America's new green guru sparks anger over climate change U-turns

[Turborama]

Source: The Obsever (UK)

President Obama's energy secretary, Nobel prize-winner Steven Chu, arrives in Europe this week to discuss global warming. But his recent policy decisions on coal-fired power stations and hydrogen cars have angered many environmentalists

Robin McKie in London and Ed Helmore in New York
The Observer, Sunday 24 May 2009

US energy secretary Steven Chu will fly to Europe this week to begin talks that will be crucial in the global battle against climate change. The 61-year-old physicist will hold key discussions with energy ministers from the G8 nations in Rome before travelling to London to take part in a debate with Nobel prize winners on global warming.

The arrival of Chu, himself a physics Nobel laureate, comes as the scientist-turned-politician finds himself attacked by environmentalists over decisions he has made about America's campaign to fight global warming. Green groups have accused him of being "contradictory and illogical" and of failing to demonstrate sufficient dynamism in establishing a new, low-carbon approach to transport and power-generation in the United States.

In recent weeks, Chu - who was appointed energy secretary by Barack Obama in December - has revealed that he is no longer willing to block the construction of new coal-powered electricity plants in the US, despite widespread opposition from green groups and having initially said that he would not permit their construction.

Environmental campaigners object vociferously to coal plants - which atmosphere scientist James Hansen, director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, recently labelled "factories of death" in an article he wrote for the Observer - because of their high carbon emissions. In addition, Chu has called for a slowdown in the development of hydrogen-powered vehicles in the US and slashed funding for new projects by 60%. "We asked ourselves: is it likely in the next 10 or 15, or even 20, years that we will convert to a hydrogen car economy?" Chu explained. "The answer, we felt, was no."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/24/steven-chu-environmentalist-anger

---

OK, I've been a staunch supporter of Obama because of his environmental policies. This is the most important issue as far as I'm concerned, for what should be obvious reasons. If it was just 'all talk', he's lost me too. Seriously.

This picture of Chu that The Observer used is quite apt...

[villager]

1. I started to question the whole "change" thing when cattle rancher Salazar was put in in Interior

...and when he decided to keep killing wolves, to make the west safe for cows.

That was kind of a prism to see how "different" this administration's enviro policies were going to be...

They're not as actively malign as the Repubbies, obviously, but whether they come anywhere close to "visionary," or anywhere close to preventing the extinction of most of humanity a few decades hence, would seem to be -- alas! -- more and more of a dubious proposition...

[texastoast]

5. Killing wolves is not "being the change"

Rounding up buffalo is not being the change. And coal is not being the change. It is short-sighted and unacceptable.

If we don't have a visionary in charge of being the change and putting the money where the mouth is, we got SSDD.

[glitch]

17. I gave up on the "visionary" with the appointments of Emmanuel, Ruben, Summers and Geithner.

Chu I held out hope for but am not surprised at all at his choices.

We are asked to hold their feet to the fire, to sway them away from the powerful lobbies, because apparently they have no integrity of their own.

[drmeow]

21. A friend who is an environmental

lawyer commented that his firm is usually busier under Republican administrations than Democratic ones. He chalks that up to Republican's "law and order/black and white" mentality ... Democrats are less likely to pass anti-environmental laws but Republicans are more likely to enforce the ones that are in place. Of course, I think this is mostly local so YMMV but I thought it was a very interesting (and slightly disturbing) view/insight.

[Iowa]

46. And don't forget his decision to appoint Monsanto-boy as Sec of Agriculture. n/t

[anonymous171]

81. Yeah, who needs food anyways?

[The Traveler]

2. Hydrogen is a loser

Burning hydrogen is great from an emissions standpoint, for obvious reasons. But it is a fuel we would have to manufacture, and it takes a LOT of electric power to do that on any scale. So ... how do we make that power? Nuclear? That would be the cleanest way from an emissions standpoint, but of course is fraught with other problems. Coal or gas fired plants? Believe me ... from an overall emissions viewpoint, you're better off burning oil. Other alternatives (algae bio-diesel is one possibility that has me really interested) should be explored.

Trav

[Turborama]

11. Re: algae biodiesel

I fully agree with your sentiments, did you catch the thread I started about it last November?

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4501189

[glitch]

18. Missed your thread but a big fan of algae biodiesel.

I think it should somehow be integrated with sewage treatment, which everybody has to have anyway.

[DLnyc]

45. Large-scale solar to electricity operations in high deserts.

Energy is available in vast quantities in the deserts. Using generated electricity, it is easy to split the hydrogen from the oxygen in water. This hydrogen can then be transported to population centers to be used as fuel.

Algae bio-diesel sounds really clever, but it puts out carbon dioxide when it burns, so I don't see any great advantage there.

The point is to to get the energy from non-carbon, non-radioactive sources; once you have good energy output, the mechanics of using that energy are relatively easy.

[Sirveri]

54. Still doesn't work since you hit the platinum cap.

There simply isn't enough platinum to make enough fuel cells to replace the cars we have. That market is already fully tapped out just trying to keep up with demand for catalytic converters. If you can figure out a way to make a H Fuel cell without platinum you'd be a very rich man.

[DLnyc]

56. Hydrogen can be burned, I believe, as an engine fuel without using cells.

The best way to ship power produced in the desert is probably an improved grid. In the meantime, I would think tanks of hydrogen to run (slightly modified) internal combustion engines are a pretty good temporary measure.

[wuushew]

60. terrible energy density combined with the always bad efficiency of convenional engines is a loser

you would need an extremely compelling reason to choose hydrogen over batteries or other fuels.

