Experts Urge Bangladesh To Tap Coal Reserves Before Natural Gas Runs Out - Reuters

[hatrack]

DHAKA, April 30 (Reuters) - Experts from home and abroad asked Bangladesh on Wednesday to mine its huge coal reserves before its fast depleting natural gas reserves run out.

They however urged the country to tap the resource carefully to avoid human tragedies associated with coal mining.

The heavily populated Asian country faces a serious energy crisis, with lack of gas to produce electricity. The crisis is set to worsen by 2011 when its gas reserves could run out and attention is increasingly turning to its vast coal resorce.

It has already suffered a setback trying to mine coal in the northern Phulbari area, where Britain's GCM Resources Plc (GCM.L: Quote, Profile, Research) had to halt activities two years ago after violent protests by local residents and environmentalists, saying the project would displace at least 40,000 villagers and severely damage the environment. At least three people were killed and dozens injured in clashes with police at Phulbari, in Dinajpur district, around 300 kilometres (190 miles) northwest of capital Dhaka.

EDIT

http://in.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idINDHA29669620080430

[NickB79]

1. Oh my God

"They however urged the country to tap the resource carefully to avoid human tragedies associated with coal mining."

Um, how about the human tragedy associated with BURNING the coal and melting the ice caps? They of all people should be aware of the folly of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere; half of their country will be underwater by the end of the century!

But I'm sure this isn't the last we've seen of countries running to coal as an energy source of last resort, as all others fail to be able to keep the system running.

Damn you, GliderGuider, and your spot-on predictions!

[Zachstar]

4. Envrionmentalism is always thrown out in the face of Desperation.

They will not be the last to desperately turn to dirty coal in the least. Every bit of coal in the world is likely going going to start being burned at a rapid rate.

That is one of the reasons we need to find out how to ACTIVELY pull CO2 from the atmosphere cheaply so we can build extract stations all over to start to put a dent in the situation.

[GliderGuider]

6. Cheap active CO2 removal from the atmosphere

Don't you think if there was a chance we could do this that there would be pilot projects under way? The best we have at the moment is a bit of re-forestation and a few of us bleating in the wilderness about burying charcoal.

Pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere on the scale required in the time we have left is a pipe dream, I'm afraid.

[Zachstar]

8. It would require a large energy source but do you see an alternative?

We have passed the tipping point. (We passed it when we discovered the ice cap would be gone in 5 years not 50)

There is other sources stored in Ice elseware that would cause even more damage if released.

There has been SOME research on the idea from what I have found but it would require lots and lots of energy to be effective at doing anything.

[GliderGuider]

10. A large energy source is precisely what we don't have.

All the energy we produce is currently spoken for. And if you say "Fusion" I'll say "Tinkerbell" :-)

The most likely outcome is that we will involuntarily stop burning most fossil fuels over the next few decades, and Mother Nature will sort it out over time. That would mean that we won't get to "fix it" ourselves, and also means a lot of hardship for humans and other species.

The idea that we won't be able to fix it is hard for most environmentalists to wrap their minds around. Environmentalism is based on a simple empathetic human urge: "Things aren’t right. We have to Do Something!"

The underlying assumption is that we broke it (whatever it is - global warming, deforestation, pollution, etc.) and that it’s our responsibility to fix it. The implicit premise is that since we broke it in the first place it is of course within our power to fix it. Without that bedrock assumption the whole notion of "environmentalism" simply can’t work. We must be able to fix what we broke. The possibility that this might not be the case when something as crucial as our planetary habitat is at risk is too horrible to think about, and that prompts an awful lot of denial and magical thinking.

[Zachstar]

11. I will not say what the source is but I will say that I do not believe nature can fix itself

There is simple too much urge for energy too much CO2 waiting to be dumped. And you got ice melting all over the place with some of it full of junk.

Seriously I till we will only involuntarily stop burning most fossil fuel supplies when there is but a tiny amount left. When every coal mine nearly fully extracted down to the last few tons.

With every forest cut down for energy

With every oil well squeezed for every last drop of oil
etc..

By the time it ends will we want to live?

[GliderGuider]

12. Yeah, that's pretty much my take on it as well.

It sucks. We're an exceptionally rapacious primate trapped in an exceptionally destructive culture being driven by an exceptionally lethal meme: "Constant growth is the only possible way humans can live."

I still think we need to look forward to the next cycle of human culture to find any solace. The next chapter of the human narrative will be resource-poor and constrained by ecological limits of all sorts, but we will eventually become a sustainable presence on the planet. We won't even need to accept or recognize Mother Nature's limits -- she will find her balance without our cooperation.

In order to preserve any remnant of the "civil" in "civilization", though, we're going to need a major attitude adjustment. Fortunately, part of that has already begun. Lots of people are figuring out what "ecological interdependence" is all about.

[Zachstar]

13. Mother nature has given us a limit.

And that is the edge of the universe.

Hubble images show thousands of galaxies out there and we but a TINY TINY TINY blue dot compared to them.

We get a new source of energy and we can start thinking about how not to tear up any more precious earth.

My views

#1 Yes get the power of the sun

#2 Form a land exchange program so that super efficient apartments by the .gov can be built. (Fully public design which is possible in this age of the internet)In exchange your ass can get some land on the moon or an asteroid. Your profit will be much better selling the resources on your asteroid or moon land than earth property.

#3 Complete ban on ALL nonessential combustion engines (Emergency Generators, Multiprop aircraft, Ships which will take time to convert to electric)

#4 Complete ban of burning coal directly unless there is a dire need to do so. (VERY few ships still use coal)

#5 a 10 billion yearly program for constructing atmospheric C02 collectors. CO2 can be safely stored in a number of different reactions. And the bulk product (Chalk) can be given away to 3rd world nations For a slight gain in worldwide education. Yes that requires the power of the sun but we are well past the tipping point.

#6 A serious space program so that we can actually look forward to the future rather than fighting over resources today.

[Nihil]

17. And we have consistently overshot each limit until we've got to this state

> Hubble images show thousands of galaxies out there and we but
> a TINY TINY TINY blue dot compared to them.

That's why I think humans need to get over themselves.

FWIW, I think each one of your points can be solved using this approach:



:hi:

[GliderGuider]

5. "Experts Urge Bangladesh To Build a Million Windmills Before Tapping Coal Reserves"

:mad: :grr: :banghead: :nuke:

[phantom power]

2. We knew this was going to happen. But it still crushes my habitual optimism.

[excess_3]

3. poor countries don't need low cost electricity. n/t

[GliderGuider]

7. It's OK, they'll only use Clean Coal power plants.

Right?

Right?

[Zachstar]

9. Considering clean coal technology costs a friggin ton I would say no.

[Nihil]

18. Of course they will!

They're not stupid enough to add to the problems of this planet
whilst being amongst the first in line to suffer the results!
:rofl:

... oh, wait ...

(Psst: Has anyone told them that "clean coal" doesn't exist? Ah ...)

[diane in sf]

14. Great, this would help put them under water even faster

[kristopher]

15. US vs Bangledesh

annual percapita energy consumption:

US:............340,000,000 BTUs

Bangledesh:......4,800,000 BTUs

So the average person in this discussion uses enough energy for 68 Bangledeshis.

Somehow that seems relevant.

[GliderGuider]

16. Relevant, indeed!

Imagine all the coal the USA will burn when TSHTF!

Bangladesh merely has the honour of being out on the margins where the tragedy bites first.

[Dead_Parrot]

19. What could possibly go wrong?

:shrug: