My Global Warming nightmare could be just about to begin...The international Climate Negotiations have had major players stalling, and putting their foot down for years. And all this time, Petroleum, the easy crude sort, is rapidly becoming more expensive and more scarce. Meanwhile, just down below fertile lands around the globe is this hard black stuff, cheap to burn, easy to mine... And so, King Coal makes a reappearance. And everywhere. Here are some of the scare stories :- =x=x=x=x=x=x=x= The United States To Become One Huge Coalmine : Let's Put All The Climate-Aware Young Back Down The Coal Mines :- Price of natural gas makes coal king as energy source Utilities companies have concentrated on building cleaner-burning natural-gas power plants for the past two decades. Now, 153 new coalburning power plants are under way or being proposed nationwide, according to the National Energy Technology Lab, 24 of which would convert coal to clean-burning synthetic gas and capture carbon dioxide emissions. Although there are proposals for 30 new nuclear reactors, a spokesman from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said, it's questionable whether they will materialize. Still, nuclear power is second to coal in generating electricity. More than half the nation's electricity is supplied by coal, but in Colorado it's 71 percent, according to the Colorado Mining Association. Colorado coal producers boast that their coal is cleaner burning and burns more efficiently than coal from the East. =x=x=x=x=x=x=x= Coal To Liquid : Cleaner Burning ? Are You Kidding Me ? Keeping The Military In The Air : Yes : Coal-Fired Planes :- The planes of the future could be flown with liquid fuel made from coal or natural gas. Already the United States Air Force has carried out tests flying a B-52 Stratofor-tress with a coal-based fuel. In addition to being cheaper than oil, advocates point out that the fuel is environmentally friendlier and would also help America and much of the Western world wean itself off foreign oil imports. In a recent briefing to power and energy executives, Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, said bio-diesel fuels offered little in the way of reduced carbon dioxide emissions, have enormous production costs and present "serious transmission and infrastructure" problems. In contrast, CTL transportation fuels are substantially cleaner-burning than conventional fuels. In October, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and a consortium of energy and technology companies announced the state will be home to one of America's first CTL energy plants. Mr Schweitzer and the companies behind the plant, including Arch Coal and DKRW Advanced Fuels, say the production of fuel and electricity will not release the greenhouse gases associated with coal-generated electricity. "The programme is the first step in opening up new horizons for sourcing fuel for military purposes," said Bill Harrison, a fuels expert with the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. =x=x=x=x=x=x=x= Do you believe this ? Aren't they doing this investment in order to burn more Carbon and make more power ? Where's the Carbon Dioxide emissions savings in that then ? Efficiency is fine, as long as you don't start producing more Energy :- =x=x=x=x=x=x=x= Kentish Coal : Would/Could/Will It Have Carbon Sequestration Technology ? :- =x=x=x=x=x=x=x= There's really no such thing as "Clean Coal" : Doubt cast on 'carbon capture' technology :- By Fiona Harvey in London The fight to cut the world's greenhouse gas output may be relying too much on unproven technology for capturing carbon from coal-fired power stations, experts have warned. Sir Nicholas Stern, the former World Bank economist, highlighted carbon capture and storage technology in his influential review of the economics of climate change. Speaking at the Royal Society of Arts in The European Commission, setting out its energy and climate-change plans last week, also emphasised carbon capture and storage as a method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The technology requires But David Porter, chief executive of the UK's Association of Electricity Producers, warned that the European Union might be over-optimistic: "They did seem to set a lot of store by carbon capture and storage. We are keen to see it exploited but it looks as though they expect it to become viable more quickly than is likely to Jon Gibbins, lecturer in energy technology at Imperial College, said: "You're pushing money down intoa hole in the ground [byburying carbon dioxide]. That's quite expensive." He warned that governments needed a greater sense of urgency in replacing existing power stations with plants that captured carbon. Other scientists have expressed reservations about the technology, which is still in its early stages and may prove to be very expensive. Charlie Kronick, senior policy adviser at Greenpeace, also warned that the technology was at least 10 years off, while action could be taken now to reduce emissions, for instance through energy efficiency and renewables. Carbon capture and storage is seen as one of the most important ways of reducing emissions, because the world is likely to continue to use large quantities of fossil fuels for decades, even as more electricity is generated from nuclear fission and renewable sources such as the wind and sun. The world's consumption of coal is rising, as China and India build hundreds of new power plants to cope with soaring energy demand. However, some developed countries are also increasing their reliance on coal - only recently regarded as an outdated and dirty fuel with a limited future - as concerns rise over energy security and the doubtful supply of oil. For