[DLnyc]

75. Not sure where you get "terrible energy density"

Wikipedia, for instance, has hydrogen as pretty good energy source. Watching the shuttle accelerate after it's boosters burn out, one also gets the idea that hydrogen has a pretty high "energy density".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle

==========
A hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicle (HICEV) is a hydrogen or oxyhydrogen fueled, internal combustion engine powered vehicle<1>. Hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicles are different from hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The HICEV is a slightly modified version of the traditional gasoline internal combustion engine vehicle. These hydrogen engines burn fuel in the same manner that gasoline engines do.

The power output of a direct injected hydrogen engine vehicle is 20% more than for a gasoline engine vehicle and 42% more than a hydrogen engine vehicle using a carburetor<2>.
Contents
==========

[kristopher]

82. Energy density by volume vs by weight

First thing to understand is that H isn't an energy "source", it is a way of storing energy, comparable to a battery. By volume, H has a very low energy density - when it is in its normal gaseous state at sea level. When stuff a lot of it into a tank under pressure, it has a good energy density by weight - 60 pounds in a small tank.

The problem? It takes a lot of energy to put it in the tank. When a storage medium it is evaluated you look at the total efficiency of the process to get the energy to the end use. H has a far lower efficiency than batteries. That isn't relevant to a Saturn V rocket, but it means that in a car we can go nearly twice as far on the same amount of energy with batteries than we can with H.

[DLnyc]

83. Okay, low energy density by volume. But you could make a similar argument

about liquified natural gas and propane, both of which seem to have practical uses (although, because they have heavier molecular weight, these are presumably easier to pressurize). So it seems to be a trade=off between the energy cost of pressurizing the hydrogen and the environmental costs of producing (and discarding) batteries.

In case one has figured out a way to capture very large quantities of energy with no carbon load in a very remote area (as in large=scale solar energy conversion in high deserts), hydrogen still seems to be a reasonable option to investigate.

[kristopher]

84. Nope, not the same at all.

Natgas and propane are fossil fuels that already have the energy stored in them. When we recover and process them for use, we input 1 unit of energy and get back all that previously stored energy - about 15X what we put in. Hydrogen, on the other hand, must be made from some other source of energy. Usually (because it is most economical) it is made from fossil fuels, but let's agree for the sake of the discussion that we don't want to use fossil fuel so we make it from wind energy. We gather the kinetic energy in the wind and transform it into 1 unit of electric energy which we use to crack water and get hydrogen. The efficiency of this process in a fuel cell is only about 60%. This means instead of the 15:1 return ratio for fossil fuels, you only get a 0.6:1 return ratio.

That's what I meant when I specified it is a storage medium and not an energy source.

[Turborama]

57. Algae consumes CO2 via photosynthesis

Apparently the same amount as is given off when it's burnt, making it carbon neutral.

There is also http://www.awesomelibrary.org/Classroom/Science/Catastrophic_Climate_Change/Carbon_Sequestration/Algae.html">a lot of discussion about attaching algae oil bioreactors next to power stations to sequester the CO2 that they produce...



(edited to fix typo)

[NickB79]

64. If you burn the algal biofuel that was grown from coal flue CO2, you are NOT sequestering CO2

You are delaying it's entry into the atmosphere, but it is still entering it. Algal biofuels are only carbon-neutral when they are obtaining their carbon from the atmosphere, not from a coal exhaust stream.

The only way that algal CO2 will function directly in a carbon sequestration role is to grow the algae and then BURY it deep underground.

[Turborama]

79. What if the algae is not burnt and used as a feedstock and/or fertilizer instead?

Wouldn't that act as a carbon "lock"?

Another idea that seems to make sense is to burn the biodiesel in the power plants and then capture the resulting CO2 again. Wouldn't that close the carbon loop?

The way I see it, the building of coal fired power plants (CFPPs) needs to be stopped immediately and something needs to be done asap with the CO2 the current CFPPs are emitting up until they are dismantled. Plugging them into alagal bioreactors can help mitigate what's being pumped into the atmosphere right now. Something needs to be done right now or it will be too late, if it isn't already.

The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) had a forum on recycling carbon last year. Presentations can be found: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/08/H2/index.html">here

BTW, have you seen this video of Valcent's vertical algae bioreactors? It's what turned me onto algae in the 1st place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ih-DLurcZA

The Science Channel's Ecopolis series had a good piece on them, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsGFLXNVG1Q

[Turborama]

80. I forgot to add, there's a pilot project underway in Arizona

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJGct5H-PHw

[piedmont]

86. Using algae as feedstock or fertilizer also releases the stored carbon

The livestock or soil microbes that you feed it to will just catabolize the organic (carbon containing) compounds and the C will be lost as CO2. Algae reactors could be a terrific carbon-neutral technology, if water use isn't too high, but I don't see much of a way to use them to sequester carbon unless you char some of the photosynthate to make it unavailable to microbial breakdown.

[NickB79]

65. But why do that instead of going to electric cars?

With hydrogen, you first generate electricity, use it to split water (and lose some energy due to inherent inefficiencies) and then either burn it (not energy-efficient) or convert it BACK to electricity via a fuel cell (more introduced inefficiencies).

It seems like a very round-a-bout way of doing things instead of just building electric cars in the first place.

[dgibby]

58. Kudzu?

I don't know the answer, but I've been wondering about the possible use of kudzu as a source of bio-fuel. It's an amazing plant, highly invasive, grows at about a foot/day. They don't call it the "plant that ate the South" for nothing. Of course, it has other uses, such as a food source for both people and livestock, but is definitely underused in that respect. It seems a shame to waste such a readily available source if it could be used for bio. I'd love some feedback on this. Thanks.

