Wow. What do you do when the horses are already outta the gate?
What do you do with the CO2 is already into the atmosphere? This is the idea of capturing that 400 parts per million of CO2 out of the atmosphere after it's already, well, up in the error -- oops... I mean -- up in the air.
Here are the winners of the XGames competition on CO2. This $20M competition is to figure out ways to carbon capture and sequester (CCS). Unlike some industrial byproducts, CO2 can have a value (bottling, for example, to give you that happy fizz in your pop).
Here's some info on this big competition in Canada: CBC News discusses competition sponsored by Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance and U.S. company NRG.
One of the 9 finalist, Ingenuity Labs, emulates photosynthesis to remove carbon dioxide from smoke stacks and such. They use a photosynthesis-like process to extract the carbon and make several industrial products out of the extract. True, this is a lot like planting a tree, but you have to wait 20 years for the wood, vs the immediate gratification of industrial products.
A very cool concept is by Carbicrete. Take out CO2 from an emissions source (say a smoke stack) and infuse it into concrete where the carbon is happily sequestered and it actually strengthens the concrete. (Note that concrete is a leading industrial source of CO2 emissions.)
While Canada is moving full forward with sustainability initiatives, the US is set to make a major shift in the other direction. Trump's Pruitt pick for the EPA might result in two departments of Energy. (Facts and miss-facts about Pruitt.)
The US has never had an energy policy. Carter was the last to propose one. Obama kinda had one, but without any legislative support, he was force-feeding it through the EPA. No matter who you are, that's not the right way. So the Clean Energy Plan, is about to get the can!...
That means the the job of the CCS might turn out to be far, far bigger in the future, as we try to burn up the last century or so of fossil fuels over the next hundred years.
We here at SustainZine consider "conservative" this way: The bestest, cheapest, cleanest gallon of gas is the one never extracted, never processed and never burned. The bestest, cheapest, cleanest tonne of coal is the one never extracted, never processed, and never burned (scrubbing or no scrubbing).
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Friday, January 20, 2017
Monday, August 3, 2015
Obama to Unveil Tougher Environmental Plan With His Legacy in Mind - The New York Times
Obama to Unveil Tougher Environmental Plan With His Legacy in Mind - The New York Times:
There's some good and some bad about this.
We really should have an energy policy in the country, but we don't. And the congress should be doing that planning and guiding of long-term energy and economic development. But no.
The video says saving on energy. That's not true, it will cost more for energy, the massive savings will come from improved health. Coal causes huge health and environmental impacts.
"The Clean Power Plan will ultimately save about $45 billion a year, the EPA says, by both shrinking Americans’ energy use and reducing health costs for asthma, lung cancer and other illnesses caused by air pollution. The EPA estimates the rule will also cut about $85 a year from the average American’s utility bill." via USA News.
Expect that the costs at the meter will be more, especially since it is so easy for the power utilities to pass them on, given a good (or bad) excuses. However, the health savings are each and every year forever. These are massive savings. Probably far greater than the $45B or so estimated.
The switch from coal is happening already without any such effort by the EPA. Clean(er) NatGas has been over-abundant and been the main gainer over the last 8 years. Also, we flair about half of the NatGas in the USA from fracking, why not figure out how to flair it into an electric generator and wire the energy back home?
Two secrets of coal is that about 10,000 people die each year in mining accidents, mostly coal. That's more than die in many years from natural disasters. The really dirty little secret of coal is coal ash. It has very high levels of heavy metals and such. It appears that we have no plan as to what to do with the ash, so it sits around in every state just waiting for disaster. Much like we have not plan for Nuclear waste.
NatGas is far better than coal, but it is still not sustainable. Since power plant planning is 50 to 100 years forward thinking, it seems that we should be doing likewise. Wind only works when the wind blows. Solar only works with the sun signs.
It seems that if we had a plan to be sustainable eventually, we would be better able to make decisions on the actions that a rational man (or woman) would make today.
Sadly, the coal miners and coal economies are stuck in the middle of this ugly downturn to their livelihood way of life.
Just saying...
'via Blog this'
There's some good and some bad about this.
We really should have an energy policy in the country, but we don't. And the congress should be doing that planning and guiding of long-term energy and economic development. But no.