instance, in the UK, the Department of Trade and Industry said earlier this month that electricity companies used 23 per cent more coal and 12 per cent less gas, which releases lower levels of CO2, in the third quarter of 2006 than they did in the same period a year ago. =x=x=x=x=x=x=x= There are always Doubters, especially about Big Engineering :- Study raises new doubts about carbon storage Brief news : US researchers who injected carbon dioxide in a depleted oil field in Texas found it caused the minerals underground to dissolve, raising fresh doubts about carbon capture and storage technology as a viable solution to global warming. Yousif Kharaka, the geochemist who led the experiment, said the 1,600 tonnes of liquid CO2 injected underground changed the acidity of the minerals, causing them to dissolve. This, he said, has environmental implications as the liquid CO2 could then leak into ground water or find its way back into the atmosphere and aggravate the greenhouse Experimental carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects are currently being implemented around the globe. The technology is believed to hold the promise of a future where fossil fuels such as oil and coal can become clean of CO2 emissions, the most important gas held responsible for global warming. In Europe, the largest project involves the injection of liquid CO2 to force more oil out of a field in the North Sea. The project, which is supported by the governments of Norway and Great Britain, is due to be phased in by 2010 by companies Shell and Statoil. The EU Commission is due to present a policy paper on carbon capture and storage at the end of 2006 that will address the use of the technology to reduce emissions from all fossil fuels, especially in the coal sector. =x=x=x=x=x=x=x= New Scientist: Carbon dioxide's great underground escape in doubt :- Sydney Morning Herald : Buried gases may escape :- =x=x=x=x=x=x=x= BBC: Carbon burial plan for North Sea :- =x=x=x=x=x=x=x= Le Monde: Une étude relance le débat sur le stockage géologique du CO2 :- =x=x=x=x=x=x=x= China's Coal Heartland :- =x=x=x=x=x=x=x= |
|||
 |
Campaign against Climate ChangeUK activists portal |
|
|
|
A great resource, Jo!
- I mean your post, that is!
And I thought you meant me ?
You didn't mean that I, personally, am the great resource ?
NU COAL : Tapping A Dirty Old Seam...
there's much, much more to the NU COAL story :-
calvin jones, blogger extraordinaire, takes up the case against coal in his latest intrepid reports. go, calvin, go !
http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com/2007/02/dont-they-undertstand-it-is-financially.html
http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com/2007/02/billionairs-for-coal-and-rainforest.html
say NO WAY JOSE to NU COAL !
US coal protests: An example to us all
Showdown Nears in Texas TXU Coal Plant Battle - Reuters, 12 February. The article is reproduced below.
I cannot over-emphasise that demonstration-type protests are best targeted at decisions that are about to be made.
For example: road-building, airport-building, coal-fired power-station building without guarantees of carbon burial. Although we should not assume that carbon burial won't be problematic (see here).
The other main value of large gatherings is to help motivate (and in some cases inform) attendees to participate in campaigning as best they can when they return home.
Showdown Nears in Texas TXU Coal Plant Battle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version
US: February 12, 2007
HOUSTON - Opposition is growing to TXU Corp.'s US$10 billion plan to build new coal-fired power plants in Texas as lawmakers and regulators consider measures in the next few weeks that will determine whether the projects can move forward.
Environmental groups have been joined by elected officials and business leaders arguing that TXU's plan to build 11 new coal plants will drastically increase emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and carbon dioxide, worsening the state's air quality and contributing to global warming.
A public rally to oppose plans by TXU and other developers is set for Sunday on the steps of the state capitol in Austin. Both sides have bought newspaper and TV ads to sway public opinion.
"No one wants all these coal plants the way they have been sprung on Texans," said Jackson Williams, executive director of Texas Clean Sky Coalition, the latest business-based coalition to oppose new coal plants.
The battle pits powerful mayors in Houston and Dallas against Texas Gov. Rick Perry who supports coal development. It pits Texas cities that welcome jobs and taxes the plants will create against communities that want more coal plants only if they use a technology, called gasification, to cut pollution.
Dallas-based TXU said new plants will add generation to keep pace with the state's growing appetite for power in a cost-effective way that uses the best anti-pollution technology available.
Critics say TXU is using old coal technology and only wants to boost profits while adding more pollution to the Texas sky in hopes of beating the deadline for future laws to restrict coal-plant emissions.
"The company will more than double its emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary man-made greenhouse gas, from 55 million tons a year to 133 million tons a year," said Jim Marson, regional director of Environmental Defense in Austin.
OPPOSITION EXCEEDS TXU'S EXPECTATIONS
The showdown begins later this month on two fronts. A regulatory hearing will be held for permits that would allow TXU to build six coal plants. Legislators are meeting to consider a coal moratorium and proposals that would limit power-plant ownership or tighten the air-permit process.
