By now you probably knew it was happening, but you probably didn't realize how much and how fast. If you figure subsidies, Solar and Wind are a slam-dunk powerful option.
Wind prices have been dropping fast and solar has been dripping like lead... Solar prices have dropped about 86% over the last 8 years.
Check out the latest 2018 report by Lazard. Note that they also analyze renewables with storage (batteries).
The Solar incentives make the solar option for most settings (especially in Sunny Florida) crazy profitable. For example, the investment of $100 for a rather serious system (much more than a home residence would need) would have a tax credit of 30%, plus 100% depreciation in the first year. So, if you had a 20% tax rate, your investment would look like this:
$100k Investment
-30k Tax Credit
-20k Depreciation
=50k Net investment. (Thant's only 50% of the original investment.)
Payback would be less than 8 years, maybe 5.
The power company has historically increased prices by 3% (or more in Florida)... Not a problem if you are producing your own power.
Return on investment would probably be 20% or greater after 20 years.
Solar in sunny places like Florida is a pretty good investment; but with the tax benefits solar is a crazy profitable investment. Plus you are saving lots of other resources including water and carbon dioxide.
We're working on a few calculators. Solar and Renewable Energy. This is a positive investment that keeps on giving.
Showing posts with label coal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coal. Show all posts
Thursday, November 8, 2018
Thursday, August 3, 2017
Contura Coal Goes Public -- jumping off of the coal train!
Contura Energy is going public. (CTRA).
On the one hand, they have a lot of metallurgical coal; on the other hand it seems like a rather bad investment -- especially long-term.
All the proceeds will go to buy out existing stock holders. Existing shareholders are based on creditors... Alpha Resources went bankrupt and the Contura Energy company rose out out of the ashes. (After Peabody went bankrupt also in 2016, about half of US coal miners, and about half of US coal production comes from bankrupt mining companies.)
At some point, coal should hit peak simply because we eventually run out of it... But based on reduced demand, it appears to have peaked in 2012 (see peak coal).
Coal really should be taxed because of the massive negative externalities. No one anywhere can think that the cost of coal at the meter in anyway resembles to true cost of burning coal. Many of Contura's mines are strip mines, so the added environmental costs are huge in those local areas. Health impacts affect hundreds of millions of people and contribution to deaths is millions.
Remember one of the dirty little secrets of coal: Coal Ash.
Environmental impact of coal. The true costs of coal, including externality costs, could easily be at least twice what we pay for it per ton. One estimate in Europe is that hidden coal costs are 1-2% of GDP.
Plus there's the major contribution to greenhouse gases.
China, the world's largest consumer of coal (50%) is back-peddling on coal at an astounding rate. At one point, less than 10 years ago, they had 2 new coal-powered plants coming on-board every week. Now, they may have only a handful more (finished). Like the US, we can expect China to continue converting their coal to NatGas.
As a percentage of the world primary energy mix, coal has dropped below 30%, never to return again. In the US, NatGas has switched with coal as the primary source of electric generation (coal dropping from about 40% ten years ago to only about 30% now). NatGas is so much cheaper, cleaner, safer. Plus the renewables are really starting to be competitive and gain critical mass. Many wind and solar projects are getting to be cheaper per KW than coal (before considering externalities).
India is the other big wildcard. In many cases they are aiming to skip the smokestack technology and go straight to solar. In many cases, India has serious water issues (since mass amounts of water are needed to run steam turbines in conventional energy).
So, is it a good investment to buy into the Contra IPO? All the money goes to giving existing shareholders a parachute so that they can get out of the coal plane -- well, off of the coal train, technically.
'via Blog this'
On the one hand, they have a lot of metallurgical coal; on the other hand it seems like a rather bad investment -- especially long-term.
All the proceeds will go to buy out existing stock holders. Existing shareholders are based on creditors... Alpha Resources went bankrupt and the Contura Energy company rose out out of the ashes. (After Peabody went bankrupt also in 2016, about half of US coal miners, and about half of US coal production comes from bankrupt mining companies.)
At some point, coal should hit peak simply because we eventually run out of it... But based on reduced demand, it appears to have peaked in 2012 (see peak coal).
Coal really should be taxed because of the massive negative externalities. No one anywhere can think that the cost of coal at the meter in anyway resembles to true cost of burning coal. Many of Contura's mines are strip mines, so the added environmental costs are huge in those local areas. Health impacts affect hundreds of millions of people and contribution to deaths is millions.
Remember one of the dirty little secrets of coal: Coal Ash.
Environmental impact of coal. The true costs of coal, including externality costs, could easily be at least twice what we pay for it per ton. One estimate in Europe is that hidden coal costs are 1-2% of GDP.
Plus there's the major contribution to greenhouse gases.
China, the world's largest consumer of coal (50%) is back-peddling on coal at an astounding rate. At one point, less than 10 years ago, they had 2 new coal-powered plants coming on-board every week. Now, they may have only a handful more (finished). Like the US, we can expect China to continue converting their coal to NatGas.
As a percentage of the world primary energy mix, coal has dropped below 30%, never to return again. In the US, NatGas has switched with coal as the primary source of electric generation (coal dropping from about 40% ten years ago to only about 30% now). NatGas is so much cheaper, cleaner, safer. Plus the renewables are really starting to be competitive and gain critical mass. Many wind and solar projects are getting to be cheaper per KW than coal (before considering externalities).
India is the other big wildcard. In many cases they are aiming to skip the smokestack technology and go straight to solar. In many cases, India has serious water issues (since mass amounts of water are needed to run steam turbines in conventional energy).
So, is it a good investment to buy into the Contra IPO? All the money goes to giving existing shareholders a parachute so that they can get out of the coal plane -- well, off of the coal train, technically.
'via Blog this'
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Trump of Sustainability - Paul Bunyan tromps again!
Sustainability efforts take a big hit with the Trump election to president.
Some forces are bigger than he, however.
Congress didn't act on most things sustainable-ish, so much of the Obama efforts have been by executive order and by regulations. The EPA on coal, for example. The right way to regulate emissions in general -- and fossil fuels specifically -- is by a carbon tax (or cap n trade). With a carbon tax, then all subsidies of all kinds can be readily removed and let the markets take care of resource allocation. New power and retirement of existing production takes care of itself.