[Turborama]

59. Not sure about using such an invasive species, Jatropha is another plant worth checking out, though

Air New Zealand ran a test flight last year using it. Here's a video with a lot of info, the comments are worth checking out too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5g5Z3GTNwk

Jatropha on Wipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha_oil

[dgibby]

61. I was just thinking that since it's already here, harvesting it would

kill two birds with one stone, cheap source of bio and assist to contain/eradicate an invasive plant. Thanks for answering and providing the link.:hi:

[ddiver]

3. hydrogen powered cars are a dead end. It's best to look elsewhere.

[Baby Snooks]

7. Cars are the dead end..

We just don't realize it. Or want to. We are much too spoiled to give up our cars. We contribute to the problem and block the solutions. Because we are too spoiled to give up our cars. And became spoiled again after gasoline went from $4 a gallon to $1.50 a gallon.

The Brazilians took the problem seriously. They switched to ethanol. Now that there is a problem with ethanol in that they will have to expand sugar cane production into the Amazon rainforest basin many are now realizing that cars are the problem.

Reality is the industrial age is coming to an end in some ways simply because the reality is peak oil. We are not only spoiled but foolish. There is not a bottomless pit of oil. And proven reserves are being depleted. And new reserves are not proving to be as large as thought.

The best thing would be if the major reserves just dried up. Suddenly. That would force the issue. It would set off riots, economic collapse, but the cars would be gone. The cars need to be gone.

[imdjh]

26. Doubtful.

Personal transportation has always been important. Public transportation is as well, but it's simply not practical for everyone. I object to the idea that personal transportation should be a luxury, and deliberate attempts to make it prohibitively expensive will do just that.

There is a lot of oil left. Even low estimates put it at over 100 years worth, even accounting for China and India "coming online". The joke of course, is that these grossly and densely overpopulated places are perfect for public transportation- but they also have vast rural areas where personal transportation will improve the quality of life.

The new technologies in the works, and they are merely in the works, did not suddenly surface with the monstrous increases in the price of gasoline which have occurred since Hurricane Katrina, when gasoline broke $2.50/gal for the first time. Some of these technologies have been in the works for fifty years or more.

Brazil's ethanol production will surely scale back when their new reserves start pumping at capacity. Cuba has untapped reserves, and the US has an incredible amount of oil, that some would say we have been sitting on strategically. I wish we were that clever, but the reality is probably that it's easier to get oil from elsewhere.

We'll see some amazing things in our lifetime, if we live long enough. I don't think we'll see the end of cars, and I really don't know why anyone would have that as a goal. I've never met anyone who really "doesn't need a car". They claim to, but those organic carrots they are buying in the store that they walked to, were brought in this morning in a Ford Econoline van with a V8 engine. Their vegan pizza from Mama Gaia's Magic Dough Factory, has mushrooms that arrived this morning in the back of a Toyota Rav4.

[freedomnorth]

62. I agree, in order to save humanity, cars must go. n/t.

[Laelth]

10. Welcome to DU!

:dem:

-Laelth

[bananas]

4. He doesn't have the authority to block construction of new coal plants

so that article is misleading.
Chu said he's going to continue research on clean coal partly because it may be impossible to stop other countries from using coal.

[xchrom]

6. no -- but he's the point man -- and as such is apparently unwilling to use

what he does have to deter the u.s. from going down that road.

[bananas]

8. The EPA is proper agency, the head of the EPA is the "point man" (point woman)

DOE maintains the nuclear arsenal and does basic research on energy-related stuff.
They have nothing to do with regulating coal plant construction.
That's the EPA's job.
The story is misinforming people.

[Baby Snooks]

13. Clean coal is still coal...

We shifted away from nuclear energy because of environmental concerns but also the realization that nuclear power allowed nuclear proliferation as we are seeing in Iran. Reality is that Iran will have lights. We may not.

We are not really industrious or inventive any more in this country. That is really the problem. Oil was simply too plentiful and too cheap. That is why we are too late to develop alternative energy. It should have been developed at least ten years ago. The major oil companies are developing it finally. That alone should tell you the reality of peak oil. But they are doing so too late.

To switch to coal at this point would prove disastrous and will. China has moved back to coal as has India.

Natural gas was the alternative. Russia has an abundance of it. The problem is transport. And we are responsible for that as well. We wanted to control that as well as the oil. So there is no major pipeline through Afghanistan. And there is no major pipeline in the Caspian Sea. Or even a reliable land line around the Caspian Sea.

Some have wondered why China did not build a pipeline of its own in partnership with Russia. The answer should be obvious. We would not be able to control it.

The Bushes and their "oilgarchy" speaks for itself. It has brought us to the brink of extinction with regard to climate change and offered us little solution in terms of alternative energy. They wanted to control it all. And still do. And even if this administration were to reverse course it would still be too late.

We can conserve. Some of us do. Some of us will. But China and India will not. And their only alternative energy is coal.

It will take draconian measures at this point and this president just simply will not do it. This president is not reversing course. And is still placing profit over public interest and greed over humanity.

[Laelth]

9. I strongly support Secretary Chu.

He is a realist, and he is making tough, but sane, decisions about where to spend taxpayer money.

I think he should block the building of new coal-fired power plants, if he could. In fact, if he could, he might.

:dem:

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--edited in light of bananas' insight, above.

