I’ve always thought that the biggest issue with greens was not CO2 and AGW, but “progress in general”. This story seems to support that notion. Maybe they’ll get James Hansen to denounce it too. – Anthony
‘Emissions-free’ coal plant pilot fires up in Germany
BERLIN (AFP) – One of Europe’s biggest power companies inaugurates on Tuesday a pilot project using a technology that it is presenting as a huge potential breakthrough in the fight against climate change.
But green campaigners have denounced the project as a cosmetic operation that does not really address the problem of global warming.
At the site of the massive “Schwarze Pumpe” (“Black Pump”) power station in the old East Germany, Vattenfall wants to the new method to allow it continue burning coal — but with radically reduced emissions.
To do so, the Swedish firm is using Carbon Capture and Storage, or CCS for short, which captures the greenhouse gases produced when fossil fuels are combusted.
This prevents the greenhouse gases escaping into the Earth’s atmosphere and contributing to global warming.
The captured gases are then sharply compressed until they become liquid and are injected deep underground, sealed away and therefore will not contribute to the increase in the Earth’s temperature, Vattenfall says.
I’ve read that there is enough uranium in coal ash, that it would be considered nuclear waste if it hadn’t been exempted by previous laws.
I thought coal ash had a bit of thorium, not uranium.
While there are thousands of spent nuclear fuel rods that could be recycled, 90% of the total waste is leftover from the weapons programs. Hanford, Oak Ridge, etc. Not nearly as useful, far more dangerous, with proper handling, could still be a source of energy. It takes a commitment of many folks to make it happen. Serious safety issues. We’ll have to deal with them. We won’t get one millijoule by just talking about it.
That’s the real problem – energy. To maintain or improve the quality of life, it takes energy. We can and should conserve, and be as efficient as possible. We still need energy, particularly in developing countries. Wind and solar may have a small place at the table, but serious energy means coal, gas, or nuclear. The first two have problems of supply and pollution. So does the third, but we can deal with them, particularly if we reprocess what we already have.
Transportation at the individual level will depend on room temperature liquid fuels for a long time. Absent a major breakthrough in batteries, nothing else has the energy density. Joe Sixpack isn’t going to pump cryogenics or high pressures with much degree of safety.
All of which is a moot point if the folks with influence and power don’t want it to happen. If the Greens, Enviros, AGW’s and the like get their way, it won’t happen. When the lights do go out, it may be too late.
JeffL
I don’t think we can take any environmental lessons from the oil companies thank you. I’ve worked in the oil business too and I’ve seen what goes on. Plus I’ve lived near a refinery that chucks out all their worst crap at night-time when nobody sees it. What companies are supposed to do bears little relation to what they actually do and I wouldn’t trust anyone to drill farther than they could get away with before dumping their junk. So yes, like the greens, I think the water table is in danger of being ruined. We’ve already seen fish farms turning it salty.
Every time somebody assumes we can trust industry to regulate themselves I despair of their naivete. The greens are simply trying to preserve our environment and it’s an uphill struggle against people with deep pockets and zero conscience. Of course they are ritually pessimistic; it comes from bitter experience. Do you even realize the extent of the poisons, hormones, chemicals, effluent, raw sewage etc that is ritually chucked into our rivers and seas? Don’t blame the greens for being misled about AGW – the fault lies squarely with the duplicitous scientists.
James G.
Your wariness of self-regulated industry is warrented.
Great case-studies of self-regulating industries might be found in the history of the California sardine fishery, the Atlantic cod fishery, the Atlantic Sworfishery, and the old-growth-dependant North American timber industry. What do all of these have in common? Moslty unregulated, rampant harvest with increasingly clever and efficient technologies, to the point of diminishing return and industry collapse. A portion of the citizenry starts to recognize the problem and expresses concern, and then governement trys to impose regulations that yes, protect the environment, but also lead ultimately to sustainability of said industries. Then members of said industries call those trying to impose some rules “wacko environmentalists” that are killing their respective industries. Circular reasoning?
I remember once when I was working for the USFS in northeast California in the early ’90’s; it was a Friday night at Laufman Station and a bunch of harvest inspectors, timber markers and cruisers were around the BBQ, along with a handful of “ists”…(biologists, hydrologists, archeologists, etc). The timber folks were complaining about that damn spotted owl and all of those tree-huggers destroying the old-growth timber economy. One of the biologists, getting a little impatient asked the timber folks…”ok, let’s say you guys were able to mark and cut the big timber here on the Plumas, Lassen and Modoc, as fast as you want, like you did in the late 70’s and 80’s; how long would it last? With some feet shuffling and mumbling, they confessed, about 7 to 10 or so years!
So if left unregulated, at this point in time, old-growth timber in Northeast California would last about a decade..maybe more! Who’s at fault at the sad state of the timber industry..the “Greens”…the “Guvinment”…or unregulated industry?
John D.
When Greenpeace activists tell shoppers at supermarkets that eating GM foods may cause you to grow a third arm, or that GM foods aren’t tested, they’re rightly labeled as “whacko environmentalists”.
Jeff, in the first half of your post, you’ve taken a very, very small part of my contribution completely out of context. But, I completely agree with you on the concern over third-arms though, if that’s really what’s been said. Regarding whether or not GM foods have been tested, I personally don’t know; perhaps you can share?
John D.
John D, since your post is right above mine, the context is right there for all to see. I don’t see a problem. Quoting an entire post to highlight a single part isn’t good “netiquette”.
Yes it’s been said, on camera, more than once. And GM foods are probably the most tested things we eat. Does it mean they’re perfect, or that a small percentage of the population won’t have an allergic reaction (as they might with any “organic” food.)
Sorry, forgot to finish the sentence properly, but I think you get my point.