So now, we can expect the EPA restrictions to be systematically eroded.
But, even if the EPA is removed from the picture, we should never expect to see another coal power plant. NatGas is so much cheaper -- in all the spellings of the word -- and dirt cheap. See our blog post on coal here.
One would hope, however, that Trump would take on bigger and more immediate issues before attacking the Paris agreement on climate change (COP21, and COP22 starting as we speak in Marrakesh). That is taking on a big segment of the US population and the will of the entire world that, up until Paris a year ago, has never agreed on many thing since the Montreal agreement on reducing fluorocarbons (and the recent extension of this in Oct-Nov 2016).
When we saw Virginia coming in all red, and only flipping blue based on metro areas (DC), you knew that Trumps message had really grabbed traction with the blue collar coal miners and such.
Sadly, the idea of putting coal back to work, is a painful lie to the mining community. Coal is never going to come back. Countries like Germany have totally retired the coal power. Even China may not put any more coal power plants to work; they're trying to get the air clean enough for people to breath.
The idea from Hillary was that she would make efforts to transition the "dead and dying back in my little [coal] town". The promise from Trump to put coal miners back to work is sadly a very cruel promise. Wishing it were true, does not make it so.
You have to feel for the miners though.
First we backed out of the Kyoto protocol, now we will back out of Paris. You have to really feel for those countries 200 countries that have been pushing so hard to address the huge footprint we are having on the planet, while the US, the Paul Bunyan of footprints, is putting on his BIG boots to go tromping again.
An added note is the horror story of a team that has been advising Trump on Energy and Environment, aka the agency formerly know as the EPA. This Scientific America article was in Sept 26th.
Some forces are bigger than he, however.
Congress didn't act on most things sustainable-ish, so much of the Obama efforts have been by executive order and by regulations. The EPA on coal, for example. The right way to regulate emissions in general -- and fossil fuels specifically -- is by a carbon tax (or cap n trade). With a carbon tax, then all subsidies of all kinds can be readily removed and let the markets take care of resource allocation. New power and retirement of existing production takes care of itself.
So now, we can expect the EPA restrictions to be systematically eroded.
But, even if the EPA is removed from the picture, we should never expect to see another coal power plant. NatGas is so much cheaper -- in all the spellings of the word -- and dirt cheap. See our blog post on coal here.
One would hope, however, that Trump would take on bigger and more immediate issues before attacking the Paris agreement on climate change (COP21, and COP22 starting as we speak in Marrakesh). That is taking on a big segment of the US population and the will of the entire world that, up until Paris a year ago, has never agreed on many thing since the Montreal agreement on reducing fluorocarbons (and the recent extension of this in Oct-Nov 2016).
When we saw Virginia coming in all red, and only flipping blue based on metro areas (DC), you knew that Trumps message had really grabbed traction with the blue collar coal miners and such.
Sadly, the idea of putting coal back to work, is a painful lie to the mining community. Coal is never going to come back. Countries like Germany have totally retired the coal power. Even China may not put any more coal power plants to work; they're trying to get the air clean enough for people to breath.
The idea from Hillary was that she would make efforts to transition the "dead and dying back in my little [coal] town". The promise from Trump to put coal miners back to work is sadly a very cruel promise. Wishing it were true, does not make it so.
You have to feel for the miners though.
First we backed out of the Kyoto protocol, now we will back out of Paris. You have to really feel for those countries 200 countries that have been pushing so hard to address the huge footprint we are having on the planet, while the US, the Paul Bunyan of footprints, is putting on his BIG boots to go tromping again.
An added note is the horror story of a team that has been advising Trump on Energy and Environment, aka the agency formerly know as the EPA. This Scientific America article was in Sept 26th.
Thursday, April 14, 2016
ECO:nomics | The Wall Street Journal
ECO:nomics | The Wall Street Journal:
The WSJ's big forum on ECOnomics seems to have been a great learning and sharing session for divergent ideas on how to blend economic growth/development with environmental needs.
A special report in the WSJ on Wed, April 13, 2016 offers several takes and interviews covering the spectrum of associated topics.
A couple base statistics are that coal generated electricity has dropped from half of all US generation to less than 1/3 within about 10 years. The big gain is Nat Gas, but that too is changing. In 2015 solar was the #1 install base with 9.5 gw (37% of new), NatGas 8 gw (31%), wind 6.8 gw (26%). Only 4% new nuclear and fractions of other.
Related to the switch from coal to NatGas, this is only a stop-gap measure: moving from one really bad non-renewable, coal; to a relatively better non-renewable, NatGas. Michael Brune from the Sierra Club comments on the methane and other issues that brings NatGas closer to parody with coal (really ugly vs. relatively ugly).
Coal is really taking a hit, as Peabody goes bankrupt this week, bringing down all of the big coal companies. No victory laps here; the pain and suffering in the mining communities is going to be horrendous. (Also, bankruptcy doesn't mean the mines will all stop, just that the debt associated with the companies will replace the equity positions.)
Even against crashing oil/coal prices, solar & wind are winning major solid footing. Even with the likelihood of subsidies going away, are now starting to be very price competitive (especially if you consider externality costs). BUT when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine (night) we still need regular power generation. Or battery-type storage.
You have to marvel at the gain of renewables during the second year of record low fossil fuel costs. That is really, really impressive.
Check out all the articles on the ECOnomics conference and interviews at the special business & energy section of the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/news/types/journal-reports-energy
'via Blog this'
The WSJ's big forum on ECOnomics seems to have been a great learning and sharing session for divergent ideas on how to blend economic growth/development with environmental needs.
A special report in the WSJ on Wed, April 13, 2016 offers several takes and interviews covering the spectrum of associated topics.
A couple base statistics are that coal generated electricity has dropped from half of all US generation to less than 1/3 within about 10 years. The big gain is Nat Gas, but that too is changing. In 2015 solar was the #1 install base with 9.5 gw (37% of new), NatGas 8 gw (31%), wind 6.8 gw (26%). Only 4% new nuclear and fractions of other.