[kristopher]

12. This article is nonsense

Chu is following the science, and that is a path that does not lead to either "clean" coal OR a hydrogen for the transportation sector.
Capturing and locking away the carbon from coal would require us to build an infrastructure equal to what we have for obtaining petroleum, and then we would run out of cheap coal within 50 years.
It takes energy to get energy, and all fossil fuels and nuclear are steadily costing us more energy to obtain. Already wind and solar give us a considerably better energy return on energy investment than fossil & nukes, and they are both steadily improving the amount of return delivered.
What this means is that the answer to our energy needs is to be found in renewable sources. Hydrogen isn't a source of energy it is a way to store energy. When it comes to hydrogen for cars, we would not only need to build a large distribution infrastructure but we also have to think about what is the most efficient way to store the energy we will get from our new renewable grid. The competitor to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is battery electric drive. Both have cost and performance limitations and on both technologies it looks possible to overcome these limitations, with battery electric probably being the easiest and quickest. There is one significant difference, however, that doesn't seem likely to change - the entire process of storing and recovering energy via hydrogen is only about half as efficient as storing and retrieving energy by batteries.
What this difference means is that if we were to use hydrogen we would have to build twice as much renewable energy infrastructure to meet our transportation needs than we will if we use batteries.

The analysis below is widely accepted as being an accurate assessment of meeting our energy needs going forward. I've very sure it is work like this that is guiding Chu in his decision-making. He is limited by political realities such as ConservaDems from coal country, but by and large he is moving us in the best direction possible.

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Baby Snooks]

14. Cars, cars, cars...

Is that all that matters? Cars?

[kristopher]

15. Not all that matters, no.

But they are a significant part of the picture. Restructuring the population distribution to allow public transport would be vastly more resource intensive than moving to a distributed energy infrastructure and electric vehicles.

[vadawg]

29. yup cars matter if you live rural, how else do you expect people to get around

i have close to a 30 mile trip to the store, what do you suggest. No way i want to live in the city or DC subarbs again.

[imdjh]

39. You live on "The Trail" don't you?

Longest damned road to nowhere I have ever been on. I was on it last summer after visiting the ancestral homeland, and I thought it would go on forever. At one point, I thought we were passing the same places twice. More amazing- there were no people to be seen. I relaxed a bit when we finally made it to the road to Richmond and the convenience store there, but I wasn't really sure we had made it out until I saw Walmart.

[vadawg]

42. funnily walmart is the closest store to me unless you count the stormfront grocery a mile or so befo

before it. I always think that a lot of people who want to stop cars etc have no idea of how isolated some areas are, even when within a couple of hours of the major metro areas.

[DatManFromNawlins]

77. Nah

They just want us to be as miserable as they are. When you've lived in a metropolitan area all the time, it's hard to wrap your head about the needs of the suburbs or rural areas. And that, as much as anything else, is one of the biggest divides in terms of political beliefs between the areas. Democrats who live in these metro areas pay virtually no mind to the social and economic realities of people who live elsewhere. They simply assume that they're right and everyone else should bow to their superior wisdom.

I find absolutely nothing palatable about raising a family in a big city. Growing up, we played baseball and football and soccer in fields in our neighborhood, rode bikes around the block, and went fishing virtually every summer morning by biking a half-mile and walking another half-mile to a pond. That's one of the reasons I love New Orleans. Because of our tourist economy, we have all the amenities of a large city with regards to culture and restaurants, but we don't live stacked on top of each other.

Some people want it different? Fine. Build the light rail systems in the suburbs and rural areas first, and then eventually extend them to the big city. You'll have to give us a better incentive than simply telling us that's the way it should be. If our energy prices suck, yours will STILL suck, and even if gas were 8 bucks a gallon, we could STILL offset the price, because big city housing prices are ridiculous. Want to change that? Convince Congress to pass a law tying the maximum price per square foot of a primary dwelling to some fraction of the average income of people living in the area.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

78. They don't live in Texas.

Somebody can say "You live in East Texas" and think I'm close to someone else in East Texas, when they could be 250 miles away.

If you live in Houston, it's 180 miles to Austin, the nearest big city.
200 to San Antonio,
250 to Dallas,
225 to Corpus Christi,
300 to Brownsville,
750 to El Paso,
615 to Amarillo.

I'm 150 miles from Dallas or Houston. I'm 60 miles from the nearest Target or Marshall's store.

I'm 20 miles from a grocery store other than Dollar General.

They really should put the mass transit out in the country first, but they won't.

[imdjh]

28. One thing we can count on the power companies to do- get the cheapest power source they can find

If that's wind, solar, a new technology- they will be on it fast.

Something that is rarely mentioned in these discussions is hydropower. It's an existing technology and it works. But no one wants to make the hard decisions. Those who bitch the most about "fossil fuels" and nuclear, are just as quick to bitch about hydro power.

[kristopher]

30. While I agree with your sentiment

Hydro (as in conventional damming of rivers) is pretty much built out. We might be able to eke out a few more gigawatts, but in the scheme of things it would be less than 1-2% of our needs. The answer is wind, solar, geothermal and wave/current/tidal.

[imdjh]

34. I wonder if we don't think too big sometimes.

I know nothing about the nuts and bolts of such things. But every time I read someone talking about a huge effort, I wonder if there isn't someone thinking about a million small efforts.

Some folks complain that the wind farms are ugly, or they kill birds. I wonder about a million windmills the size of pinwheels. Some folks worry that damming a river will screw up the ecology downstream. I wonder about a million little paddle wheels innocuously turning slowly with the regular flow of the river. I always assume that my ideas must be foolish, that surely someone has thought of them as well as the reason they won't work.

What I get really tired of are people complaining about what is, complaining about the practical solution, and yet demanding an end to the present method regardless of the practicality (or reality) of the solution they have in mind.