The video says saving on energy. That's not true, it will cost more for energy, the massive savings will come from improved health. Coal causes huge health and environmental impacts.
"The Clean Power Plan will ultimately save about $45 billion a year, the EPA says, by both shrinking Americans’ energy use and reducing health costs for asthma, lung cancer and other illnesses caused by air pollution. The EPA estimates the rule will also cut about $85 a year from the average American’s utility bill." via USA News.
Expect that the costs at the meter will be more, especially since it is so easy for the power utilities to pass them on, given a good (or bad) excuses. However, the health savings are each and every year forever. These are massive savings. Probably far greater than the $45B or so estimated.
The switch from coal is happening already without any such effort by the EPA. Clean(er) NatGas has been over-abundant and been the main gainer over the last 8 years. Also, we flair about half of the NatGas in the USA from fracking, why not figure out how to flair it into an electric generator and wire the energy back home?
Two secrets of coal is that about 10,000 people die each year in mining accidents, mostly coal. That's more than die in many years from natural disasters. The really dirty little secret of coal is coal ash. It has very high levels of heavy metals and such. It appears that we have no plan as to what to do with the ash, so it sits around in every state just waiting for disaster. Much like we have not plan for Nuclear waste.
NatGas is far better than coal, but it is still not sustainable. Since power plant planning is 50 to 100 years forward thinking, it seems that we should be doing likewise. Wind only works when the wind blows. Solar only works with the sun signs.
It seems that if we had a plan to be sustainable eventually, we would be better able to make decisions on the actions that a rational man (or woman) would make today.
Sadly, the coal miners and coal economies are stuck in the middle of this ugly downturn to their livelihood way of life.
Just saying...
'via Blog this'
Monday, June 29, 2015
EPA loss in supreme court.
High Court Strikes Down EPA Limits on Mercury Emissions http://www.wsj.com/articles/high-court-strikes-down-epa-limits-on-mercury-emissions-1435590069
The EPA must consider the cost of compliance when coming up with rules. That's what the Supreme Court ruled.
Of course it is hard to estimate the cost of the pollutants, that have been going on for a couple centuries now.
With natural gas being so cheap, and most of the conversions already complete, the whole issue is rather mute point.
But it does set back EPA action on CO2 emissions, where is the coal lobby would like to consider the cost of externalities nonexistent.
Still in the absence of Congress and its inability to do anything, you have the problem of the Fed and the EPA trying to do the heavy lifting.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Clean Power Plan | TBO.com, The Tampa Tribune and The Tampa Times
Why I support the EPA’s Clean Power Plan | TBO.com, The Tampa Tribune and The Tampa Times:
This July 28, 2014 article by Lynn Ringenberg (Professor Emeritus at USF) discusses the horrible health and wellness impacts of burning coal.
"There is no such thing as clean coal."
The good news is that Natural Gas is so plentiful in the states and so very very cheap, that it is seriously supplanting coal in power plant production. NatGas is so plentiful and contain in oil, that 40% to 50% of all US NatGas produced is flared into the atmosphere as an oil byproduct.
Of course the EPA is pushing this conversion along to NatGas. In the absence of an energy policy in the USA, the EPA is the very last stop in this decision process as to produce power, short term and long.
But here is the BIG problem. As we cut back on energy and oil and coal usage in the USA, we move the coal power production to other countries. Our exports are way up. And other countries don't use the same cleaning technologies as we (scrubbers and such).
Here's a great discussion of our coal usage and export-imports at The Energy Collective by Meredith Fowlie on July 29, 2014.
No matter what you feel about the EPA stepping up and getting involved in coal power, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. The EPA is the last, and arguably the worst way to address energy policy, health issues from fossil fuel consumption and global warming.
Some would argue, the EPA actions are better than doing nothing at all.
The EPA is the wrench used to hammer the square nail. Coal has huge impact on health and wellness, so let's export all we've got. We take make the green, they take the black.
'via Blog this'
This July 28, 2014 article by Lynn Ringenberg (Professor Emeritus at USF) discusses the horrible health and wellness impacts of burning coal.
"There is no such thing as clean coal."
The good news is that Natural Gas is so plentiful in the states and so very very cheap, that it is seriously supplanting coal in power plant production. NatGas is so plentiful and contain in oil, that 40% to 50% of all US NatGas produced is flared into the atmosphere as an oil byproduct.
