 |
|
|
The International Clearinghouse for Hydrogen Commerce www.hydrogencommerce.com |
| THIS COLUMN IS OPTIMIZED FOR THE APPLE iPHONE |
Hydrogen or Coal? |
|
HYDROGEN MINING |
|
|
When Dr. S. Julio Friedmann
informed the participants of the Laramie conference that the 50 billion
tons of minable coal reserves in Wyoming's Powder River Basin could be
increased by a factor of six,
to 370 billion tons, you could hear a pin drop. When he said this could be
done without actually mining the coal, without gasifiers, without
significantly disturbing the environment; that it could be financed for
only three-quarters of the typical capital expense and operated for only
half the usual costs; that there would be essentially no pollution, no
release of mercury, no industrial acid processes, greatly reduced water
consumption, no contamination of water tables, no CO2 pollution; that the
actual energy extracted would be greater than any conventional mining
technology and the most prized commodity would be cheap, essentially
unlimited synthetic natural gas -- jaws dropped. A particularly poignant
observation was that one of these power plants incorporating carbon
sequestration would always be cheaper to build and operate than a
conventional coal plant without carbon sequestration -- another nail
pounded firmly in the coffin of conventional, dirty coal power. It was as if a benevolent god had descended and announced that America's energy crisis was over. Manna was falling from heaven. Wyoming's coal was about to become a national energy juggernaut. And anyone involved in this new technology was about to become very busy and very rich. Not only that, but for the participants of the 4th Annual Hydrogen Implementation Conference presented by the Mountain States Hydrogen Business Council, Friedmann appeared to be upgrading the fabled bridge to the hydrogen economy, previously served only by natural gas, to a double-decker Golden Gate where both natural gas and cheap synthetic natural gas from coal would work in concert to bring about the transition even faster. Curiously, even serendipitously, the promise of a vast new domestic supply of synthetic natural gas would seem to complement the much vaunted plan of T. Boone Pickens, which calls for a massive expansion of wind power to allow natural gas to dominate transportation fuel and significantly reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil. |
|
 |
Friedmann is the leader of the Carbon Management Program at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which has been researching Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) for 30 years, building 16 pilot plants in the U.S. over that period. Although the basic technology is not new, it was historically unable to make inroads against $10/bbl oil or $1.50/therm natural gas. But now, Friedmann claims, it is cheaper to produce synthetic natural gas from coal using UCG than to purchase |
|
wellhead natural gas
at $8 per 100,000 BTU. "There's actually been a power plant in Uzbekistan that's been running for 49 years, continuously, on this technology," says Friedmann, referring to the UCG facility in Angrenskaya, Uzbekistan, that feeds a 650 MW power plant. The Republic of South Africa's Eskom is building a 2100 MW power plant in Majuba, scheduled to go online in 2011, using UCG to extend the resource life of the "exhausted" Majuba colliery, which closed in 1993. This closing forced the existing 4110 MW power plant near Amersfoort to begin importing higher-priced coal from Witbank, contributing to South Africa's current energy crisis. Friedmann cautioned that the UCG process had to be carefully engineered and managed to avoid subsidence and water table contamination. He pointed to LLNL's second UCG pilot plant at Hoe Creek in Wyoming, where, in the 1970s, the water table was contaminated when a gasification cavity collapsed, connecting coal to a previously unconnected aquifer. This was a direct result, said Friedmann, of "bad site selection, bad management and bad operation." Yet he felt assured that the series of 31 successful pilot projects (and one additional failure) following that pioneering debacle had provided the knowledge to prevent future problems. "UCG appears to be really promising for hydrogen generation, especially in Wyoming, in the mountain states," says Friedmann. "The Powder River Basin is a terrific national endowment. We're nuts not to think about it in some serious way. "Wyoming has a terrific sequestration resource. The Powder River Basin, Rock Springs Uplift, Bighorn Basin, you name it. There's a terrific opportunity here for combining these technologies for hydrogen production in some sensible way, not to mention the opportunities in enhanced oil recovery and enhanced gas recovery as well." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
On top of the high
price of coal power, studies show that there are hidden costs of $30 per
megawatt hour or more – like respiratory illness, radiation, and hazardous
waste. A UNLV study found that solar, wind, geothermal and biomass
projects would create more than $20 billion in business for Nevada over
the next 25 years. Each new megawatt of geothermal power creates up to ten
new jobs. Each new megawatt of solar-thermal and wind power create at
least 6 new jobs. If just half of Nevada’s potential clean energy
resources were developed, 22,000 new jobs in the next decade would be
created. Does coal compare? Not even close. The $30 per megawatt hour of
hidden environmental and health costs is just the tip of the dirty
iceberg. Fossil fuels are contributing to global warming. We’re
experiencing severe and unpredictable weather, our ice caps are melting at
a record pace, and as we are seeing in Lake Mead, our water sources are in
danger all over America. Big energy companies see these warning signs as
clearly as we, but their solution -- build more coal plants. If the
current proposals for new Western coal plants are built, they would
consume 114 million gallons of water per day. That’s enough water to meet
the needs of 591,000 homes. The only type of power that uses more water
than coal is nuclear. What is the daily discharge from a coal fired plant?
