--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 5, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Michael Murphy wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], bob_brigante <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/business/05coalfuel.html > >> > >> "The coal in the ground in Illinois alone has more energy than all > >> the > >> oil in Saudi Arabia. The technology to turn that coal into fuel for > >> cars, homes and factories is proven. And at current prices, that > >> process could be at the vanguard of a big, new industry." > >> > >> > > It's interesting to see that this is being taken seriously by the > > commercial sector. It will > > increase pollution most likely, but at least it give us some > > options. My guess is that when > > push comes to shovel and there is a choice between compromising the > > american life style > > and compromising the atmosphere, our current government will choose > > to maintain our > > wasteful life style. > > > What they (the coal industry) will do I suspect is promote research > which will show that particulate matter released into the atmosphere > from coal burning actually helps mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. > Therefore this will not only be a viable interim solution, it will > help reverse global warming till "cleaner" solutions are in place and > viable. The new WMD.
Actually, as the article points out, and has been the trend for 20 years, coal is much cleaner than it used to be for traditioanl pollutants: SO2, CO, ozone, No2, PM10 etc. The article says the current [scrubbing] technology makes coal burning cleaner than natural gas -- which if true -- is phenomenal. NG has long been the quite-clean burning fuel of choice for new plants coming on line. And is the by far largest generation fuel in areas like California. But CO2 (not CO) is not a traditional pollutant and is not eliminated / greatly reduced by these modern scubbers. But, again as the article points out, as has been the trend, carbon sequestration technology is advancing. There are experimental plants that pump all CO2 into the ground. So the generation is CO2 neutral. And quite low in traditional pollutants. Some areas, as the article points out cannot pump the CO2 into the ground, but can pipeline it to industrial areas. The latter needs more pipeline infrastructure to be truly viable. Sequestration of carbon is as or more important than i) energy-efficiency -- getting same power out of less energy input, and ii) conservation (consuming less, substituting energy intensive consumption for products and services with lower input. Both would be greatly enhanced, and "solved" by the market if fuels were priced efficiently and not laden with huge subsidies (direct and indirect -- that is, not including all costs incurred on society. Welfare-energy-consumers are of course resistant to efficient market solutions. Sequestration can be direct, like the coal plant pumping CO2 underground, or indirect, such as reforestation. 95% of CO2 produced on earth (not the same as that escaping to atmosphere) is 95% or so from natural sources. But nature has an abundance of carbom "sinks" which traditionally have kept CO2 in balance. The 5% man-made carbon had tipped the balance, thus causing a 30% or so increase in atmospheric carbon. By increasing, or even re-establishing, natural carbon sinks -- such as forests -- the greenhouse gas problem looming for future generations could be substantially mitigated. If energy were price to reflect its full costs, and thus sending the correct price signal in all markets -- hugely important to market economies -- large scale sequestration projects could be funded with no increase on regular taxes. Then those who want to drive a lot, and/or drive SUVs, can do so to their hearts content, pay the full cost of such consumption, send the corrrect price signal for energy, and provide for more forests (recretion lands) which could keep CO2 in (or greatly towatds) balance. Drive and create forest recreation lands! Who doesn't love that. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
