Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
The December 2010 issue of the Atlantic shows an amazing turn-around by some of the Global Warming warmists! Yes, they are still tuned in to the CAGW crowd predicting imminent climate change disaster, but … BUT, some have reversed themselves on their previous ‘ol devil coal! Turns out we need coal to generate Watts of electricity for our electric cars and, they say, we can do it in a way that is environmentally correct.
The cover story, by respected author James Fallows, is titled Why the Future of Clean Energy is Dirty Coal. {Click the link to read it free online.}
Recall that, only last year, a leading alarmist, NASA’s James Hansen, one of the key science advisors on Al Gore’s The Inconvenient Truth movie, wrote:
“..coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet. … The dirtiest trick that governments play on their citizens is the pretense that they are working on ‘clean coal’… The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”
Fallows writes:
“To environmentalists, ‘clean coal’ is an insulting oxymoron. But for now, the only way to meet the world’s energy needs, and to arrest climate change before it produces irreversible cataclysm, is to use coal—dirty, sooty, toxic coal— …”
Amazingly, while atmospheric CO2 is still the bogeyman of what alarmists say is an imminent Global Warming disaster, coal, which is nearly all carbon and generates CO2 when burned as intended, is part of the solution! Fallows writes:
Before James Watt invented the steam engine in the late 1700s—that is, before human societies had much incentive to burn coal and later oil in large quantities—the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was around 280 parts per million, or ppm … By 1900, as Europe and North America were industrializing, it had reached about 300 ppm.
Now the carbon-dioxide concentration is at or above 390 ppm, which is probably the highest level in many millions of years. “We know that the last time CO2 was sustained at this level, much of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets were not there,” Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State, told me. Because of the 37 billion annual tons of carbon-dioxide emissions, the atmospheric carbon-dioxide level continues to go up by about two ppm a year. For perspective: by the time today’s sixth-graders finish high school, the world carbon-dioxide level will probably have passed 400 ppm, and by the time most of them are starting families, it will have entered the 420s. …
Michael Mann told me. “What we have with rising CO2 levels in general is a dramatically increasing probability of serious and deleterious change in our climate.” He went down the list: more frequent, severe, and sustained heat waves, like those that affected Russia and the United States this summer; more frequent and destructive hurricanes and floods; more frequent droughts, like the “thousand-year drought” that has devastated Australian agriculture; and altered patterns of the El Niño phenomenon, which will change rainfall patterns in the Americas. …
You should recognize Michael Mann as the creator of the deceptive “hockey stick curve” at the center of many of the Climategate emails. (See this and this and this and this.) Note also the standard line that, whatever happens to the weather: hotter, colder, dryer, wetter, stormy, calm, sunny, cloudy, … whatever, it is all due to high CO2 levels (even if they don’t plow your streets after a blizzard :^)
So, what is the solution? Fallows writes:
Isn’t “clean energy” the answer? Of course—because everything is the answer. The people I spoke with and reports I read differed in emphasis, sometimes significantly. Some urged greater stress on efficiency and conservation; some, a faster move toward nuclear power or natural gas; some, an all-out push for solar power and other renewable sources …
Note the mention of nuclear, also a bogeyman of the green crowd until a few years ago. In this regard much of the world is ahead of us. When I bicycled in France a few years ago, you could see nuclear power plant cooling towers in much of the countryside (except near Paris – I guess that is where the professional environmentalists live) and France generates most of its electricity using nuclear energy. It will take the US quite a while to catch up, but it is good to see a mainstream liberal literary magazine starting to lead the way. The above paragraph also mentions natural gas, a fossil fuel, ahead of “solar power and other renewable sources” stuck in at the end. It seems they finally realize that we need energy and, at least for the next decades, it will continue to be coal, burned in a cleaner way, plus nuclear and natural gas.