Donna Hoffman, a spokeswoman for the Sierra Club in Texas, said rally organizers hope to convince legislators to endorse a six-month moratorium on coal permits.
A moratorium would derail the governor's effort to expedite Texas' air-permit process. In 2005, as electricity prices soared after two hurricanes disrupted US natural gas production, Perry issued an order to spur coal construction to reduce Texas' reliance on expensive gas.
Opposition to its plan has exceeded TXU's expectations, said spokeswoman Kim Morgan.
"We feel we have put together a strong, positive program for the state to lower prices, supply much-needed power and better air quality," Morgan said.
TXU critics are skeptical of TXU's pledge to cut overall emissions by 20 percent by cleaning up its older coal plants with additional pollution controls.
The only concession made by TXU has been to agree to build some new plants so that equipment can be added to capture carbon emissions in the future.
Investors are watching the growing opposition.
"We had the impression when this was announced that people were a lot more concerned about the high and rising price of electricity in Texas," said Tim O'Brien, a principal with Crow Point Partners, which advises the Boston-based Evergreen Utility and Telecommunications mutual fund which owns TXU shares.
Story by Eileen O'Grady
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
BBC Coverage of Texas protests.
There is already video coverage of some of the Texas protests (well it is purported to be) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6358269.stm, click on video link "Climate change protesters in Texas"; on the right hand side.
Great Jumping Jimminy Coal Plants !
Hell's Billows ! Great Jumping Jimminy Coal Plants ! Everywhere you look there are plans for more of them ! It's becoming clear that there is a mad rush on to build traditional coal-fired power plants before international regulations and treaties get signed. And the reason the authorities want to have more highly polluting coal-fired power plants that will be guarded with armed uniformed men and dogs for another 4 decades is ? Because energy demand is still rising, because people and businesses and towns are not awake and not taking practical steps to cut their energy use. So corporate interests are sliding in there and offering cut-price deals on coal-based generation facilities ? Most probably. And why do the locals support this ? That old economics answer to getting any development through - wage slavery - I mean - JOBS.
"Before regulation hits, a battle over how to build new US coal plants" :-
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0222/p13s01-sten.html
The fact is, demand for energy in the United States is projected to increase 1.1 percent each year through 2030. Economists say cheap and abundant energy is necessary to maintain a vibrant and healthy economy. Faced with ever higher oil prices and possessing ample reserves – more than any other single country – the obvious choice for the US is coal, say experts. Indeed, there are some 150 proposed coal-fired plants across the country, according to the National Energy Technology Laboratory. But the vast majority of these plants, Desert Rock included, utilize what critics call "old" technology – pulverized coal (PC), rather than the technology known as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), which captures pollutants more efficiently. Nationwide, the proposed plants are receiving scrutiny from lawmakers concerned with climate change as well as from citizens who would live near them. The utilities industry finds itself caught "on the horns of a dilemma" about how to proceed before regulations are in place, says Bruce Driver, an independent water and energy consultant in Boulder, Colorado. For their part, the majority of elected Navajo Nation officials support the $2.5 billion Desert Rock plant. They say it will bring much-needed jobs – 1,000 during construction and 400 upon completion – to an area with 43 percent unemployment... But opponents say enough is enough. The Four Corners area already hosts three power plants. A brown haze often hangs over the region on still days...
Climate Camp helped push policy, say Drax
Climate Camp helped Drax push policies favouring carbon capture and increased biomass burning, so say Drax:
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/article2326...
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2326085.ece
A major biomass source being used is oil palm residues. I have not found it straightforward to analyse whether it is good or bad if UK firms consume these. Is there much of a market for them in SE Asia for power generation? Is market for portions going into animal feed or chipboard exceeded? What is net effect on emissions if they are mulched saving on fertilizer?
Naughty Coal : Slapped Wrists All Round
TXU Gets Sold And 8 Out Of 11 Planned Coal Plants Dropped ! :-
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/35660.html
TXU will begin construction on a new coal plant in Central Texas as soon as possible, since recently receiving approval.
A federal judge approved a settlement between Alcoa, TXU and the U.S. Department of Justice, the Star-Telegram reported. The plant will be at Alcoa's aluminum smelter in Rockdale, about 60 miles northeast of Austin. The new unit, known as Sandow 5, will replace three old coal-fired generators.
An estimated 750 jobs will be created through the project and it's expected to bring about $300 million per year to the surrounding area. The plant at Rockdale is one of the three that will still be built after a deal under the proposed buyout would cancel the other eight planned coal plants.