Related to the switch from coal to NatGas, this is only a stop-gap measure: moving from one really bad non-renewable, coal; to a relatively better non-renewable, NatGas. Michael Brune from the Sierra Club comments on the methane and other issues that brings NatGas closer to parody with coal (really ugly vs. relatively ugly).
Coal is really taking a hit, as Peabody goes bankrupt this week, bringing down all of the big coal companies. No victory laps here; the pain and suffering in the mining communities is going to be horrendous. (Also, bankruptcy doesn't mean the mines will all stop, just that the debt associated with the companies will replace the equity positions.)
Even against crashing oil/coal prices, solar & wind are winning major solid footing. Even with the likelihood of subsidies going away, are now starting to be very price competitive (especially if you consider externality costs). BUT when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine (night) we still need regular power generation. Or battery-type storage.
You have to marvel at the gain of renewables during the second year of record low fossil fuel costs. That is really, really impressive.
Check out all the articles on the ECOnomics conference and interviews at the special business & energy section of the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/news/types/journal-reports-energy
'via Blog this'
Friday, December 18, 2015
What just happened in solar is a bigger deal than oil exports
What just happened in solar is a bigger deal than oil exports:
Interesting how the BIG move in solar/wind in the USA is so tied to subsidies. At least for the next 5 years. But, soon, especially with the volume of growth encouraged by the subsidies, there will no longer be a need for subsidies.
The really big loser all around is (dirty) coal. Once the health and environmental costs of coal are factored in, coal moves from our cheapest source of electrical energy to one of our worst. As well, wind and solar are improving in performance rapidly.
And then there are the environmental factors of coal that start to get uglier and uglier once you start to count pollution, the health and safety issues and the contribution to greenhouse gases. Other types of energy like oil and natgas are increasingly throwing coal under the bus, too.
So, renewable electrical energy could be really booming over the next 5 years with the continued subsidies. Those subsidies are being phased out; but it all looks like an excellent plan forward toward a more renewable USA.
'via Blog this'
Interesting how the BIG move in solar/wind in the USA is so tied to subsidies. At least for the next 5 years. But, soon, especially with the volume of growth encouraged by the subsidies, there will no longer be a need for subsidies.
The really big loser all around is (dirty) coal. Once the health and environmental costs of coal are factored in, coal moves from our cheapest source of electrical energy to one of our worst. As well, wind and solar are improving in performance rapidly.
And then there are the environmental factors of coal that start to get uglier and uglier once you start to count pollution, the health and safety issues and the contribution to greenhouse gases. Other types of energy like oil and natgas are increasingly throwing coal under the bus, too.
So, renewable electrical energy could be really booming over the next 5 years with the continued subsidies. Those subsidies are being phased out; but it all looks like an excellent plan forward toward a more renewable USA.
'via Blog this'
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Climate Leadership | Climate Leadership Plan | Alberta.ca
Climate Leadership | Climate Leadership Plan | Alberta.ca:
WOW.
On the eve of the humongous climate meetings in Paris next week (week after Thanksgiving in USA), Canada has stepped up to the plate on addressing climate changes.
Alberta is the home of Coal and Oil Sands: two of the great game changers in addressing pollution in general and Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHG).
There are several reports, but one is to simply charge a tax per metric tonne (yes, I know that's the colourful way to spell ton) of CO2. The price will move up from $15 to $30 per ton of CO2 by 2019.
In electric generation, the big game changer is to switch away from coal in general.
By 2030 in Alberta, "There will be no pollution from coal-fired
electricity generation." The focus will be on reduce electrical needs and switching to NatGas and Renewables.
But for Alberta, capping and steadily reversing the oil sands is a very big game changer.
With the oil glut keeping oil prices down below $50 per barrel for the foreseeable future, Alberta should be ramping down oil production anyway. (I think oil sands requires $70 to $80 to be profitable.).
The Carbon Taxes will be used: to offset increased living costs for poorer people, to assist with transition to renewables and other research.
For those still skeptical about Global Warming: Look at the pix of Athabasca Glacier over 100 years (well 98 really). Or look at any pictures over 40 years related to Glacier Bay in Alaska. Or, just a little south from Alberta, give a look at Glacier National Park in Montana (soon to be renamed Glacier-Less National Park).
'via Blog this'
WOW.
On the eve of the humongous climate meetings in Paris next week (week after Thanksgiving in USA), Canada has stepped up to the plate on addressing climate changes.
Alberta is the home of Coal and Oil Sands: two of the great game changers in addressing pollution in general and Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHG).
There are several reports, but one is to simply charge a tax per metric tonne (yes, I know that's the colourful way to spell ton) of CO2. The price will move up from $15 to $30 per ton of CO2 by 2019.
In electric generation, the big game changer is to switch away from coal in general.
By 2030 in Alberta, "There will be no pollution from coal-fired
electricity generation." The focus will be on reduce electrical needs and switching to NatGas and Renewables.
But for Alberta, capping and steadily reversing the oil sands is a very big game changer.
With the oil glut keeping oil prices down below $50 per barrel for the foreseeable future, Alberta should be ramping down oil production anyway. (I think oil sands requires $70 to $80 to be profitable.).
The Carbon Taxes will be used: to offset increased living costs for poorer people, to assist with transition to renewables and other research.
For those still skeptical about Global Warming: Look at the pix of Athabasca Glacier over 100 years (well 98 really). Or look at any pictures over 40 years related to Glacier Bay in Alaska. Or, just a little south from Alberta, give a look at Glacier National Park in Montana (soon to be renamed Glacier-Less National Park).
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Power Struggle: How the Energy Market Could Shift in 2016 - Bloomberg Business
Power Struggle: How the Energy Market Could Shift in 2016 - Bloomberg Business:
Wow. Absolutely perfect assessment of the energy world, past and future.
With pretty graphics to go along with the trends in energy.
So what will be the energy source(s) of the future.
The one thing for sure, is that it won't be coal. As the rest of the world gets out of coal, so will the 2.3B people in China and India. They simply can't afford the pollution and health costs that come free with cheap coal.