Fallows continues:
“Emotionally, we would all like to think that wind, solar, and conservation will solve the problem for us,” David Mohler of Duke Energy told me. “Nothing will change, our comfort and convenience will be the same, and we can avoid that nasty coal. Unfortunately, the math doesn’t work that way.”…
Coal will be with us because it is abundant: any projected “peak coal” stage would come many decades after the world reaches “peak oil.” It will be with us because of where it’s located: the top four coal-reserve countries are the United States, Russia, China, and India, which together have about 40 percent of the world’s population and more than 60 percent of its coal. …
“I know this is a theological issue for some people,” Julio Friedmann of Lawrence Livermore said. “Solar and wind power are going to be important, but it is really hard to get them beyond 10 percent of total power supply.” …
What would progress on coal entail? The proposals are variations on two approaches: ways to capture carbon dioxide before it can escape into the air and ways to reduce the carbon dioxide that coal produces when burned. In “post-combustion” systems, the coal is burned normally, but then chemical or physical processes separate carbon dioxide from the plume of hot flue gas that comes out of the smokestack. Once “captured” as a relatively pure stream of carbon dioxide, this part of the exhaust is pressurized into liquid form and then sold or stored. …
“Pre-combustion” systems are fundamentally more efficient. In them, the coal is treated chemically to produce a flammable gas with lower carbon content than untreated coal. This means less carbon dioxide going up the smokestack to be separated and stored.
Either way, pre- or post-, the final step in dealing with carbon is “sequestration”—doing something with the carbon dioxide that has been isolated at such cost and effort, so it doesn’t just escape into the air. … All larger-scale, longer-term proposals for storing carbon involve injecting it deep underground, into porous rock that will trap it indefinitely. In the right geological circumstances, the captured carbon dioxide can even be used for “enhanced oil recovery,” forcing oil out of the porous rock into which it is introduced and up into wells.
According to Fallows, China is in the lead on this clean coal technology, with help from American and other western corporations. While it is good that at least some of the Global Warming alarmists are warming up to coal as a necessary part of the solution, it would be better IMHO, if they were also more realistic about the actual dangers of climate change and the likelihood (again IMHO) that most of the warming of the past century is due to natural cycles not under human control and that we are likely already in a multi-decade period of stable temperatures, and perhaps a bit of cooling.
Yes, I think we need to do something about the unprecedented steady rise in CO2 levels, but we have to do it is a way that will not destroy our economies or force us to drastically reduce our lifestyles. One thing I agree with James Hansen about is that an across-the-board carbon tax, assessed equally against all sequestered fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) and collected at the mine, well, or port, is the best solution, far more suitable to the task than the “cap and trade” political scam, and more likely to work.
Rather than have governments pick winners (and mess up as they did with corn ethanol subsidies that raised food prices and reduced gas mileage without doing much to control CO2 emissions) I prefer to tax carbon progressively a bit more each year and let industry and other users decide for themselves how to adapt to the higher prices. Nothing stimulates action and invention like saving your own money. Nothing wastes money like government taking money from “Mr. A” and giving it to “Mr. B” for the “good of society”.
I’m working on a future posting that will propose use of gassified coal along with enhanced CO2 farming as a clean coal implementation that may make sense in a decade or so. I hope to post it next week.
***************************
Another story in the same issue of the Atlantic is about famed physicist Freeman Dyson and The Danger of Cosmic Genius.{Click the link to read it free online.}
They write:
In the range of his genius, Freeman Dyson is heir to Einstein—a visionary who has reshaped thinking in fields from math to astrophysics to medicine, and who has conceived nuclear-propelled spaceships designed to transport human colonists to distant planets. And yet on the matter of global warming he is, as an outspoken skeptic, dead wrong: wrong on the facts, wrong on the science. How could someone as smart as Dyson be so dumb about the environment?
