Green Options

Coal power is not base-load electricity by itself. To enable coal to reliably deliver electric power, it took the creation of an entire other national infrastructure; the trans-continental railroad system.

Without the unceasing rail-car-load delivery, every 12 hours, on the hour, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, year after year, of every next 12-hour-supply of fuel for the fire; the fire would go out, the water wouldn’t boil, the steam wouldn’t rise, the turbine wouldn’t turn; the next [...]

Every barrel of oil extracted in the US also produces ten barrels of hot fluids in addition to the oil. Why not use that potential energy in the waste heat?

Rather than discard that “geothermal” resource created by the process of oil extraction, the DOE is going to show the traditional energy industry how to tap into those waste fluids to power equipment at the site. If generally applied by the industry, this would help reduce the high carbon cost of [...]

A new study by nearly 30 of the world’s best scientists concludes that we have crossed three of the world’s nine thresholds. It is not only about climate change.

Will we be able to move away from dirty fossil fuels to new clean energy sources in the near future? Not if Old King Coal has his way…

Apparently many modern electric power plants that are coal powered can also use natural gas. So, when the price of natural gas came down in the US, more power stations switched to the cheaper fuel.

The result has been a sharp drop in coal use. Unused coal is piling up at power plants. About 175 million tons of coal inventory is now backed up. Inventory is up 26% over last year.

This national backlog is now beginning to back up into coal fields too. Wyoming has a 6.5% drop in demand from utilities, especially in the Midwest. For the first time in 15 years, coal production has been slowed in Wyoming. And the future looks grim too.

Now that Cap and Trade is a possibility, there is a rising clamor for a carbon tax instead, from conservative thinktanks like the American Enterprise Institute, outlets like The Washington Times and even directly from Exxon itself. Yet when first introduced by Al Gore, in 1993, the carbon tax was anathema to the fossil industry. What makes a carbon tax now less of a threat than Cap and Trade? It’s the Cap.

The key difference between Cap and Trade and a carbon tax is that a carbon tax controls just the cost of pollution - only a cap limits the quantity.

The “Cap” limits emissions by fossil companies

The Cap in Cap and Trade is the only mechanism for ensuring a total limit to carbon emissions. A Cap is set for the fossil industries as a whole. The Cap on emissions at point-of-entry sources (oil pipelines, coal fields and coal-fired power stations) in the current Cap and Trade bill limits total carbon.

As a nation, we have been moving away from regions of the US with extremes of hot or cold, and towards the West and Southwest for about the last fifty years.

A new study has found that as a result, our average (per person) use of energy for heating and cooling has diminished, resulting in a reduction in combined energy demand over the last fifty years.

The Waxman-Markey Climate Bill uses Cap and Trade to get our current 6 billion tons of CO2 a year down to just over 5 billion tons a year by 2020 (20% by 2020) and continuing down further by 2050.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the auction proceeds of the current Cap and Trade bill would increase Federal revenues by about $846 billion by 2019.

That would more than fund the $821 billion in renewable energy spending that it will take (per the CBO) to reduce the national carbon footprint by almost a billion tons a year on deadline, and would leave $25 billion in the bank for additional renewable energy projects.

This revenue would fund programs that reduce carbon emissions and that cut the cost to individuals and businesses. Some examples over the jump:

Only after I snoozed my way through high school science class did science become more compelling than science fiction.

Back then, there was just no compelling reason to pay attention. Just a browzy fly buzzing in a smelly boring lab full of long agreed-upon dull principles that were really neither here nor there. In those days there were no colliding continents or hydrothermal vents or extremophile lifeforms. We looked to sci-fi for that.

Who knew that our planet would soon be busting at the seams with 7 billion of us. That our fossil fuel use would threaten our survival with climate changes — on a level unseen on the planet since Cyanobacteria made it safe it for oxygen-breathers 4 billion years ago.

Or that we would not only discover vast strange heat sources under the ocean but that we’d actually consider mining these hydrothermal vents for renewable energy: That was the sort of story you’d only find in science fiction back then.

But yet, here we are. This is not science fiction:

According to the title of an article published in The City of Lancaster’s Outlook (Fall 2009) magazine “The Future Looks Bright for Solar Power in Lancaster”.

My small town,  all 475,000 of us, are at the forefront of solar energy! On August 5, 2009, eSolar unveiled the 5 MW (mega watt) demonstration plant known as Sierra SunTower. The solar power plant has 24,000 mirrors and two giant tower house boilers. The boilers create what’s known as “thermal solar” which is said to be more cost-effective than the standard photovoltaic approach used in solar cells. The process creates steam to drive the turbine generators. The project was completed in 14 month time frame and has already begun to distribute power to Southern California Edison.

eSolar’s site says “Sierra SunTower will supply 5 MW of clean, renewable energy to the grid. This full-scale power plant, the only one of its kind in the U.S., produces electricity for Southern California Edison (SCE) and will power up to 4,000 homes.”

More sulfur dioxide and other acid gasses could be scrubbed from power plant emissions with a new technology developed by the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The new method, Reversible Acid Gas Capture, is a sustainable twofer: it doubles the amount of pollutants currently captured by the leading water-based scrubber, and it is far more energy-efficient. David Heldebrant, the scientist who headed the PNNL research team, points out that the technology easily lends itself to a retrofit for existing power plants.  That’s good news for reducing pollution from coal-fired power plants, but it would be a mistake to call it a win for “clean coal.”