[kristopher]

36. You should take the time to understand what is going on in energy

I think you'd be very pleasantly surprised. It is both practical and affordable.

People re criticizing Obama for not being more aggressive in regulating CO2 emissions; but they are only seeing half the picture. Regulating CO2 emissions has the effect (as I think you are hinting at) of raising prices. This is done to make renewables more competitive. I agree with approach in that the emissions are a part of the operating costs of supplying energy and it is simply wrong and unfair to allow the producers and consumers of that particular commodity to have a free pass on polluting. I have to pay for garbage disposal and it should be no different for a business. Unfortumately, energy is such a fundamentally important commodity that it would put a real strain on people's lives to start charging for externalities in the best of times - and now is certainly not the best of times.

The other approach (which Obama is aggressively pursuing) is to equalize the playing field in the area of the electric grid's structure. This involves rethinking of the way electricity is generated and delivered. The obvious intent to accomplish the building of this "smart grid" is attracting a very large pool of investment capital. This has the effect of increasing production capacity of the infrastructure for building devices such as wind turbines and solar arrays. The more capacity that is installed the more competition works to bring down prices through innovation and aggressive marketing.

In other words, Obama is shifting the battlefield to one that the existing power industry has little control over.

[imdjh]

38. That often comes off as "If you knew what you were talking about then you would agree with me." nt

[kristopher]

67. Then perhaps you should review the post I responded to.

You began it with : "I know nothing about the nuts and bolts of such things. But every time I read someone talking about a huge effort, I wonder if there isn't someone thinking about a million small efforts."

I do know a lot about the nuts and bolts and I was sharing. Sorry for offending. A lot of research (particularly in wave/tidal/current) is of the lots-of-small-devices approach and it looks promising. Same goes for solar, however, it won't work for wind because of the physics of energy in a low density fluid medium.

[kristopher]

33. Cheapest?

You mean most profitable. That is accomplished by shifting the costs of the pollution and climate change onto the backs of others.

[imdjh]

35. They is us.

There are power cooperatives, government owned power companies, publicly held power companies, and privately held power companies. In three of those business models, "they" is us.

We use power. Most of us can barely afford it at current prices. We demand cheap power. We regulate rates, even for privately held companies.

Is there really an us and them?

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. But Chu and his Department of Energy are going for 'clean coal'

May 15, 2009

Secretary Chu Announces $2.4 billion in Funding for Carbon Capture and Storage Projects
Funds to Advance Research, Development and Deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies and Infrastructure

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu today announced at the National Coal Council that $2.4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be used to expand and accelerate the commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The funding is part of the Obama Administration’s ongoing effort to develop technologies to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas and contributor to global climate change, into the atmosphere while creating new jobs.

"To prevent the worst effects of climate change, we must accelerate our efforts to capture and store carbon in a safe and cost-effective way. This funding will both create jobs now and help position the United States to lead the world in CCS technologies, which will be in increasing demand in the years ahead," said Secretary Steven Chu.

http://www.energy.gov/news2009/7405.htm

So why was the article 'nonsense'?

[kristopher]

68. Two reasons

First is that this is money for research, not deployment. Second is that I know that Chu knows carbon capture has little to no chance of being an effective strategy. The money proposed for CCS is a way to blunt the efforts of the coal industry (includes both mining and power generation) to stop the climate bill.
There is also value in the research that might be applicable to developing nations that don't already have a large infrastructure in place. A big reason CCS won't work here is that plants need to be located in fairly close proximity to geographic structure capable of holding carbon. For example, one of our best structures is located under the seabed off the Pacific NW coast. We'd either need to relocate most of our coal generation there or spend the money developing an infrastructure get the captured carbon there. There are a lot of economics involved, but basically what doesn't make economic sense re CCS here might be very workable in places like China. So the money spent isn't a total waste as it may help mitigate the practices of other nations while giving our involved industries a technology to make money with.

Considering all the factors involved, it is extremely difficult to view Chu's actions as an endorsement of business as usual in the US. That perception requires one to completely ignore all the very tangible support given to the creation of a set of conditions that will place renewable energy sources on an equal market footing with fossil fuels. I don't expect laypersons to get that, but an envirnomental reporter from the Guardian certainly should.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. "know that Chu knows carbon capture has little to no chance of being an effective strategy"

Then announcing billions of dollars for research into it is a pretty funny way of showing what you 'know'. Are you sure you don't mean you hope he knows ... ? How do you 'know' him, apart from his public pronouncements like the one about CCS?

Yes, it's research, not deployment. So what? It indicates what he wants part of the medium term future to be - coal generation with CCS.

"it is extremely difficult to view Chu's actions as an endorsement of business as usual in the US" - well, spending billions to pacify the coal industry looks rather like 'business as usual'.

And this is without considering his remarks about not opposing coal generation without CCS. Maybe he doesn't have the authority to order it now, but that doesn't stop him saying in public that it shouldn't happen.

I think you have a rose-tinted view of Chu's plans. He's making compromises, and is not going to try to get rid of coal generation in the US.

[kristopher]

76. Actually I just know the science, engineering, politics and economics of energy

My last post reflects where research in those areas lead us, and his actions are completely consistent with those considerations. There really isn't a lot of debate within the energy policy area about anything I wrote. So, I don't have a rose tinted view of anything, I just know what I'm talking about.

[kristopher]

73. I forget to add

I meant to include the evidence that the money is actually for research not deployment (in spite of the tag line). Read the entire piece you posted and it is clear that the money is a spur to research. By contrast, incentives intended to promote deployment of a technology are usually performance based, such as the production tax credit for wind and solar.