Does it occur to them that the CAGW warmists and alarmists may be the ones who are wrong?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
For Lazy Teenager
http://www.dakotagas.com/CO2_Capture_and_Storage/index.html
That link will help you up to date on some things about coal gasification and CO2 sequestering. This plant started because of a past energy crisis which of course was forgotten once supplies freed up again. Maybe my memory is too good, but the idea of more energy independence I find kinda sexy.
Coal gasification is by no means a solution. It is more expensive, but generally any thing is more expensive initially. It does seem rational enough to justify a subsidy for pilot plants like Futuregen, which is somewhat in limbo. There is a lot of promise with coal gasification because a wide variety of petroleum products can be produced. I could go on quite a while on alternate energy from an energy independence perspective.
Right now there is football and Hoppin’ John that demand my attention.
As others have already noted, we don’t need to tax CO2 now. We don’t need to tax anything. We need to cut taxes and Federal spending. We need to defund the Federal government’s system of politicized science with its large flow of grant money to our universities. We need to get the professors back into the class room instead of out politicking for grant money. Do we still need a NAS, which also now seems to be putting out politicized science? In addition, DoE should be cut back just to managing our nuclear weapons program and our nuclear power system.
George Turner:
Oops. Mods, the above “but when you burn that you still end up with CO2 and H2″ should read “CO2 and H2O”. But I’m not sure anyone will notice.
Nope, I didn’t notice. But I did notice this:
Coal to octane is price competitive with oil when oil prices are above $60 or $70 a gallon….
It would be competitive for sure at those prices. But I think you mean per barrel.
Ira wrote as response to captainfish December 30, 2010 at 10:58 pm
…I am also worried about the costs of protecting our access to foreign petroleum. Also, fossil fuels and nuclear are non-renewable resources, with a horizon of decades to a century or so. That is why I favor a modest carbon tax. I am not gung-ho on it though. Ira
Depends on what you call a “renewable” resource. I wwould consider a resource that can’t possibly depleted by humanity before the sun goes into the red giant stage “renewable”. This is the case for nuclear. Unless you consider the currently used (1950s) technology of once-through uranium water boilers the pinnacle of nuclear technology.
If you consider Uranium:
A current technology 1 GWatt reactor typically requires about 200 tons of raw Uranium per year. A 1 GWatt coal plant burns about 10,000 tons of coal per day. See the difference?
Here:
http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.pdf
is a very good article that shows that nuclear breeding reactors ARE a renewable energy source for all practical purposes.
And with Thorium beeing 4 times more abundant in the earths crust than Uranium even more so. A Thorium reactor like an LFTR (a technology already proven to work in the 1960s), the Thorium usage is about 1 ton per GW and year.
We don’t even have to use electric cars with all their resource problems (expensive rare materials used for batteries). We can re-use the CO2 that combustion energy sources release into the atmosphere when using nuclear plants as well:
http://www.lanl.gov/news/newsbulletin/pdf/Green_Freedom_Overview.pdf
Even if we deplete all oil, natural gas and coal resources, this technology gives us the hydrocarbons needed for efficient transportation applications.
The only reasons we are not doing that and instead waste money on windmills and solar panels is the irrational fear of nuclear that has been instilled on the population by the greenies.
KADAKA-
You make several assumptions in your article, so let me correct some:
1) the energy hog east of the Mississsipi is Chicago and all the utilities out here sell energy into that market. Chicago is the driver for both Buffett and the French buying into Midwestern companies, so there is not a need for a transmission line, only the energy hog in Chicago needing huge amounts of peak power at very high rates in the summer. This helps keep my low rates low. Thus, peak power is the cade word, to me, that they are going to use these to ripoff ComEd in Chicago.
2) The penetration rate of wind will be 20% by 2030 and we are on pace to reach that, thus large amounts of the new capacity will be wind.
http://www.ucs.iastate.edu/mnet/wind/about.html
3) MidAmerican just built a new gas and a coal plant, so they may not need capacity at the moment, but they will.