Opponents of the Rockdale plant had sued Alcoa. The plaintiff, Environmental Defense, claimed the company released illegal amounts of air pollution from the plant during a 17-year period. The settlement allows Alcoa to avoid applying for a new permit but it must pay the U.S. government $859,000 in penalties from a 2003 settlement. Alcoa and TXU must also cut emission rates for nitrogen oxide by 20 percent from the rate called for in the 2003 settlement.
The two companies may also have to limit their sulfur dioxide emissions from the Sandow unit, according to Jim Marston, regional director of plaintiff Environmental Defense. The plaintiff groups have not decided whether or not they will appeal the judge's ruling.
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
But Coal Not Going Away : It's Too Cheap ! :-
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/4599206.html
March 3, 2007, 6:20PM
System encourages coal-fired power plants
By LOREN STEFFY
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
The proposed buyout of TXU comes with a dirty little secret: Coal isn't going away.
Coal represents the hidden value in the deal, the lock on profits that makes it worth $32 billion to private equity investors.
If more buyout firms land deals in Texas similar to the one that Texas Pacific Group and KKR hope to pull off with TXU, the appetite for coal will likely grow.
The way deregulation works in Texas, consumer electric prices are set by the free market. Wholesale rates, or the price at which generating companies sell their electricity, are tied to the price of natural gas.
Generating the most
That's because gas-fired plants generate most of the electricity in the state.
TXU, however, shows how a savvy investor can make a killing by playing the spread between natural gas prices and generation costs. Consider this explanation in TXU's annual financial statement, filed last week with the Securities and Exchange Commission:
"One of TXU Power's key competitive strengths is its ability to produce electricity at low variable costs in a market in which power prices are set by natural gas-fueled generation."
In other words, because its nuclear and lignite coal plants have lower generating costs than natural gas plants, TXU is able to make more money from them because it still sells its electricity at the prevailing wholesale rate.
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x
United Nations scientists report calls for No More Dirty Coal :-
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11274-united-nations-scientists-join-climate-change-chorus.html
As of now, only coal power stations that can accommodate facilities to capture and store their carbon dioxide emissions should be built, scientists advised on Tuesday.
Declaring the global warming debate over, the UN-backed team urged the world's nations on to act now to keep climate change from creating a worldwide catastrophe.
The group said that in order to avoid "intolerable impacts" of climate change, global CO2 emissions must peak at not much above their current level, no later than 2020, and by 2100, they must have declined to about one-third of that value.
Their statement, entitled Confronting Climate Change, was issued by the UN Foundation and the Sigma Xi scientific research society on 27 February.
Policy considerations
The report follows the 2 February release of a much-heralded document by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Paris, France, which stated that global warming is real and human activities caused much of it over the past half-century.
The earlier report's remit was to assess the status of climate science and so did not make policy recommendations. The current one centres on just such recommendations.
Its conclusions, however, are not new. It states that:
• Global average temperature rises of more than 2°C to 2°5C above 1750 pre-industrial temperatures will lead to "sharply increasing risk of intolerable impacts"
• Avoiding such a rise will require the capping of atmospheric concentrations at the equivalent of no more than 450-500 parts per million of CO2 (compared to about 380 ppm CO2 today)
The report says that addressing this will require:
• A two-pronged strategy: "avoiding the unmanageable" (limiting greenhouse gas emissions) and "managing the unavoidable" (adapting to the unavoidable effects of climate change)
• Increased efficiency in the transportation sector
• Better design and efficiency of commercial and residential buildings
• Incentives for a greater use of biofuels
• Better preparation for the effects of climate change in poor countries
• Slowing and eventually reversing deforestation, a major source of greenhouse gas emissions
• A tripling or quadrupling of global investment in advanced energy technology
Growing consensus
The scientists considered nuclear power as a carbon-free option, but said this energy source must address the problem of disposal of radioactive waste and break the link between nuclear technology and weapons proliferation.
Many of these points reinforce those recently advocated. For example, the European Union's energy strategy released in January 2007, and a statement released by the Global Roundtable on Climate Change in February 2007.
The agreement between all of these statements and reports – including this latest which is the result of two years of work – indicates a growing consensus among scientists, policymakers and business leaders worldwide.
"We make the argument that it is essential that we get started now: not next year, not next decade, but now," says John Holdren, a professor of environmental policy at Harvard University in Boston Massachusetts, US, and member of the scientific panel that crafted the report.
Substantial package
And while the recommendations are global, certain specific items are sure to affect the US, Holdren says. For example, the US, which emits about 25% of the world's CO2, relies heavily on coal-fired power plants.
US House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she hoped to see a "substantial package" of US global warming legislation by 1 June 2007.