The assessment seems puts energy into perspective, and indicates how a clear transition from one form to another (wood to coal, and coal to oil) might not be what we can expect to look forward to in the future.
Don't want to ruin the ending, you will have to watch all 3 minutes of the video to find out what to expect in the energy world.
'via Blog this'
Wow. Absolutely perfect assessment of the energy world, past and future.
With pretty graphics to go along with the trends in energy.
So what will be the energy source(s) of the future.
The one thing for sure, is that it won't be coal. As the rest of the world gets out of coal, so will the 2.3B people in China and India. They simply can't afford the pollution and health costs that come free with cheap coal.
The assessment seems puts energy into perspective, and indicates how a clear transition from one form to another (wood to coal, and coal to oil) might not be what we can expect to look forward to in the future.
Don't want to ruin the ending, you will have to watch all 3 minutes of the video to find out what to expect in the energy world.
'via Blog this'
Monday, June 29, 2015
Wind And Solar Will Soon Become The 'Least-Cost Option' - Yahoo Finance
Wind And Solar Will Soon Become The 'Least-Cost Option' - Yahoo Finance:
It is interesting how quickly the prices of wind and solar have been dropping and are expected to continue.
Obviously, these must be only a part of the solution, unless batteries get to be a whole lot better, a whole lot faster. (Maybe?). The wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine.
One savings for solar, is that it doesn't need to be done remotely. The transport/distribution costs can be much lower. Both sun & wind do not require the massive volumes of water that conventional fossil and nuke need. (Except for the manatees, there is no real reason to heat up rivers and lakes.)
Those folks in the coal industries, even in China, are soon going to find that they are missing the boat. Coal is not sustainable. Once people start to think harder and longer about the externalities costs of coal, it is going to continue the downward spiral from favor.
'via Blog this'
It is interesting how quickly the prices of wind and solar have been dropping and are expected to continue.
Obviously, these must be only a part of the solution, unless batteries get to be a whole lot better, a whole lot faster. (Maybe?). The wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine.
One savings for solar, is that it doesn't need to be done remotely. The transport/distribution costs can be much lower. Both sun & wind do not require the massive volumes of water that conventional fossil and nuke need. (Except for the manatees, there is no real reason to heat up rivers and lakes.)
Those folks in the coal industries, even in China, are soon going to find that they are missing the boat. Coal is not sustainable. Once people start to think harder and longer about the externalities costs of coal, it is going to continue the downward spiral from favor.
'via Blog this'
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.
Friday, February 27, 2015
Falling Chinese Coal Consumption and Output Undermine Global Market - WSJ
Falling Chinese Coal Consumption and Output Undermine Global Market - WSJ:
Finally, Finally, Finally...
China has finally started to cut back on it's production and use of dirty coal. China now consumes far more than half of the world's coal.
It's a perfect time for them to do so, with all energy prices so low, the Chinese economy growing slow(er) and the costs/consequences of pollution from coal becoming more and more conspicuous.
It is also interesting that this article talks about peak coal. It seems that peak oil and peak coal have been pushed back with the overwhelming supply of cheap(er) oil and gas from new technologies (fracking, horizontal drilling, etc.)
In China's case it may be peak pollution, where the health costs, environmental costs and quality of life costs are are starting to overpower the perception of coal being a cheap energy source.
Doing non-sustainable stuff, especially for long periods of time, has its costs and unintended consequences.
Sustainable Growth...
'via Blog this'
Finally, Finally, Finally...
China has finally started to cut back on it's production and use of dirty coal. China now consumes far more than half of the world's coal.
It's a perfect time for them to do so, with all energy prices so low, the Chinese economy growing slow(er) and the costs/consequences of pollution from coal becoming more and more conspicuous.
It is also interesting that this article talks about peak coal. It seems that peak oil and peak coal have been pushed back with the overwhelming supply of cheap(er) oil and gas from new technologies (fracking, horizontal drilling, etc.)
In China's case it may be peak pollution, where the health costs, environmental costs and quality of life costs are are starting to overpower the perception of coal being a cheap energy source.
Doing non-sustainable stuff, especially for long periods of time, has its costs and unintended consequences.
Sustainable Growth...
'via Blog this'
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'
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Can jaw-dropping visuals on CO2. BIG smokes vs. BIG OIL | GreenBiz.com
Can jaw-dropping visuals change the climate conversation? | GreenBiz.com:
This week in the news we wave the merger of BIG tobacco. Lorillard Brands if getting bought out by Reynolds; that is, the Newport brands are getting married to a camel. This will make a formidable competitor to Altria's Marlboro man. (I still love the genius of changing your name from Philip Morris USA to "Altria", it makes the company sound so Alteristic!:-)
So these are products, when used as directed will either kill you, or cause you to die younger... i.e., kill you.
The big difference between pollution into the atmosphere is that it is generally not the smoker (and their family it seems with 2nd hand-me-downs) that dies, it is everyone in the vicinity, down wind, and down stream.
The problems with burning fossil fuels, in addition to any other pollution that pollute in the traditional science, they create vast amounts more Carbon Dioxide (CO2) for the atmosphere than what the earth systems have become accustomed to dealing with. If 60% goes into the oceans, that causes increased acidification; what remains in the atmosphere, hangs around for about 100 years -- a deadly experiment that we are just beginning to see the effects of.
At least with tobacco, people enter into the deadly agreement under their own free will. The externalities of the well documented costs in life, income and economic product is largely offset by massive taxes. And it is really other countries that have fast increases in smoking while we in the USA have a rapidly dwindling market. (You could say that the market is dying off, if you wanted to add pun to death and sickness.) Although, electronic cigs are growing rapidly.
But, the BIG producers of fossil fuels, have it rather sweet. They tap a natural resource, like an oil reservoir, pump it dry, sell into energy markets and have no responsibility as to the costs of the use of their products. The jaw dropping visuals from the main article here, show the billions (with a B) of tonnes of CO2 created from/by the BIGgest oil producing companies.
The oil company pays some taxes to the country where it permanently depleted a natural resource. That seems only fair. The health costs of burning coal, direct pollution, are huge but generally not covered by the companies the produce and use it. Countries have taxes on transport fuel, to offset some of the costs of the vehicles. But nobody really pays the costs of the CO2 externalities. Or at least very little is done in that directly.