4) Who do you think pays for nuke plants? Utilities can’t afford them thus the US gov does pay for large portions of those as well, thus your gov argument is partially obviated by reality.
Oh, and Iowa did all this with no requirement or gov mandate for the use of renewables. The mandate in Iowa is for the utilities to allow people to give them extra money for renewables if the consumer sees fit, by volunteer only.
The only mandate Iowa had is very old and has not been relevant to any renewable capacity added after 1999.
As I speak the outside air temp in la Grande Or. is 12F. The Wind turbines at the
Elkhorn wind farm are not turning-no wind. Hmm. I see a problem here…
“I’m working on a future posting that will propose use of gassified coal along with enhanced CO2 farming as a clean coal implementation that may make sense in a decade or so. I hope to post it next week.”
I’m sure it will be interesting, however in order for them to really make sense, they will need to do so without the benefit of “carbon taxes”, whose effect on the economy will be a negative one. According to former Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, we could see $5/gal gas prices by Nov., 2012. If so, that would have hugely negative economic effects, but would also probably spark a surge in interest in electric cars as well as alternative energies overall. That is how the free market works. Government intervention only mucks things up.
[Bruce, I generally agree that I’m from the Government and I’m here to help are scary words to hear. Yet, although I am attracted to libertarian ideals, I don’t go all the way with them. There is a role for government, so long as they act indirectly using market forces, and refrain from putting their big flat foot into it. There is also the zeitgeist, or spirit of the times, which precludes idealistic, totally free market, wild west-like economics. It is a fine balance. Ira]
Smokey:
In the interest of time, I’ll just pick the first one on the skepticalscience.com list. I understand that the skeptical view is that solar variations can at least partially explain recent temperature trends. The skepticalscience.com response is in the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
Searching WUWT archives for the term ‘solar cycle’ I only find a few articles that seem relevant to this issue specifically.
The first is this article about IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth being unable to account for the [lack of] current warming in their models. In a follow-up interview, Trenberth is asked about solar cycles and he responds mentioning continued warming during the period of relative solar inactivity for the last 35 years.
The WUWT author calls out Trenberth on neglecting solar-magnetic activity which might account for recent warming. The article finishes with a quote from this paper: “The long term trends in solar data and in northern hemisphere temperatures have a correlation coefficient of about 0.7 – .8 at a 94% – 98% confidence level.” However, the following sentences read: “The last 30 years are not considered, however. In this time the climate and solar data strongly diverge from each other”. The WUWT author implies Trenberth is selective omitting data not fitting his conclusion, while the primary source actually confirms Trenberth’s statements.
Next: observations of the solar polar magnetic field suggest that we may be entering another Dalton minimum, which is a period of several relatively quiet solar cycles. This data is including magnetic activity, and seems to contradict the suggestion in the article above that magnetic activity may explain the divergence of earth temperature data from solar activity in the last 35 years.
There are several articles on the correlation of the semi-annual variation of the length of day and mid-latitude cloud changes with galactic cosmic rays, which may be modulated by solar activity. This in turn may have an effect on albedo, which could affect temperature and climate.
Since 2000, comparison of several sets of satellite data shows no trend in albedo. According to Takemura et al, 2005 the anthropogenic effect on albedo is a small cooling effect, but it is clear that cloud cover has a large effect on global energy flux, so natural variations might have noticable impacts. Still, there is no evidence that the natural albedo changed (via solar cycles or GCR or some other mechanism) in a way that explains the divergence of the global temperature mean from the solar radiative forcing. The divergence of solar activity and temperature, however, is consistent with the well-understood mechanisms of greenhouse gas increases.
I’ve already gone on too long, and I don’t want to take this too much further off topic. Is there another post that more clearly debunks the solar forcing divergence from temperature, or at least a better place this can be discussed?