Of course the EPA is pushing this conversion along to NatGas. In the absence of an energy policy in the USA, the EPA is the very last stop in this decision process as to produce power, short term and long.
But here is the BIG problem. As we cut back on energy and oil and coal usage in the USA, we move the coal power production to other countries. Our exports are way up. And other countries don't use the same cleaning technologies as we (scrubbers and such).
Here's a great discussion of our coal usage and export-imports at The Energy Collective by Meredith Fowlie on July 29, 2014.
No matter what you feel about the EPA stepping up and getting involved in coal power, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. The EPA is the last, and arguably the worst way to address energy policy, health issues from fossil fuel consumption and global warming.
Some would argue, the EPA actions are better than doing nothing at all.
The EPA is the wrench used to hammer the square nail. Coal has huge impact on health and wellness, so let's export all we've got. We take make the green, they take the black.
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
As BP oil spill trial resumes, lying accusations bubble up - CBS News
As BP oil spill trial resumes, lying accusations bubble up - CBS News:
Everyone remembers the massive Gulf oil spill starting April 20, 2010 and 87 days of spillage.
As we all watched the pictures from the surface oil slick and the underwater cameras at the well head, it was a tale of two oil spills.
BP: trickle ... => Media: deluge
BP: gallons ... => Media: barrels
But the truth is, no one anywhere believed the BP numbers.
They really had no recovery plan. As this article said, they only had a plan to create a plan, if and when they needed a plan.
Disaster recovery plans for businesses have details that have been well thought through. One page for a wellhead breach under water is not exactly a detailed plan.
The dispersant (Corexit) works at the surface with sunlight and such. However about 45% of the Corexit was used at the well head, resulting in oil that was stuck in limbo half way to the surface. At the surface it can be removed and/or treated.
More importantly, apparently, for BP was that at the surface it can more accurately be MEASURED.
The difference between the 4.2m Barrels by Justice department experts and the 2.45mb by BP is almost half. Of course the BP numbers wrong. Is it more than 4.2mb, probably. Less, probably not.
Additionally, however, the $1,100 penalty max per barrel (~42 gal/brl) would be essentially 4 times that ($4,300/brl) if BP is found negligent.
That's the difference between $18B in fines and about $2.7B (BP's low-ball estimates and the lower fine).
There really is, however, lots of blame to go around. The regulatory agency that rubber-stamped everything oil and mining related has now be disbanded in disgrace. The "plans" were the same for all oil drillers. Everyone was doing the same types of drilling, although maybe not quite the lax monitoring/procedures.
AND the government had a limit on the exposure for drillers in a very cozy relationship with the oil companies. It was a paltry amount... with the official rationale of promoting drilling (and oil independence). Of course, that limitation was immediately revoked.
Can you imagine if BP were a smaller player that simply went bankrupt? The good thing about a BIG company with deep pockets (pun) is that you can make 'em pay, and then keep making them pay.
In the end, the oil industry is a far safer place because of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Here are some lessons learned (and used).
'via Blog
Everyone remembers the massive Gulf oil spill starting April 20, 2010 and 87 days of spillage.
As we all watched the pictures from the surface oil slick and the underwater cameras at the well head, it was a tale of two oil spills.
BP: trickle ... => Media: deluge
BP: gallons ... => Media: barrels
BP: creek => river
But the truth is, no one anywhere believed the BP numbers.
They really had no recovery plan. As this article said, they only had a plan to create a plan, if and when they needed a plan.
Disaster recovery plans for businesses have details that have been well thought through. One page for a wellhead breach under water is not exactly a detailed plan.
The dispersant (Corexit) works at the surface with sunlight and such. However about 45% of the Corexit was used at the well head, resulting in oil that was stuck in limbo half way to the surface. At the surface it can be removed and/or treated.
More importantly, apparently, for BP was that at the surface it can more accurately be MEASURED.
The difference between the 4.2m Barrels by Justice department experts and the 2.45mb by BP is almost half. Of course the BP numbers wrong. Is it more than 4.2mb, probably. Less, probably not.
Additionally, however, the $1,100 penalty max per barrel (~42 gal/brl) would be essentially 4 times that ($4,300/brl) if BP is found negligent.