So the two, or three, questions for government: Should government shut down BIG tobacco? Or tax it more? Or allow it to move closer to a duopoly where they can keep raising prices to consumers and have them pay through the nose?
And the questions for government: Should government shut down BIG tobacco? Or tax it more? Or move to cap-n-trade? Or subsidize renewables?
The one that seems to work best, and economists all like best, is a direct tax. The tax increases need to gradually escalate, at least at the rate of inflation. This, of course is political suicide. So the tax is out, and no addressable solution is in.
This is a supply and demand world. In fossil fuels you have the BIG consumers, namely China and the USA, and the BIG producer companies. Both are to blame if what they sell/buy kills people. Right?
The sinful problems associated with the dirty companies go on.. and they keep getting BIGger.
'via Blog this'
This week in the news we wave the merger of BIG tobacco. Lorillard Brands if getting bought out by Reynolds; that is, the Newport brands are getting married to a camel. This will make a formidable competitor to Altria's Marlboro man. (I still love the genius of changing your name from Philip Morris USA to "Altria", it makes the company sound so Alteristic!:-)
So these are products, when used as directed will either kill you, or cause you to die younger... i.e., kill you.
The big difference between pollution into the atmosphere is that it is generally not the smoker (and their family it seems with 2nd hand-me-downs) that dies, it is everyone in the vicinity, down wind, and down stream.
The problems with burning fossil fuels, in addition to any other pollution that pollute in the traditional science, they create vast amounts more Carbon Dioxide (CO2) for the atmosphere than what the earth systems have become accustomed to dealing with. If 60% goes into the oceans, that causes increased acidification; what remains in the atmosphere, hangs around for about 100 years -- a deadly experiment that we are just beginning to see the effects of.
At least with tobacco, people enter into the deadly agreement under their own free will. The externalities of the well documented costs in life, income and economic product is largely offset by massive taxes. And it is really other countries that have fast increases in smoking while we in the USA have a rapidly dwindling market. (You could say that the market is dying off, if you wanted to add pun to death and sickness.) Although, electronic cigs are growing rapidly.
But, the BIG producers of fossil fuels, have it rather sweet. They tap a natural resource, like an oil reservoir, pump it dry, sell into energy markets and have no responsibility as to the costs of the use of their products. The jaw dropping visuals from the main article here, show the billions (with a B) of tonnes of CO2 created from/by the BIGgest oil producing companies.
The oil company pays some taxes to the country where it permanently depleted a natural resource. That seems only fair. The health costs of burning coal, direct pollution, are huge but generally not covered by the companies the produce and use it. Countries have taxes on transport fuel, to offset some of the costs of the vehicles. But nobody really pays the costs of the CO2 externalities. Or at least very little is done in that directly.
So the two, or three, questions for government: Should government shut down BIG tobacco? Or tax it more? Or allow it to move closer to a duopoly where they can keep raising prices to consumers and have them pay through the nose?
And the questions for government: Should government shut down BIG tobacco? Or tax it more? Or move to cap-n-trade? Or subsidize renewables?
The one that seems to work best, and economists all like best, is a direct tax. The tax increases need to gradually escalate, at least at the rate of inflation. This, of course is political suicide. So the tax is out, and no addressable solution is in.
This is a supply and demand world. In fossil fuels you have the BIG consumers, namely China and the USA, and the BIG producer companies. Both are to blame if what they sell/buy kills people. Right?
The sinful problems associated with the dirty companies go on.. and they keep getting BIGger.
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Skeptical Science on a Skeptical Scientist: Patrick Moore on climate change
Is there really a debate as to whether humans are contributing to Global Warming?
This will take you some time, so if you are looking for a couple quick sound-bites, skip this entire post, and absolutely, skip the videos.
Dr. Patrick Moore was recently pointed out to me as a qualified scientist and a active skeptic of Global Warming. Read about Moore on Wikipedia. He was an active founder of Greenpeace, but left the greenie organization when they become too radical. He thinks that Greenpeace has moved toward more social and anti-capitalistic agendas, not so much the protection of the environment that Greenpeace was founded on.
Now he is very skeptical of many things, especially the man-made contribution to global warming.
Moore has become a PR guy for some of the most criticized companies and industries by environmental groups. Working, and consulting for 'the enemy' is not at all a bad thing. Being in the economic engine side of energy production, metals, etc., can give people detailed insight into complete solutions to major issues. But this does not seem to be how Moore functions; his interviews and books seem to actually be an extension of his job as a PR guy. See the criticism at the end of his Wikipedia page.
(Wiki note: The Wikipedia entry seem mature, with about 700 edits, 21 over the last 30 days and the most recent edit today. No editorial complaints. Note that there are no articles outside links to this page, so Moore does not seem to be the indisputable expert he might lead us to believe.)
There are many interviews of Moore that seem rational and reasonable enough on the surface: Hannity Feb 2014, and Fox Business Network with Stuart Varney pushing his book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout. But, don't watch these videos unless you are willing to go look that the scientific breakdown of what Moore has to say. Point by point, issue by issue.
This is a blog by John Mason (2012, Aug 25).
Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change:
Mason takes on the details of an interview in which Moore lavishes on facts, figures, assumptions and conclusions. And Mason breaks it down point-by-point with the best facts that exist today. Mason gives some of the best, and most factual, address of the issues associated with "Global Warming" and those who would say their "ain't no such thing". And he did it all without "sensationalist scare tactics".
When you are done, ask yourself: Who was the most shrill and panic? Who presented the facts with the most facts? Who's probabilities are most probable, give the facts?
This SustainZine blog does not devote much time to the debate over "Global Warming". Life's too short. There is global warming. Moore and Mason agree on this. Humans contribute to global warming. Moore says only a little; Mason (and the IPCC scientists) say humans contribute a lot to global warming. One of the last skeptical climate scientist Richard Muller, said that there was global warming and that humans are a major cause. Blogs here. Muller's research was funded by the Koch brothers.