Printer-friendly icon Printer-Friendly
May 15, 2009

Secretary Chu Announces $2.4 billion in Funding for Carbon Capture and Storage Projects
Funds to Advance Research, Development and Deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies and Infrastructure

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu today announced at the National Coal Council that $2.4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be used to expand and accelerate the commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The funding is part of the Obama Administration’s ongoing effort to develop technologies to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas and contributor to global climate change, into the atmosphere while creating new jobs.

"To prevent the worst effects of climate change, we must accelerate our efforts to capture and store carbon in a safe and cost-effective way. This funding will both create jobs now and help position the United States to lead the world in CCS technologies, which will be in increasing demand in the years ahead," said Secretary Steven Chu.

The Department is posting Notices of Intent to issue this funding, supporting the following initiatives:

Clean Coal Power Initiative: $800 million will be used to expand DOE’s Clean Coal Power Initiative, which provides government co-financing for new coal technologies that can help utilities cut sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollutants from power plants. The new funding will allow researchers broader CCS commercial-scale experience by expanding the range of technologies, applications, fuels, and geologic formations that are tested.

Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage: $1.52 billion will be used for a two-part competitive solicitation for large-scale CCS from industrial sources. The industrial sources include, but are not limited to, cement plants, chemical plants, refineries, steel and aluminum plants, manufacturing facilities, and petroleum coke-fired and other power plants. The second part of the solicitation will include innovative concepts for beneficial CO2 reuse (CO2 mineralization, algae production, etc.) and CO2 capture from the atmosphere. In addition, two existing industrial and innovative reuse projects, previously selected via competitive solicitations, will be expanded to accelerate scale-up and field testing:

Ramgen Modification ($20 million): funding will allow the industrial-sized scale-up and testing of an existing advanced CO2 compression project with the objective of reducing time to commercialization, technology risk, and cost. Work on this project will be done in Bellevue, WA.
Arizona Public Services Modification ($70.6 million): funding will permit the existing algae-based carbon mitigation project to expand testing with a coal-based gasification system. The goal is to produce fuels from domestic resources while reducing atmospheric CO2 emissions. The overall process will minimize production of carbon dioxide in the gasification process to produce a substitute natural gas (SNG) from coal. The host facility for this project is the Cholla Power Plant located in Holbrook, AZ.

Geologic Sequestration Site Characterization: $50 million will fund a competitive solicitation to characterize a minimum of 10 geologic formations throughout the United States. Projects will be required to complement and build upon the existing characterization base created by DOE’s Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, looking at broadening the range and extent of geologic basins that have been studied to date. The goal of this effort is to accelerate the determination of potential geologic storage sites.

Geologic Sequestration Training and Research: $20 million will be used to educate and train a future generation of geologists, scientists, and engineers with skills and competencies in geology, geophysics, geomechanics, geochemistry and reservoir engineering disciplines needed to staff a broad national CCS program. This program will emphasize advancing educational opportunities across a broad range of minority colleges and universities and will use DOE’s University Coal Research Program as the model for implementing the program.

The funding from the Recovery Act is a direct investment in CCS-related infrastructure encompassing a diverse portfolio of research and demonstration among electric power and industrial facilities, academic institutions, and other organizations operating across the United States. DOE’s Recovery Act projects will stimulate private sector infrastructure investments due to the significant amount of cost sharing that will occur in all large-scale projects to be selected for implementation. These combined public and private investments will establish a proving ground for creating a safe, reliable, widely-available, environmentally-responsible, and affordable CCS infrastructure.

[MasonJar]

16. I am also an environmentalist first and foremost. Although I complain constantly

about Obama's decisions on many issues, I felt I could count on him on my number one issue: the environment. However, his Interior decision to quit protecting wolves was a serious flaw. I called the Interior Dept. to complain...to no avail...even Bush, as I reminded them, did not degrade the wolves. Obama has waffled on mountain removal. But if he goes this far, allowing coal fired plants and reduces money for experimenting in cleaner cars, he is fini with me. He appears to be another corporate shill, led around by Rahm and Geitner and corporate money. I am sooooooooooooo disappointed. I thought America might actually change. Our forefathers knew corporations were dangerous and evil. They have so proved. Poor Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. All that work for nothing!

[kristopher]

32. Yeah, wolves...

that's far and away the biggest concern we have with the environment.

You apparently don't share the priorities of most environmental scientists, so it isn't surprising that you wouldn't appreciate the forces facing Obama regarding changing direction on priority issues regarding the environment.

[villager]

44. nice bit of empathy, there, kristopher

in league with GOP levels of empathy, to boot..

Wolves -- all large predators, really -- and how you treat them, become exemplary of overall wilderness/environmental problems.

Your snide dismissal of Salazar's breathtakingly disappointing decision typifies all and everything wrong with mainstream anthropocentric "environmental" policy and politics.

[kristopher]

69. Bullshit...

Recognizing that battles like climate change are much more relevant is hardly being a Republican. A little light reading for you:

What was the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event?


The Permian-Triassic extinction, informally known as the Great Dying, the P-Tr boundary, or the “mother of all mass extinctions,” is the most severe extinction event in the history of life on Earth. Occurring 251.4 million years ago, the Permian-Triassic extinction was a relatively sudden event, lasting less than 80,000 years with the most severe pulses lasting as little as 5,000 years. About 96% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species went extinct, with many important Paleozoic families, such as euryptids (sea scorpions), trilobites, and both acanthodians (jawless fish) and placoderms (armored fish) dying out completely. Overall about 90% of species were wiped out, in contrast to the demise of only 60% of species in the Cretaceous-Tertiary event 65.5 million years ago, which wiped out the dinosaurs.