That's the difference between $18B in fines and about $2.7B (BP's low-ball estimates and the lower fine).
There really is, however, lots of blame to go around. The regulatory agency that rubber-stamped everything oil and mining related has now be disbanded in disgrace. The "plans" were the same for all oil drillers. Everyone was doing the same types of drilling, although maybe not quite the lax monitoring/procedures.
AND the government had a limit on the exposure for drillers in a very cozy relationship with the oil companies. It was a paltry amount... with the official rationale of promoting drilling (and oil independence). Of course, that limitation was immediately revoked.
Can you imagine if BP were a smaller player that simply went bankrupt? The good thing about a BIG company with deep pockets (pun) is that you can make 'em pay, and then keep making them pay.
In the end, the oil industry is a far safer place because of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Here are some lessons learned (and used).
'via Blog
Friday, September 20, 2013
EPA proposes strict emission limits on new power plants
EPA proposes strict emission limits on new power plants:
Coal power plants, especially new ones, are under fire.
As well they should be. Deaths in mining, deaths and health associated with smog and pollution, and the dirty secret of coal ash are enough to make a sane person push back from more coal power plants.
BUT, here's the kicker. What if we ship all of our coal over to China and have them burn it without any of the scrubbers and safety that we have in the Sates. ???
China now burns half of the world's coal. It's causing them some smog problems and social unrest, but ...
India, of course is increasing rapidly as well.
If we don't burn it hear, only to have it burned there, then what have we really gained? :-(
'via Blog this'
Coal power plants, especially new ones, are under fire.
As well they should be. Deaths in mining, deaths and health associated with smog and pollution, and the dirty secret of coal ash are enough to make a sane person push back from more coal power plants.
BUT, here's the kicker. What if we ship all of our coal over to China and have them burn it without any of the scrubbers and safety that we have in the Sates. ???
China now burns half of the world's coal. It's causing them some smog problems and social unrest, but ...
India, of course is increasing rapidly as well.
If we don't burn it hear, only to have it burned there, then what have we really gained? :-(
Monday, February 25, 2013
Taking a fresh look at solar energy's benefits | Highlands Today
Taking a fresh look at solar energy's benefits | Highlands Today:
Local article to Central Florida. It is good to see some movement on solar.
'via Blog this'
Local article to Central Florida. It is good to see some movement on solar.
Great. We all need to be more sustainable. Glad to see Coronado Solar getting out there and making it happen.
Couple areas that aren't precise. Probably lost something in the translation. Payback on solar hot water is usually 2 to 4 years. Really good ROI for pools (unless you like to polar-bear it in the winter). Payback for solar is usually 6 to 9 years; that's probably the 6.5 years mentioned in the article.
CO2e saved per home is about 6.68 metric tons per year based on 11.3MW per year with typical US electric power. (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html)
That would be about 155 trees planted from seedlings for 10 year (not 20+ years life of the solar array). (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html)
It is always hard to visualize our carbon foot print. Each person in the US produces 5 metric tons of CO2 (or equivalent). Figure 2 people per household. And an acre of trees/forest takes out about 2 MTons per year (until about 30 years, then only 1MTon). So a household of 2 needs to plant at least 5 acres of new forest today to cover all of their burning of ancient forest (coal and oil) for the next 20-30 years.
Oh well, energy-ize your house and save 15%-25% of your utilities for the change in your pocket. Get solar water heaters and save 5-15% and plan to go solar completely within the next few years. Maybe start the array and get the meter so it can easily be expanded in the future. Prices continue to drop and efficiency improve:-)
Visit: http://www.carbonfootprint.com to calculate your own carbon footprint, individual or business.
'via Blog this'
Friday, August 17, 2012
AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low - Yahoo! News
AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low - Yahoo! News:
CO2 from the US is down. WOW!. See the full EIA report on CO2 Emissions.
The last time we had that was in 2009, we all assumed that was mainly because of the economic slowdown. But apparently, even then, part of it was because of the switching to NatGas.
"[T]he U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that energy related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels. Energy emissions make up about 98 percent of the total."
So the big reasons for the CO2 emissions reduction is primarily because of the switch to NatGas from coal in energy generation! ... The slowing of economic growth down to 1.8% is another reason.