[Christopher, We know, historically, low Sunspot numbers over multiple Solar Cycles coincides with cool periods (e.g., Maunder, Dalton). We also know solar irradiance does not change enough over a Solar Cycle to explain that. So, most climate models are created assuming high CO2 sensitivity, i.e., rapid, human-caused CO2 rises and land use changes explain the claimed 0.7ºC-0.8ºC (actual 0.4ºC-0.5ºC IMHO) temp rise. The problem with that is the continuing rapid CO2 rise with no corresponding temp rise since the late 1990’s. Thus, IMHO, the best explanation (Svensmark) is that solar magnetic activity affects cosmic rays and that affects cloud formation and that affects albedo. We won’t know for sure for a decade or more, but, IMHO, high CO2 sensitivity is busted. Ira]
Coal has an EROEI of about 4. Solar PV’s EROEI is 0.48. Wind power is 0.29
. Electric car EROEI’s if they are lucky might be 0.2. Do the math on alternative energy; they are a collosal waste of resources.
Since CO2 was 7,000 ppm 550E6 years ago (Berner 2001), 18 times higher than today, what’s the problem? Since CO2 was 425 ppm in 1825 (Beck 2007), 35 ppm higher than today, what’s the problem? And, since the ice core data shows that CO2 increases come about 800 years AFTER the temperature increases, what’s the problem?
A very good post, Ira. I have been saying for some time to my environmentalist friends that coal is not going away. We can become somewhat less dependent upon coal by building more nuclear power plants (a prospect I much favor – read William Tucker’s excellent writings on nuclear power, for example). But we will have to continue to include coal in the energy mix, because it is a cheap source of energy and because it can be burned much more cleanly than it used to be burned. It is nice to see someone on the journalistic Left who actually recognizes this.
I am not anxious about the CO2 releases caused by burning coal at this point. My question has always been: how much CO2 is too much? We do not know the answer to that question yet, and we have plenty of time to develop useful and economic alternatives (such as coal gasification, though I think it not economical at this moment) that reduce CO2 emissions over time. If the bureaucrats and politicians let our free market economy and technological prowess work, the answer will ultimately be found.
[Thanks Larry in Texas for the kind words and I agree with your points. As a lukewarmer-skeptic, IMHO, even 600 ppmv CO2 would not be a problem, and might be a net positive, since I do not believe the high CO2 sensitivity of climate models is justified. But, as a conservative, I would worry if it got above, oh, say 1000 ppmv. Ira]
Charles S. Opalek:
I agree – the costs of renewables is too high. Unfortunately, I think we also underestimate the externalized costs of conventional energy sources.
As for CO2:
– There are other drivers of climate besides CO2. 550E6 years ago the sun was much cooler.
– there are significant problems with the Beck 2007 paper, not the least of which is the massive flux of carbon in and out of the atmosphere needed to explain the temporal variations of CO2 reported. It is more likely that the IPCC AR4 estimate of 290ppm in the 19-th century is closer than Beck’s 425 ppm.
Allan Short says:
December 31, 2010 at 6:48 am
“A question, when co2 was 390 or above many millions of years ago there was no ice in Greenland. The question is was Greenland where it is almost today or was it somewhere else those many millions of years ago. Thanks Allan”
Greenland was in the same spot, but there are a couple of problems with Mann’s assertions. For one, there was ice in Greenland (not much though), but also there have been several Ice Ages with much higher levels of CO2. Of course, there are other factors to consider as well like the Milankovich (sp?) cycles – but such complications aren’t good for selling propaganda.
Christopher says: [ … ]
I’ve never claimed anything about solar cycles/AGW, either pro or con.
So you set up your strawman anyway, and fearlessly knocked it down and killed it. Good for you, what a guy.
To be clear, this is my long held positiuon:
There is no verifiable evidence showing that CO2 harms the planet. After a ≈40% rise in CO2 – which is not insignificant – there is zero empirical, testable evidence that any harm has resulted.