This blog, however, focuses on Sustainability. Sustainability is good. Activities and business models that are non-sustainable are broken models. (Hah, you thought I was going to say "Bad".). A steady move toward 100% sustainability is not only a good plan, it is a sane plan. (Hah, you thought I was going to use the words "insane not to do so...".)
So let's get past this foolish debate and have real people and real companies start making real progress toward sustainability. If businesses and communities and individuals take long enough to get started on serious efforts to become sustainable, then governments will (start to) take charge.
What probably scares people more than Global Warming itself, actually, is that Governments far and wide will jump into the mix to "fix" things.
We especially like efforts that will save money, save time, save resources and reduce our impact on the environment. Usually, we "don't need no government" for that. (Actually that, not entirely true, but subject of another story.)
Responsible vs. Irresponsible.
You choose?
'via Blog this'
This will take you some time, so if you are looking for a couple quick sound-bites, skip this entire post, and absolutely, skip the videos.
Dr. Patrick Moore was recently pointed out to me as a qualified scientist and a active skeptic of Global Warming. Read about Moore on Wikipedia. He was an active founder of Greenpeace, but left the greenie organization when they become too radical. He thinks that Greenpeace has moved toward more social and anti-capitalistic agendas, not so much the protection of the environment that Greenpeace was founded on.
Now he is very skeptical of many things, especially the man-made contribution to global warming.
Moore has become a PR guy for some of the most criticized companies and industries by environmental groups. Working, and consulting for 'the enemy' is not at all a bad thing. Being in the economic engine side of energy production, metals, etc., can give people detailed insight into complete solutions to major issues. But this does not seem to be how Moore functions; his interviews and books seem to actually be an extension of his job as a PR guy. See the criticism at the end of his Wikipedia page.
(Wiki note: The Wikipedia entry seem mature, with about 700 edits, 21 over the last 30 days and the most recent edit today. No editorial complaints. Note that there are no articles outside links to this page, so Moore does not seem to be the indisputable expert he might lead us to believe.)
There are many interviews of Moore that seem rational and reasonable enough on the surface: Hannity Feb 2014, and Fox Business Network with Stuart Varney pushing his book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout. But, don't watch these videos unless you are willing to go look that the scientific breakdown of what Moore has to say. Point by point, issue by issue.
This is a blog by John Mason (2012, Aug 25).
Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change:
Mason takes on the details of an interview in which Moore lavishes on facts, figures, assumptions and conclusions. And Mason breaks it down point-by-point with the best facts that exist today. Mason gives some of the best, and most factual, address of the issues associated with "Global Warming" and those who would say their "ain't no such thing". And he did it all without "sensationalist scare tactics".
When you are done, ask yourself: Who was the most shrill and panic? Who presented the facts with the most facts? Who's probabilities are most probable, give the facts?
This SustainZine blog does not devote much time to the debate over "Global Warming". Life's too short. There is global warming. Moore and Mason agree on this. Humans contribute to global warming. Moore says only a little; Mason (and the IPCC scientists) say humans contribute a lot to global warming. One of the last skeptical climate scientist Richard Muller, said that there was global warming and that humans are a major cause. Blogs here. Muller's research was funded by the Koch brothers.
This blog, however, focuses on Sustainability. Sustainability is good. Activities and business models that are non-sustainable are broken models. (Hah, you thought I was going to say "Bad".). A steady move toward 100% sustainability is not only a good plan, it is a sane plan. (Hah, you thought I was going to use the words "insane not to do so...".)
So let's get past this foolish debate and have real people and real companies start making real progress toward sustainability. If businesses and communities and individuals take long enough to get started on serious efforts to become sustainable, then governments will (start to) take charge.
What probably scares people more than Global Warming itself, actually, is that Governments far and wide will jump into the mix to "fix" things.
We especially like efforts that will save money, save time, save resources and reduce our impact on the environment. Usually, we "don't need no government" for that. (Actually that, not entirely true, but subject of another story.)
Responsible vs. Irresponsible.
You choose?
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Pain in the Ash: Spill spews tons of coal ash into NC Dan River - CNN.com
Spill spews tons of coal ash into North Carolina's Dan River - CNN.com:
Oh what a pain it is! ... A Pain in the Ash, so to speak.
One of the dirty little secrets of Coal is the ash!. The massive 2008 spill in TVA should have been a bit of a wakeup call. But this phone has been ringing for centuries. There's impurities in coal, including sulfur and heavy metals like lead and arsenic. See the EPA letter on the TVA spill. And coal power releases 100 times as much radiation into the environment as a nuclear power plant. High concentrations of uranium and thorium are released into the environment around a plant from the fly ash. See APA on this ash issue.
The other secrets are that about 10,000 people die in mines per year, most of them coal, and often in China. There's the impact to air and water that many estimates impact the health of hundreds of millions of people.
The bull in the China closet, of course, is -- well -- China. They burn more than half of the world's coal right now. PRC is still opening still are opening 1 to 2 coal power plants per week, unless that has changed. And they are much less worried about how much pollution escapes into the air and water. The summer Olympics were distinctive for the air pollution, and athletes trying to compete in smog.
This smog and pollution is "shared" with neighboring countries, and the world at large. Even the Americas on occasion get a beautiful sunset, complements of the Peoples Republic.
As well, coal is a huge greenhouse gas producer of CO2, something that is invisibly shared with the whole of the planet... and no one knows what the true costs and full consequences are. But we do know that CO2 as a greenhouse gas lasts about 100 years, so whatever the impacts are, they will be very, very, very long lasting.
Many economist suggest a tax on something that has distinctive, negative externalities. Maybe coal would be a candidate!? Taxes on cigarettes are an example. A gradual tax domestically seems logical. Maybe the rest of the world should tax all the coal that gets exported to China, as well. How about an import tax on those products that are primarily produced by dirty Chinese electricity?
The dirty little secrets of coal are getting out. It's been 2 centuries that coal has ruled the power infrastructure. It is time to seriously address this "open" secret.
If you are a stockholder or a customer of Duke, it is time to give the Duke a nudge, and elbow, or even a brisk kick in the 'ash!...
'via Blog this'
Oh what a pain it is! ... A Pain in the Ash, so to speak.
