"Stalled carbon capture coal plant in Ill. gets OK
Energy Department says stalled futuristic coal-burning plant to move forward in Illinois
Henry C. Jackson, Associated Press Writer
On Friday June 12, 2009, 1:08 pm EDT
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stalled-carbon-capture-coal-apf-15512898.html/print
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Energy Department is moving forward on a futuristic coal-burning power plant in Illinois that the Bush administration had declared dead.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Friday that reviving the FutureGen plant is an important step that shows the Obama administration's commitment to carbon-capture technology.
"Developing this technology is critically important for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and around the world," Chu said in a statement.*****
Coal burning power plants are the leading source of carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas linked to global warming, and finding economical ways to capture carbon from such plants is viewed as key for the future of coal if a price is put on carbon to combat climate change.
The FutureGen plant would use Illinois coal, which is high in sulfur and has been used less frequently after changes to the Clean Air Act in 1990. As originally planned, the plant would have experimented with coal from Texas and Wyoming, too.
The commitment to the state's coal could help the Illinois mining industry rebound from a decline from around 10,000 jobs in 1990 to about 4,000 now, said Phil Gonet, a spokesman for the Illinois Coal Association.
"Eighty percent of our coal now goes out of state because almost every power plant in this state decided to switch to (cleaner) western coal," he said. "When you have a market in your own state that may open up for the first time in 20 years, that is significant."....."
Yes, but there is something better, something that has no emissions whatsoever and that will jumpstart the green economy in every state. For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com. Thank you.
Showing posts with label coal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coal. Show all posts
Friday, June 12, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Progress, But We Can Do More
"Green energy overtakes fossil fuel investment, says UN
Clean technologies attract $140bn compared with $110bn for gas, coal and electrical power Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 June 2009
Green energy overtook fossil fuels in attracting investment for power generation for the first time last year, according to figures released today by the United Nations"(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/03/renewables-energy).
Good. Very good. But more can be done. For information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Clean technologies attract $140bn compared with $110bn for gas, coal and electrical power Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 June 2009
Green energy overtook fossil fuels in attracting investment for power generation for the first time last year, according to figures released today by the United Nations"(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/03/renewables-energy).
Good. Very good. But more can be done. For information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Biomass Limitations and the Alternative
Biomass, which includes buring wood for fuel, has its limits (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7997398.stm). If not done sustainably, we could end up with more greenhouse gas than we have had with fossil fuels: "At its best, biomass could produce as little as 27kg of CO2 (equivalent) per megawatt hour - 98% less than coal, saving around two million tonnes of CO2 every year . . . However, the study also found that in some cases overall emissions could be higher than those of fossil fuels" (ibid). But it could be used in combination with other things (ibid).
Why bother, though, with something so difficult when there's a totally green, totally emissions-free alternative? For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
Why bother, though, with something so difficult when there's a totally green, totally emissions-free alternative? For more information, please see www.terrahumanafoundation.org.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Alternative Energies: A Response to Information
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/energy/
Nova: The Big Energy Gamble
12 February 2009 Blog: More on Global Warming and Alternative Energies
This blog is a response to information in Nova’s episode “The Big Energy Gamble” which discusses California’s efforts to halt global warming by investing in alternative energies. For convenience’s sake, I am going to use complete internal documentation once, then stick to using ibid).
Extreme weather—including drought, fires, and mudslides—can be linked to the global warming that happens from producing greenhouse gases, themselves produced from the use of fossil fuels (Nova: The Big Energy Gamble, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/energy/).
But what if there was an alternative energy that produced no carbon emissions?
The Governor’s goal for California as per carbon reduction is 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050; this includes 15% from homes, 15% from power generation, 33% from cars, and the rest from carbon emissions caps (ibid.).
A totally clean energy could reach those goals much sooner—as soon as 2011 or even 2010.
There are things that can be done now at home: seal leaks in ducts, windows, and doors, and use energy-efficient light bulbs (ibid). But some people can’t afford any of that (ibid).
What if there was an energy alternative that was so efficient that those measures would not necessarily have to be taken . . . and everyone could afford it?
So . . . what sort of fuels are used and what are the advantages and disadvantages?
Coal . . . advantages . . . well, it is there in the ground, and there are coal-fired plants already in use . . . But the disadvantages . . .Coal is a hydrocarbon; when it’s burned it combines with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide, and, of all the fossil fuels, coal produces the most (ibid).
There are energy alternatives which produce no or less carbon emissions (ibid). And those include solar and wind power (ibid).
Solar power . . . The sun is certainly a renewable; that’s an advantage. And you can harness its power yourself (ibid). You can buy solar panels for your home, but those are expensive: one person interviewed on Nova: The Big Energy Gamble paid $32,000 for solar panels for his house, even with a tax credit (ibid). And his house isn’t all that big . . . it’s not one of those McMansions.