Life’s recovery after the Permian-Triassic extinction was the slowest ever, requiring 5-10 million years rather than the typical less than a million. The few genera that survived went on to become worldwide in extent, arguably the least diverse that life had ever been since the beginning of the Cambrian. Lystrosaurus, a medium-sized herbivore that is the ancestor of all mammals, made up 90% of all terrestrial animals for millions of years after the extinction event. The Permian-Triassic extinction is also the only known mass extinction of insects.

Plant life was devastated. Perhaps 95% of all land plants were exterminated. In many areas, river flow patterns changed from meandering to braided, much like they were in the early Silurian, prior to the evolution of land plants. There was a brief worldwide fungal spike, caused by a vast increase in the amount of dead relative to living organic material. This portion of the fossil record is powerful evidence that the extinction was relatively brief, rather than occurring as a gradual process that only wiped out large numbers of genera over time.

After extensive debate and analysis, scientists have come to a general consensus of what caused the Permian-Triassic extinction. At first, scientists suspected an asteroid impact, much like what killed the dinosaurs. However, a telltale iridium layer, expected to be deposited by a large asteroid impact, is missing from the Permian-Triassic boundary. Instead, blame fell on a massive and extended flood basalt (supervolcano) eruption which formed what is called the Siberian Traps. The Siberian Traps were formed by lava being pumped out around a cubic kilometer of lava every year for 40,000 – 200,000 years, at least 20% of it pyroclastically — ejected upwards violently rather than released as a runny ooze. Initially this would have blocked out the sun and caused globally cooling, and much of land life would have been disrupted by thick layers of molten ash deposited across a region the size of Asia.

It is not thought to be the volcanism alone which caused the Permian-Triassic extinction. One of the biggest clues from the strata of the time period is an increase in the ratio of Carbon-12 isotope to Carbon-13. After scratching their heads for many years about the precise cause of the change, scientists determined that only one event could have caused a change as large as the one measured: the mass release of methane clathrates from the world’s oceans.

Methane clathrates are methane molecules trapped in a matrix of ice crystals, located half a kilometer to a kilometer underneath the continental boundaries of the world. Estimates of the quantity of methane clathrates in the world’s oceans today range from 3,000 to 20,000 gigatons, and the amount is thought to have been similar prior to the Permian-Triassic boundary. The Siberian Traps eruptions mainly poured their lava into areas composed of shallow seas, which would have caused the mass release of methane. Methane is about 20 times more effective at causing global warming than carbon dioxide, and it would have been released in massive quantities.

Methane being released would have caused the globe, including the oceans, to warm, further releasing more methane clathrates and accelerating the warming. The majority of the world’s clathrates may have been released in a time span as little as 5,000, causing catastrophic warming. This warming would decrease the temperature gradients between the poles, preventing the transfer of nutrients from land to sea, causing massive algal blooms that consumed the oceans’ oxygen and causing widespread anoxia. Without oxygen, most of the marine fauna perished. Anaerobic green sulfur bacteria thrived, displacing other bacteria and causing large hydrogen sulfide emissions, destroying the ozone layer and exposing land life to damaging UV rays. Evidence of UV damage has been found in plant fossils from the era.

The Permian-Triassic extinction occurred over a relatively short period where a chain reaction of events caused practically everything that could go wrong with the Earth’s biosphere to do so.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-was-the-permiantriassic-extinction-event.htm

I may be wrong, but I think duplicating such conditions with manmade inputs might screw a little more with the wolves than anything the ranchers out west might do.

[Gregorian]

19. He should be blocking the hydrogen car. But the coal plants are not a plus.

We've been having the hydrogen argument on this forum for a long time now. I'm glad Cho knows that it's not the way to go. Not now, and probably not until making hydrogen can be done with renewable resources. Highly doubtful it will ever happen with electrolysis. And until we find another way to make hydrogen, that's the end of the story.

I keep forgetting to mention the single most important thing that we can do. Something absolutely no one is talking about. Not seriously. Instead of thinking about what one can DO to help the situation we're in now, it's better to think about what one can NOT DO. Limiting one's use. Consolidating. No children. Shorter commutes. Frivolous traveling should be eliminated. It all sounds so horrible that no one will ever mention it. It took a communist regime to mention birthing limits. Draconian! But what's the alternative? A melting planet. Obama said "sacrifice". I heard it. And I believe he still means it. Using less is the most effective way of helping out to curb global warming.

[frog92969]

20. The clock is ticking

Electricity is the future,
anything else known to us at this point is just a sick joke.

Our masters will see the Earth destroyed before they make the MAJOR changes we desperately need,
that much is painfully obvious.

[HillbillyBob]

22. So much for change we can believe in

I stated elsewhere that Pres O had lost much of my support with his FISA vote, and I had also stated earlier today that I was about to change my afliction from Dem to Green. I think it is damn time our leaders (rulers?) get a boot in the ass and a vote out of office.
edited to add.
Geithner, Summers, Mountain destruction, ad nauseum.
He gets a big fail as far as I can see.
Instead of changing everything he is changing nothing.

[bertman]

24. "change my AFLICTION from Dem to Green."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[salguine]

41. Is that all you can seize on? Any thoughts on the substance of the post? Huh?

[Jakes Progress]

23. Whew. I'm glad that old climate problem has gone away.

Back during the election, we heard a lot about it. It was a big priority. Our existence on the planet was in peril. That's one of the reasons I voted for Obama.