What's amazing about this is that the switch to natgas is primarily driven by market forces. The power industry has been wining endlessly about the big food of the EPA on the juggler veins of the power industry... and of course the US economy. Yet, the move happened way ahead of schedule.
Low prices of nat gas make it, well, irresponsible, not to switch to clean gas away from dirty coal.
Health benefits (fewer deaths and injuries in mining). Massive improvement in air and water quality. No coal ash to deal with.
This would all be a good thing, if it weren't for the massive increase in coal consumption from China and India. Where, exactly, is the benefit of us cutting back on coal when we simply ship it to China and they burn it. And they don't worry about scrubbing it as much as we.
China now burns half the coal in the world, and rising quickly.
Sorry for looking good news in the eye and sounding skeptical. We sometimes simply need a little good news here and there and just to enjoy it.
Ahhhh, NatGas, A cleaner addiction to a unsustainable problem.
'via Blog this'
CO2 from the US is down. WOW!. See the full EIA report on CO2 Emissions.
The last time we had that was in 2009, we all assumed that was mainly because of the economic slowdown. But apparently, even then, part of it was because of the switching to NatGas.
"[T]he U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that energy related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels. Energy emissions make up about 98 percent of the total."
So the big reasons for the CO2 emissions reduction is primarily because of the switch to NatGas from coal in energy generation! ... The slowing of economic growth down to 1.8% is another reason.
What's amazing about this is that the switch to natgas is primarily driven by market forces. The power industry has been wining endlessly about the big food of the EPA on the juggler veins of the power industry... and of course the US economy. Yet, the move happened way ahead of schedule.
Low prices of nat gas make it, well, irresponsible, not to switch to clean gas away from dirty coal.
Health benefits (fewer deaths and injuries in mining). Massive improvement in air and water quality. No coal ash to deal with.
This would all be a good thing, if it weren't for the massive increase in coal consumption from China and India. Where, exactly, is the benefit of us cutting back on coal when we simply ship it to China and they burn it. And they don't worry about scrubbing it as much as we.
China now burns half the coal in the world, and rising quickly.
Sorry for looking good news in the eye and sounding skeptical. We sometimes simply need a little good news here and there and just to enjoy it.
Ahhhh, NatGas, A cleaner addiction to a unsustainable problem.
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Federal Appeals Court Ruling Puts Climate Change into Election Debate
Federal Appeals Court Ruling Puts Climate Change into Election Debate:
So there is no question. The EPA can, in fact, regulate greenhouse gasses (GHGs).
It gives additional credibility to the science of GHGs=> Global Warming => Not good things for the future.
There are a couple things that this will do. It will elevate the EPA and its regulations in the election world.
It should escalate the attacks on the EPA.
And one would hope that at least COAL would start to lose favor.
It will be interesting to see how this plays forward.
Here's the AP take on the same court ruling in the San Francisco Chronicle.
'via Blog this'
So there is no question. The EPA can, in fact, regulate greenhouse gasses (GHGs).
It gives additional credibility to the science of GHGs=> Global Warming => Not good things for the future.
There are a couple things that this will do. It will elevate the EPA and its regulations in the election world.
It should escalate the attacks on the EPA.
And one would hope that at least COAL would start to lose favor.
It will be interesting to see how this plays forward.
Here's the AP take on the same court ruling in the San Francisco Chronicle.
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
EPA is finally going to conduct a big Environmental Study on Gas Fracking
There has been a painfully slow move to NatGas in the US, even though we appear to have centuries worth of it using new fracturing and horizontal drilling techniques.
The one holdup, kinda, is being blamed on the possible environmental impact from gas drilling. (As if it could be worse than oil with its BP Gulf and Exxon Yellowstone spills in the last two years.)
With NatGas at a price of $1 (to $2) for the equivalent of a gallon of diesel in vehicle fuel ($4/gal), many people argue that it's a "no brainer" decision for the US to switch to NatGas. But inertia and the massive interests in the current oil & coal economy seem to have us doing the “no brain” part of a far better decision than imported oil or much dirtier/deadly coal.
Check out the Utica Shale and Marcellus Shale information… The Utica Shale formation that is below the Marcellus is just now becoming commercially available using new drilling techniques that have really been worked out since about 2005.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)