One of the dirty little secrets of Coal is the ash!. The massive 2008 spill in TVA should have been a bit of a wakeup call. But this phone has been ringing for centuries. There's impurities in coal, including sulfur and heavy metals like lead and arsenic. See the EPA letter on the TVA spill. And coal power releases 100 times as much radiation into the environment as a nuclear power plant. High concentrations of uranium and thorium are released into the environment around a plant from the fly ash. See APA on this ash issue.
The other secrets are that about 10,000 people die in mines per year, most of them coal, and often in China. There's the impact to air and water that many estimates impact the health of hundreds of millions of people.
The bull in the China closet, of course, is -- well -- China. They burn more than half of the world's coal right now. PRC is still opening still are opening 1 to 2 coal power plants per week, unless that has changed. And they are much less worried about how much pollution escapes into the air and water. The summer Olympics were distinctive for the air pollution, and athletes trying to compete in smog.
This smog and pollution is "shared" with neighboring countries, and the world at large. Even the Americas on occasion get a beautiful sunset, complements of the Peoples Republic.
As well, coal is a huge greenhouse gas producer of CO2, something that is invisibly shared with the whole of the planet... and no one knows what the true costs and full consequences are. But we do know that CO2 as a greenhouse gas lasts about 100 years, so whatever the impacts are, they will be very, very, very long lasting.
Many economist suggest a tax on something that has distinctive, negative externalities. Maybe coal would be a candidate!? Taxes on cigarettes are an example. A gradual tax domestically seems logical. Maybe the rest of the world should tax all the coal that gets exported to China, as well. How about an import tax on those products that are primarily produced by dirty Chinese electricity?
The dirty little secrets of coal are getting out. It's been 2 centuries that coal has ruled the power infrastructure. It is time to seriously address this "open" secret.
If you are a stockholder or a customer of Duke, it is time to give the Duke a nudge, and elbow, or even a brisk kick in the 'ash!...
'via Blog this'
Friday, January 10, 2014
The Energy Quiz | ExxonMobil
The Energy Quiz | ExxonMobil:
Try the energy Quiz from ExxonMobil: exxonmobil.com/quiz
It has 4 categories related to energy: people, sources, uses and savings. There are 5 questions in each section.
Interesting that the actual quiz lives here: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/company/advertising-campaigns/energy-lives-here/quiz
Under the advertising campaign.
I didn't do well on the quiz. And you probably won't either. I do take issue with at least one of the 5 questions in each category. I don't like how they state projections as fact. (Make sure not to over think it.)
BUT this is a very cool quiz and provides very nice information for people to think about.
'via Blog this'
Try the energy Quiz from ExxonMobil: exxonmobil.com/quiz
It has 4 categories related to energy: people, sources, uses and savings. There are 5 questions in each section.
Interesting that the actual quiz lives here: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/company/advertising-campaigns/energy-lives-here/quiz
Under the advertising campaign.
I didn't do well on the quiz. And you probably won't either. I do take issue with at least one of the 5 questions in each category. I don't like how they state projections as fact. (Make sure not to over think it.)
BUT this is a very cool quiz and provides very nice information for people to think about.
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
How China’s economy is choking on smog | Talking Numbers - Yahoo Finance
How China’s economy is choking on smog | Talking Numbers - Yahoo Finance:
Imagine your favorite city closed down because of the weather, maybe a blizzard... Many of China's cities can have the same problem, but it is because of smog pollution.
This is a country that burns more coal than the rest of the world, combined.
Nice thing is that they share this pollution with their neighbors.
Plus the burning of coal is a gigantic producer of CO2 emissions.
At what point does this pollution start to curb the 7% economic growth that the company continues to experience? Certainly down from decades of more than 10% growth, but it is hard to grow with the traffic congestion and pollution slowing down ad periodically stopping the economy.
Things that are not sustainable, like rapid growth, have a way of producing their own remedy.
'via Blog this'
Imagine your favorite city closed down because of the weather, maybe a blizzard... Many of China's cities can have the same problem, but it is because of smog pollution.
This is a country that burns more coal than the rest of the world, combined.
Nice thing is that they share this pollution with their neighbors.
Plus the burning of coal is a gigantic producer of CO2 emissions.
At what point does this pollution start to curb the 7% economic growth that the company continues to experience? Certainly down from decades of more than 10% growth, but it is hard to grow with the traffic congestion and pollution slowing down ad periodically stopping the economy.
Things that are not sustainable, like rapid growth, have a way of producing their own remedy.
'via Blog this'
Monday, September 23, 2013
Natural gas, the media’s failures, and you « The Cost of Energy
Natural gas, the media’s failures, and you « The Cost of Energy:
Ouch!
"The Cost of Energy" Lou Grinzo blogs (and reblogs) about how unclear NatGas really is. It all has to do with the Methane released from the fracking.
See the reprint of the blog at EthicsAndClimate.org from Dr. Brown.
Sadly NatGas may really not be cleaner than Coal. How dirty is that!
Here's my comments over to Lou's post.
Okay, as always, your blogs are extremely informative, with lots of facts that are well substantiated. The Dr. Brown article is a real eye opener on fracking.
Ouch! This is ugly. So we really don't gain anything from NatGas except maybe fuel independence -- and a wonderful improvement to our US trade (im)balance!:-(
The question I have for all of this NatGas is here and now. Half of the NatGas in the US is flared. So when we say that NatGas is 50% cleaner than coal, do we count the other 100% that is flared in the making? Oh, wait, we aren't saying that NatGas is actually cleaner than coal. It may not be!
Don't get me wrong, there's a safety and a transport issue here with flaring...
Good news is that much of the flaring is probably methane, right? So it could be worse, there might not be as much flaring. Simply releasing the methane would be a hefty magnitude worse?
And, of course, the point is that there should be no (short-term) plan to switch to NatGas without some follow-on plan to switch completely to sustainable fuel/power.
Much like our US energy policy, if there is one, the short-term plan is the only plan, even though it is based on exhaustible resources. That is, the plan is broken as designed.
Non-sustainability, over time, has a way of giving a wicked whiplash effect. And somehow, everyone with this broken short-term plan feel warm and cuddly about it.