But there is plenty of evidence that the rise in CO2 has been highly beneficial:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
In a world where a billion people subsist on a dollar a day or less, the beneficial effect of additional CO2 literally makes the difference between life and death.
But the CO2=CAGW scam intends to reduce this harmless and beneficial trace gas – based on always wrong computer models. The scam is being perpetrated for the benefit of a few, through increased taxation, higher costs, and supra-national government. None of them give a damn about the world’s truly poor.
The evidence that CO2 is beneficial is found in increased ag productivity, yet there is no verifiable evidence that CO2 is harmful. The whole CAGW scare comes from models, not from real world observations.
So, why the hatred for your fellow man? Is reducing the population through starvation your goal? Or do you just like being sadistic?
All the answers are in this documentary.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/blackmoney/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
Juanslayton,
Good catch! Yes, I meant coal to liquids are competitive when oil prices are above $60 or $70 a barrel. There’s not much push for it, due to environmentalists, but more importantly because oil hasn’t gone above that price for the long term, so nobody is going to invest the billions required for the switch.
On another note, one of the ways we can improve the efficiency of powerplants is by retrofitting them with a Kalina cycle stage to turn waste heat into energy. The Kalina cycle uses a combined ammonia-water system, instead of the single fluid system of the Rankine cycle. Some plants are already in operation and show significantly higher efficiencies.
Smokey:
You said all of the talking points on skepticalscientist.com were debunked in the WUWT archive. I picked the very first one, and was unable to find the debunking. Still open to more pointers.
It seems that you preferred to pick a different point to debunk: additional CO2 is (not) harmful. You rightly point out that plants usually grow better with (slightly) higher CO2 concentrations, all else being equal. The problem is that all else is not equal. We don’t know the full impacts of increased CO2, but it is very likely that increased temperatures, changes in ocean acidification, changes in ocean and air currents, and changes in long term weather patterns will cause more harm than good.
Brad,
I have worked in power generation for 20+ years. The government DOES NOT pay for nuclear plants. The government currently offers loan guarantees, for a fee, to approved projects. Currently, one such project has been approved, Voglte in Georgia. Another was canceled because the government wanted about 10% of the loan value to guarantee the loan. Obviously, this made no sense for the investors.
As others have said, wind turbines have about a 30% capacity factor. This is a function of physics and economics. The cost of a wind turbine is not dominated by the size of the generator. This fact, coupled with the probability density function of wind distributions means it makes sense to oversize generators to capture the energy in the less frequent, stronger winds. The 30% capacity factor is a fallout from these simple realities. Add to this the need to build dis-patchable generation to compensate for the unpredictability of wind and no one would build them except for the government subsidies and guaranteed rates of return from regulators. As is evident each time the subsidies expire.
Brad says:
December 31, 2010 at 11:13 am
“Oh, and Iowa did all this with no requirement or gov mandate for the use of renewables. ”
You should read the midwestern greenhouse gas accord.
http://www.midwesternaccord.org/
I was pretty disappointed by this article. It’s just the same old wishful thinking rehashed. There just aren’t any “clean” coal power technologies that are proven or of reasonable cost. The only question is whether it matters or not (I say NOT, of course!).
Ira:
I don’t understand your worry about the recent CO2 increase. We have many test sites where people are exposed to 1000 ppm or more. Greenhouses are maintained at that level and people work all day in there. Anybody who regularly attends Meetings/Conferences is exposed to a couple of thousand ppm. From my readings, we really don’t get into dangerous levels of CO2 until we get up to the 10,000 ppm.
Other than, the world hasn’t seen this in human lifetime (assuming chemical analysis is wrong), what is your rationale for the worry?
David Ball: The polar bear scare ain’t dead yet. Check out this line of crap in the Vancouver Sun.
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Heart+wrenching+view+bears+inspires+execs+better/4040079/story.html
I have kind of a different idea, that never really occurred to me before, but just kind of eureka’d to me today.