Now. It's not big thing. Whew. Glad he handled that problem. And so quickly too. But if his guy is supporting coal and cars, I guess I gotta do it too.

[Amonester]

37. Well, he didn't handle it, and even if he would: it's too f**king late.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5706307&mesg_id=5706307

:cry:

[salguine]

43. No shit. In a couple of hundred years,

this



will be looked on the way we look on this now.



Although I'm damned if I know who'll be looking at it.

[Jakes Progress]

66. Sorry I left out the sarcasm thingy.

I thought I was so over the top that it was implied.

[flyarm]

25. Obama Nominates Superfund Polluter Lawyer To Run DOJ Environment Division

Obama Nominates Superfund Polluter Lawyer To Run DOJ Environment Division

President Barack Obama has nominated a lawyer for the nation’s largest toxic polluters to run the enforcement of the nation’s environmental laws. On Tuesday, Obama “announced his intent to nominate” Ignacia S. Moreno to be Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division in the Department of Justice. Moreno, general counsel for that department during the Clinton administration, is now the corporate environmental counsel for General Electric, “America’s #1 Superfund Polluter“:

Number five in the Fortune 500 with revenues of $89.3 billion and earnings of $8.2 billion in 1997, General Electric has been a leader in the effort to roll back the Superfund law and stave off any requirements for full cleanup and restoration of sites they helped create.

This February, General Electric lost an eight-year battle to “prove that parts of the Superfund law are unconstitutional.” One of the 600-person DOJ environmental division’s “primary responsibilities is to enforce federal civil and criminal environmental laws such as” the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Superfund.

Before General Electric, Moreno worked as a corporate attorney at Spriggs and Hollingsworth. Moreno’s name is found in the Westlaw database as an attorney defending General Motors in another Superfund case, the GM Powertrain facility in Bedford, Indiana:

snip;

Although General Motors entered into an agreement in 2001 with the EPA to clean up the site, a number of local residents whose land has been contaminated by polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have sued for damages in Allgood v. GM (now Barlow v. GM), in a contentious and caustic dispute over cleanup, monitoring, and lost property values.

SOURCE: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/15/ignacia-moreno-supe... /

[DissedByBush]

27. Chu has to live in the real world

Decisions on energy effect jobs, the rest of the economy and the ability of his boss to get reelected.

Most environmental activists do not have to live in this world or make hard decisions and deal with their real-world impact.

[Gregorian]

31. It really is a dilemma.

You've nailed, I think. My frustration comes from knowing what should be, while knowing what is going to be.

Nothing is going to change until it's replaced with something better. Unfortunately that spells disaster. Because there isn't anything better.

We're going to have to take other approaches to solve the problems we face. Unfortunately I don't think many people care enough or know enough to make those changes. It's a sad situation. But I think you're right on about what you said.

[DissedByBush]

40. The environmentalists do provide a necessary service

Even though them getting their wishes 100 percent right now would be a disaster, they still keep pressure on the administration to at least keep moving towards a clean environment. They can bitch and moan and it can get annoying. But it's only part of the pressure and it's a good thing.

[Turborama]

49. Do you know what "their real world impact" actually is?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbOXUza9ZeE ">The "real" world

[cosmicone]

47. Like I said before ...

Change my ass. I'll stay home the next election.

[No Elephants]

51. Voting third party may make a clearer statement.

[OneBlueSky]

48. what does the environment have in common with healthcare, the war, energy policy, . ..

GM foods, banking, and a host of other critical issues facing the nation? . . .

despite campaign rhetoric and protestations to the contrary, policy decisions in each of these areas are STILL being made not by our elected representatives, but by the corporations who profit most when policy decisions not in the public interest are enacted . . .

in most cases, in fact, policies that ARE in the public interest are in direct conflict with policies that benefit the corporations . . . that's because the interests of the general public and those of the corporations are incompatible . . . look at our healthcare system for the most obvious (and most egregious example) . . .

[No Elephants]

52. Disagree. Our elected representatives ARE making the decisions. And they are deciding

to give the corporations what the corporations want They (our elected representatives)are doing that so that they can keep getting re-elected and/or help their fellow Party members get elected and re-elected.


And it is never going to change until we, American voters, do something about it, besides whine.

[swilton]

53. The more we invest in hydrogen fuel cells the less we invest in

solar and wind power. I think hydrogen fuel cells are on the table to keep us from going to clean energy. After all there is a lot at stake to keep nuclear power and the energy required to manufacture the hydrogen in the picture. The other thing about hydrogen fuel cells is that it doesn't work in cold temperatures. Keeping this non-starter on the table keeps the status quo in business...I mean my Prius already gets 48 miles to the gallon. If we really wanted to make a change we would invest in the proven renewables.

The Energy Department should be retooled - its raison d'etre is to protect the nuclear energy/weapons industry not the environment.

[edc]

55. The only logical

explanation for this is alien body snatchers that control Washington and that they are all pod people.

[Wednesdays]

63. K&R

:kick:

[JVS]

70. European environmentalists have little room to talk. Two German states with governments...

involving coalitions with the green party are moving ahead with new coal powered plants because the Green parties are dogmatically against nuclear since their foundation.

[depakid]

71. "I've been a staunch supporter of Obama because of his environmental policies."

I'm sorry to say that I've not seen Obama show any aptitude for- nor a whole lot of interest in environmental issues over the years.

[Turborama]

72. Maybe I should have added, "as a presidential candiate". n/t

[polichick]

85. Is there anything this administration won't cave on??? Seems like they...

...cave even when they don't have to ~ hell, they cave before the fight begins.