Double ouch!
'via Blog this'
Ouch!
"The Cost of Energy" Lou Grinzo blogs (and reblogs) about how unclear NatGas really is. It all has to do with the Methane released from the fracking.
See the reprint of the blog at EthicsAndClimate.org from Dr. Brown.
Sadly NatGas may really not be cleaner than Coal. How dirty is that!
Here's my comments over to Lou's post.
Okay, as always, your blogs are extremely informative, with lots of facts that are well substantiated. The Dr. Brown article is a real eye opener on fracking.
Ouch! This is ugly. So we really don't gain anything from NatGas except maybe fuel independence -- and a wonderful improvement to our US trade (im)balance!:-(
The question I have for all of this NatGas is here and now. Half of the NatGas in the US is flared. So when we say that NatGas is 50% cleaner than coal, do we count the other 100% that is flared in the making? Oh, wait, we aren't saying that NatGas is actually cleaner than coal. It may not be!
Don't get me wrong, there's a safety and a transport issue here with flaring...
Good news is that much of the flaring is probably methane, right? So it could be worse, there might not be as much flaring. Simply releasing the methane would be a hefty magnitude worse?
And, of course, the point is that there should be no (short-term) plan to switch to NatGas without some follow-on plan to switch completely to sustainable fuel/power.
Much like our US energy policy, if there is one, the short-term plan is the only plan, even though it is based on exhaustible resources. That is, the plan is broken as designed.
Non-sustainability, over time, has a way of giving a wicked whiplash effect. And somehow, everyone with this broken short-term plan feel warm and cuddly about it.
Double ouch!
'via Blog this'
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? :-(
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Clean Coal Might Really Be a Possibility!!! WOW!
Energy | Homeland Security News Wire:
Clean Coal Might Really Be a Possibility!!! WOW!
It may take me years to take back all the trash talk I have had about Coal.
Dirty, Dirtier, Dirtiest Coal... But no such think as Clean.
Dr. Fan at Ohio State has pioneered the technology called Coal-Direct Chemical Looping (CDCL). This lab project has contained 99% of the carbon dioxide from coal.
Well maybe. This will bear some watching as it moves forward out of the labs and into the power plant.
Coal, of course, is still not a renewable resource (unless you count charcoal -- good for my Kamado grill, but not so much so for mainstream energy production!-)
Wow, if we could find a cure for coal, that would put us 30-40 years ahead. Of course, it would have to be cheap, or we (China, US and India) wouldn't use it. And then we'd be back in the same dirty boat, right up to our coal ash.:-(
'via Blog this'
Clean Coal Might Really Be a Possibility!!! WOW!
It may take me years to take back all the trash talk I have had about Coal.
Dirty, Dirtier, Dirtiest Coal... But no such think as Clean.
Dr. Fan at Ohio State has pioneered the technology called Coal-Direct Chemical Looping (CDCL). This lab project has contained 99% of the carbon dioxide from coal.
Well maybe. This will bear some watching as it moves forward out of the labs and into the power plant.
Coal, of course, is still not a renewable resource (unless you count charcoal -- good for my Kamado grill, but not so much so for mainstream energy production!-)
Wow, if we could find a cure for coal, that would put us 30-40 years ahead. Of course, it would have to be cheap, or we (China, US and India) wouldn't use it. And then we'd be back in the same dirty boat, right up to our coal ash.:-(
'via Blog this'
Friday, August 24, 2012
Dirty little Coal secrets... shhh .... Talking Tr-Ash...
Sustainability eMagazine
If you have never done so, you want to visit the EarthJustice site about coal ash: http://earthjustice.org/our_work/campaigns/coal-ash-contaminates-our-lives
And what you want to do, is visit this site every time you see one of these sweet and pretty ads about "Clean Coal".
Admittedly, the EarthJustice takes the other side of this far, very far-from-clean, source of energy. However, coal produces half of the electric power in the US. Well, all right, now only about 34%. But that "cheap" energy has a lot to do with the high quality of life that we all enjoy. It also does not get credit for the hidden costs it presents to the environment and to personal health.
Back to the dirty little secret of Coal Ash. Remember the Ash trashing by TVA in 2008. The damage is into the billions of dollars and climbing. And it has not been cleaned up. All those heavy metals in the ash down a couple rivers. Sadly, that's a gift that keeps on giving.
Heavy metals include lead, mercury, arsenic and more. Sulfur, lots of sulfur. They can have traces of radiation. We, in the US, tend to want to clean most of these by-products from this soot from the smoke. Other countries like India and China, not so much so.
And we have these ash build-ups all over the world.... And the mountains are growing.
Here's just one source on the running costs and litigation at ABC News.
Of course is the worst fossil fuel, by far, in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
We don't need to burn that dirty coal, better simply to ship it to China and India and let them burn it there. No harm done in that.
If you have never done so, you want to visit the EarthJustice site about coal ash: http://earthjustice.org/our_work/campaigns/coal-ash-contaminates-our-lives
And what you want to do, is visit this site every time you see one of these sweet and pretty ads about "Clean Coal".
Admittedly, the EarthJustice takes the other side of this far, very far-from-clean, source of energy. However, coal produces half of the electric power in the US. Well, all right, now only about 34%. But that "cheap" energy has a lot to do with the high quality of life that we all enjoy. It also does not get credit for the hidden costs it presents to the environment and to personal health.
Back to the dirty little secret of Coal Ash. Remember the Ash trashing by TVA in 2008. The damage is into the billions of dollars and climbing. And it has not been cleaned up. All those heavy metals in the ash down a couple rivers. Sadly, that's a gift that keeps on giving.
Heavy metals include lead, mercury, arsenic and more. Sulfur, lots of sulfur. They can have traces of radiation. We, in the US, tend to want to clean most of these by-products from this soot from the smoke. Other countries like India and China, not so much so.
And we have these ash build-ups all over the world.... And the mountains are growing.
Here's just one source on the running costs and litigation at ABC News.
Of course is the worst fossil fuel, by far, in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
We don't need to burn that dirty coal, better simply to ship it to China and India and let them burn it there. No harm done in that.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)