Solar thermal energy is also used: huge panels use oil to move energy and it is converted to steam (ibid).
That’s all very well, but there is the expense for the individual, and as per solar thermal energy . . . oil is still needed, and steam can be produced other ways. And what if it’s not sunny??? (ibid). What do you do on cloudy days? (ibid).
There’s also wind energy, another renewable. Wind turbines, each with their own generator, produce electricity, and the bigger the turbines the more energy produced (ibid).
But there are disadvantages: what do you do when the wind doesn’t blow? And if the wind turbines are out in the desert, how do you get the power to the city through the grid that is miles away (ibid)? And what do you do about the environmental concerns about building transmission lines to the grid (ibid)?
It is possible to not depend on the sun and wind . . . and to not have to worry about being miles away from power generation.
Natural gas is another alternative, and California gets 45% of its energy from it (ibid). Carbon emissions from natural gas are 50% less than from coal (ibid). That’s the advantage. But natural gas is still a fossil fuel and there are still emissions to deal with, even if more plants were built instead of coal-fired plants (ibid).
There is an alternative to natural gas.
Nuclear power fuels many buildings (ibid). But there are disadvantages: the expense, the dangers of radioactivity, and the waste that can’t be put just anywhere (ibid).
There is an alternative to nuclear energy.
Some people are afraid that energy from alternative sources will cost more in money and job loss (ibid). Wind turbines are built here, though, because it’s cheaper (ibid).
There is something that is cheaper, without using huge wind turbines, and without costing jobs.
For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Nova: The Big Energy Gamble
12 February 2009 Blog: More on Global Warming and Alternative Energies
This blog is a response to information in Nova’s episode “The Big Energy Gamble” which discusses California’s efforts to halt global warming by investing in alternative energies. For convenience’s sake, I am going to use complete internal documentation once, then stick to using ibid).
Extreme weather—including drought, fires, and mudslides—can be linked to the global warming that happens from producing greenhouse gases, themselves produced from the use of fossil fuels (Nova: The Big Energy Gamble, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/energy/).
But what if there was an alternative energy that produced no carbon emissions?
The Governor’s goal for California as per carbon reduction is 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050; this includes 15% from homes, 15% from power generation, 33% from cars, and the rest from carbon emissions caps (ibid.).
A totally clean energy could reach those goals much sooner—as soon as 2011 or even 2010.
There are things that can be done now at home: seal leaks in ducts, windows, and doors, and use energy-efficient light bulbs (ibid). But some people can’t afford any of that (ibid).
What if there was an energy alternative that was so efficient that those measures would not necessarily have to be taken . . . and everyone could afford it?
So . . . what sort of fuels are used and what are the advantages and disadvantages?
Coal . . . advantages . . . well, it is there in the ground, and there are coal-fired plants already in use . . . But the disadvantages . . .Coal is a hydrocarbon; when it’s burned it combines with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide, and, of all the fossil fuels, coal produces the most (ibid).
There are energy alternatives which produce no or less carbon emissions (ibid). And those include solar and wind power (ibid).
Solar power . . . The sun is certainly a renewable; that’s an advantage. And you can harness its power yourself (ibid). You can buy solar panels for your home, but those are expensive: one person interviewed on Nova: The Big Energy Gamble paid $32,000 for solar panels for his house, even with a tax credit (ibid). And his house isn’t all that big . . . it’s not one of those McMansions.
Solar thermal energy is also used: huge panels use oil to move energy and it is converted to steam (ibid).
That’s all very well, but there is the expense for the individual, and as per solar thermal energy . . . oil is still needed, and steam can be produced other ways. And what if it’s not sunny??? (ibid). What do you do on cloudy days? (ibid).
There’s also wind energy, another renewable. Wind turbines, each with their own generator, produce electricity, and the bigger the turbines the more energy produced (ibid).
But there are disadvantages: what do you do when the wind doesn’t blow? And if the wind turbines are out in the desert, how do you get the power to the city through the grid that is miles away (ibid)? And what do you do about the environmental concerns about building transmission lines to the grid (ibid)?
It is possible to not depend on the sun and wind . . . and to not have to worry about being miles away from power generation.
Natural gas is another alternative, and California gets 45% of its energy from it (ibid). Carbon emissions from natural gas are 50% less than from coal (ibid). That’s the advantage. But natural gas is still a fossil fuel and there are still emissions to deal with, even if more plants were built instead of coal-fired plants (ibid).
There is an alternative to natural gas.
Nuclear power fuels many buildings (ibid). But there are disadvantages: the expense, the dangers of radioactivity, and the waste that can’t be put just anywhere (ibid).
There is an alternative to nuclear energy.
Some people are afraid that energy from alternative sources will cost more in money and job loss (ibid). Wind turbines are built here, though, because it’s cheaper (ibid).
There is something that is cheaper, without using huge wind turbines, and without costing jobs.
For more information, please see www.campaignforgreen.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)