The main (market) reason to not want carbon taxation is that it increases energy costs. I have a possible solution to that problem, though. It would incentivize energy companies to develop green energy while not increasing end user energy costs significantly.
Impose an “at site” carbon source tariff that is paid to companies and individuals which produce energy on a per-watt basis. The end energy costs would be about the same, since the energy companies would be effectively subsidized to make energy (any kind) with the taxation on carbon. This would make “green” energies more profitable (lower overhead) and carbon energies less profitable, pushing the energy industry to innovate. Mathematically, the amount of research capital spent by energy companies pales in comparison to most industries, and a carbon pro-rating like this would allow for increased incentive to create green energy without mandating it. If 100% of energy is made from carbon sources, then it pays back to the companies exactly what they produce, but maverick companies trying new non-carbon producing technology would get the subsidies to perform better.
I might be missing something, economically, about how this would work, please critique.
Also, I’m aware that any time there’s a tax involved and government gets involved there’s an opening for corruption… but if it was actually done EFFECTIVELY with low overhead, I’m sure it’d be a more viable solution that wouldn’t overly burden the consumer… effectively you’re raising the price of carbon based energy, then lowering the price of ALL energy. This isn’t intended to make an end user increase or decrease, but to incentivize low to no carbon solutions. (also coincidentally incentivizes Hydro and Nuclear ;).)
[Check the posting again. That paragraph was quoted from Fallows. I did not write it. However, it makes sense to me that gassifying coal underground, within the mine, will make it more like natural gas that we know emits less CO2 when burned. As I understand the process, once it is initiated, it involves injecting air and water into the coal seam. (C3{coal} + H2O{water} + O2{from air} → Coalgas which is 2H{hydrogen} + 3CO{carbon monoxide}) Ira]
Come again? You do you make carbon simply vanish? This violates the law of conservation of mass. Think about it for a minute.
[Snork, the chemical transaction starts with “C3{coal} …”, 3 atoms of carbon, and ends with “…3CO{carbon monoxide}”, also 3 atoms of carbon, so no carbon has vanished in that formula. When I wrote that natural gas emits less CO2 than coal when burned, I was refering to this “…high efficiency natural gas-fired power stations can produce up to 70% lower greenhouse gas emissions than existing brown coal-fired generators, and less than half the greenhouse gas emissions of the latest technology black coal-fired power stations.” Coalgas {2H + CO} is more like natural gas {CH4} than solid coal {C}. Ira]
Christopher says:
December 31, 2010 at 1:22 pm
You rightly point out that plants usually grow better with (slightly) higher CO2 concentrations,
======================================================
Chris, the optimum CO2 level for plant growth is 1200-1500 ppm.
That’s not slightly.
If plants evolved that the “optimum” is 1200-1500 ppm, then they are starving now.
========================================================
Christopher said:
We don’t know the full impacts of increased CO2, but it is very likely that increased temperatures, changes in ocean acidification, changes in ocean and air currents, and changes in long term weather patterns will cause more harm than good.
==========================================================
You seem to have bought into the catastrophic part.
All of those things also happen naturally.
The only other choice is that we are trying to control the weather/climate.
If you buy into the we are affecting the climate, then you are forced to buy into the “we can control the climate”.
Do you really think we can control the weather/climate? that is preposterous.
Johnegg says:
December 31, 2010 at 1:39 pm
“There just aren’t any “clean” coal power technologies that are proven or of reasonable cost”
The term ‘clean coal’ doesn’t normally have anything to do with capturing CO2. It addresses the other coal pollutants and since they tend to be 50% more efficient then conventional coal plants the amount of CO2 emitted/Megawatt is decreased by 30%.
Most of new Chinese power plants are ‘Ultra Critical Coal’ with thermal efficiencies around 45% compared to a conventional coal plant with a thermal efficiency of 30%.
As far as price, ‘Clean Coal’ plants cost between 1/2 and 2/3rds of what a nuclear power plant costs.