaving 5% for us. Oh joy! a fourfold increase in electrikery prices!

After going through all the efficiency numbers, I predict that a “clean coal” power plant will produce enough energy to keep itself running, and NONE, for use outside the plant. Well maybe enough for one 60w light.

Clean Coal is a marketing campaign the Electrikery companies and The Coal Companies use to get “clean coal” plants built. Then when the “clean” does not work, will say “well we built the plant, so can we please run it until the “clean” part works”?

And then pollute away…

Bailing water with a fork. We need about 8,000 2 Gigawatt power plants to replace current Co2 emitting power plants, worldwide.

That’s the equivalent of 3,200,000 5 megawatt wind turbines. Over the next 10 years. That’s roughly one installed every 10 minutes.

5 Gigawatts of electrical generating power installed every 10 minutes. It takes about 250 man years to build & install a 5 megawatt wind turbine (About $25 million).

So if we start tomorrow, we need to apply 8,000,000 people, RIGHT NOW, to building and install wind turbines.

Good luck with that.

When either Lovins or Amory calculate energy meeting our tottal energy supply, their analyses seem to differ by including two additional factors:

- “negawatts”: decreased demand coming from higher efficiency

- total renewables (excluding hydro): that would include wind / solar (PV and CSP), geothermal (home/industrial)

[Yet another factor I’d look at in costs (and L or A may have, for all I know) is the health costs associated with each means of energy production. Of course, that wouldn’t affect the need for new power you describe….]

To me, this is the most troubling aspect of a vote for Obama (and there are others too, like his insipid policy towards a military democracy and his groveling before the DLC.)

I really hope he can see that clean coal is a disaster of perhaps global consequence, and realize that progressive environmentalism is as American as his self-vaunted service employment proposals.

There is no such thing as clean coal!

Hi Synoia -

If you happen to see the following (from Jon Rynn’s article in Grist describing Lester Brown’s proposal), I’d love to know your take on it.

thanks!

Brown’s plan consists of three main goals: raising efficiency, moving from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and biosequestration — or basically, increasing the Earth’s forest cover. Most of his talk focused on moving to renewables.

The core of the plan is to replace 40 percent of the world’s electricity that is generated by coal — there are currently about 2,400 coal-fired electricity generation plants in the world — with wind power. This would mean, roughly, the construction of 1.5 million 2 MW wind turbines, which he said could be done over the next 12 years, using just the production capacity of idle U.S. auto factories. Although it seems like a huge amount of turbines, considering that the world produces 65 million automobiles a year, it’s really quite doable.

Brown noted that Texas is aiming to supply 60 percent of residential electricity with the construction of huge wind complexes in that state. Brown travels quite a bit to China, and he says that the Chinese could supply twice the total electricity they now generate, which is currently mostly coal plants, with the enormous wind potential that they have. As for the U.S., he pointed out that Texas, Kansas, and North Dakota contain enough wind potential to replace all of our energy needs, much less electricity.

Solar energy has three main potentialities, according to Brown: solar water heaters (40 million of which have been installed in China alone), solar cells, and solar thermal plants (concentrating solar plants). He pointed out that Algeria wants to construct a 6,000 MW CSP plant in their desert; they plan to be a major of exporter of electricity, which will replace their oil exports when those run dry.

[snip]

In addition, since 42 percent of U.S. freight rail is currently used to transport coal, when we eliminate the use of coal, we will free-up freight rail to be used to transport goods between cities — not from coal mine to coal plant.