We know that replacing old coal plants with new ones can be good for the environment.
June 13, 2008
A Global Climate Hoax?: Inhofe's criticism shows global warming must be viewed in context.
A Planetary Emergency?: Democracy need a crisis to act on global warming, but that may lead to bad solutions.
Carbon Sequestration: Why carbon sequestration is a dangerous and bad technology.
Global Climate Change: What we must do address the threat of climate change.
Landmass and Carbon Dioxide Emissions: A study of the emissions of carbon dioxide versus the size of landmass.
New York City's Sustainability: Despite their low per capita emissions, the sheer size of the city makes it unsustainable.
New York's Greenhouse Gas Regulations,: How the GHG limiting law passed by the legislature will effect pickup trucks and pickup drivers.
Such an Icy Winter: We are now seeing the effect of climate change.
Some environmentalists wonder how I can agree with all three statements yet not be hypocrite. Indeed, arguing for all three things led me to take on a tenured professor in environmental science in Plattsburgh. Yet, the reasons for supporting all things are clear when viewed in context of a bolder social policy in our society's consumption of energy.
There is no question that global warming is a real threat to the future of our society. Even relatively minor changes in climate can lead to drastically different species growing and thriving. We see that in our country with few different degrees temperatures defining flora and fauna and the growing season for crops.
The ideal solution would be dramatic drops in world wide greenhouse gas emissions. Yet we know that isn't going to happen in the near future as we are a planet of around 6.5 billion people breathing, with animals breathing, to say nothing of our massive consumption of both products and energy. The energy consumed to make up the products of our lives hasn't even been been seriously calculated into measures that claim to calculate greenhouse emissions.
It is important goal of the global community to find a way to detach improvements to the standard of life from increases in greenhouse gases. Maybe it's time to start calculating our society's economic value not by GDP or jobs created, but by people's happiness or non-material quality of life.
Coal is a carbon heavy fuel that when burned releases a much higher level of carbon dioxide then oil or natural gas. This is a big strike against it in when we are trying to reduce major sources of greenhouse gases. While carbon dioxide is a weak greenhouse gas, we release it in such incredible amounts through our mass consumption of energy, that it is nowadays considered one of the most significant global warming gases.
Despite this we use coal to power the majority of our power plants in the United States. Why? It's cheap because our demand for coal is relatively low compared to the amount of coal easily accessible supply accessed through massive strip mines in Wyoming and Montana, and massive underground mines throughout Appalachia. Most people can't burn coal due to the high temperature required to burn it and pollution control equipment to burn it cleanly in mass quantities.
The problems with coal are well documented and include carbon dioxide, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and run-off at the mines. The good news is that new coal plants are a lot cleaner then old plants. We shouldn't be expanding our coal power capacity, but simply replacing old plants with new ones that are more efficient, and put out lower emissions per megawatt.
It may be time to consider a national cap on megawatt hours generated using coal power. We should limit megawatt hours generated by coal to 2007 standards, and slowly there after reduce that limit. At the same time, we should make it a national policy to phase out all coal plants built prior to the enactment of the Clean Air Act of 1990. We should be using renewable sources to expand our need for electricity, and the same time, working to reduce demand on the grid by building smart grids, and mandating more efficient appliances and businesses. These things can be done and done relatively cheaply compared to the alternative of trying to implement carbon sequestration.
All of the evidence points away from carbon sequestration being a viable solution to our excess carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. It's going to be too expensive, waste too much coal or other forms of energy, and poses an enormous risk to future generations. Carbon dioxide in concentrated forms kills – it's as deadly as carbon monxide in concentrated forms.
A leak of a single carbon dioxide pipe from a power plant could within hours kill off an entire city. Carbon dioxide in it's pure form is heavier then air, so it tends to pool along the ground. This means that until winds blow away a concentrated carbon dioxide pool in the air, it will affixiate all humans and animals in it's path.
Instead of carbon sequestration we must instead focus on energy efficiency and reduction of consumption. Not only is this approach much cheaper, it's also much more environmentally sustainable. It might take some societal changes to make this happen, but with increasing energy prices, this may be the only realistic solution to our society's serious climate change threat.
![[Picture]](/img/large/pointaurouche/longpoint.jpg)