It is waste, contaminated with unsafe levels of arsenic, lead and other
toxins – other poisons. This foul discharge is in our lakes, streams and
water tables. This is the water we drink. This Nevada coal plan is just
one example. The damage caused by fossil fuels, of course, is not limited
to Nevada or the West. Our country burns 1 billion tons of coal every
year. That produces 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Coal
plants release sixty varieties of hazardous air pollutants, among them
lead, chromium, arsenic and mercury. Is it any wonder that tens of
millions of Americans live in areas that fail to meet the EPA’s air
quality standards? Is it any wonder that hundreds of thousands of
Americans every year suffer from asthma attacks, respiratory problems and
heart attacks, all from the dirty air caused by coal plants? Is today – is
tomorrow – the time to invest in new coal for electricity plants -- the
answer is a resounding no.
Senator Harry Reid PowerGen Keynote Address February 20, 2008 |
|
VICTORY! |
|
RENEWABLE ENERGY
STRIKES! |
Three of Wall Street's biggest
investment banks are set to announce today that
they are imposing new
environmental standards that will make it harder for companies to get
financing to build coal-fired power plants in the U.S.
Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley say they have
concluded that the U.S. government will cap greenhouse-gas emissions from
power plants sometime in the next few years. The banks will require
utilities seeking financing for plants before then to prove the plants
will be economically viable even under potentially stringent federal caps
on carbon dioxide, the main man-made greenhouse gas. ...The
banks say they will encourage energy-efficiency and renewable-energy
pushes before backing new coal plants. And they say they will help
utilities push for new government policies that make efficiency programs
and renewable energy more practical.
more
|
|
FutureGen R.I.P. |
|
Renewable hydrogen, widely distributed and consumed locally, threatens
centralized energy in the same way that the personal computer threatened
IBM's mainframe monopoly. Like Big Oil's ill-fated attempt to corral the
wide-open hydrogen future with petroleum reforming, today's cancellation
of the bizarrely expensive political payoff to Big Coal -- "FutureGen" --
puts another nail in the coffin of centralized energy's desperate hopes to
keep distributed hydrogen energy in the bottle. Next to fall will be
nuclear energy's unaffordable and dangerous nightmare of thermochemical
hydrogen. -- RDM |
|
COAL DEATHS AND
MINE TRAGEDIES |
Much of the
recent energy debate in the United States has focused on increasing coal
use. However, the cost of wind energy is now less than that of coal.
Shifting from coal to wind would address health, environmental, and energy
problems.
|
|
The Great Coal Hole |
|
U.S. and China Announce Cooperation on FutureGen and Sign Energy Efficiency
Protocol at U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue |
|
YOUR DRINKING
WATER AT RISK |
|
ANYTHING FOR
CARBON: |
| In power projects, the hydrogen would be
used to fuel a gas turbine for generation of industrial-scale supplies of
electrical power. Full integration with CCS technology would ensure that 90 per
cent of the carbon dioxide which would otherwise have been emitted to the
atmosphere would be safely captured and stored.
COAL:
Resources & Future Production
DOE Funds Six Hydrogen-From-Coal Research Grants |
|
A CONGRESS
BOUGHT BY COAL? |
|
"Coal
Rush" to Threaten Environment, Challenge America’s Energy Security |
|
Energy companies are planning to build over 150 coal-fired power plants
across the United States, according to a report released today by U.S.
PIRG, the National Association of State PIRGs. Far from enhancing
America’s energy security, the wave of proposed plants – most of them
powered by dirty, last-generation technologies – would dramatically
increase global warming emissions and pose energy security and economic
problems. “We’re lining up for a sprint in the wrong direction on U.S. energy policy,” said Rob Sargent of U.S. PIRG. “Expanding our dependence on coal would only worsen its impact on global warming emissions and intensify the other environmental impacts and economic risks.” The U.S. PIRG analysis, based on information from the U.S. Department of Energy and published reports, documented the potential impacts of completing the 150 plants proposed across the U.S. Among the impacts would be the following: A 10 percent increase in U.S. global warming emissions. This increase would occur amid urgent scientific warnings about the dangers posed by global warming and growing consensus that, to avoid the worst consequences, America and the world must achieve steep cuts in global warming emissions by the middle of this century. A 30 percent increase in U.S. coal demand, which would require the opening of new mines and expanded infrastructure for delivering that coal to power plants. The increase in coal demand would exacerbate the environmental devastation caused by coal mining, which has already denuded more than seven percent of Appalachian forests, buried 1,200 miles of streams in fill, and resulted in the release of hundreds of millions of pounds of toxic chemicals. It would also increase the likelihood of future cost increases for coal. Expanding America’s coal demand would come at a high price,” said Joe Lovett of the Appalachian Center. “New mines would level more mountains, permanently bury hundreds of miles of pristine mountain streams under billions of tons of mining waste and continue to devastate local communities located near the mines.” $137 billion invested in dirty, outdated coal-burning technology. Despite recent hype about the promise of “clean coal” – including the prospect of capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants underground – only 16 percent of the proposed plants nationwide would use coal gasification technology, and none would incorporate carbon capture and storage. The rest would use older technologies that are already responsible for massive global warming emissions and the release of large quantities of pollutants responsible for human health problems. Lost opportunity for investment in cleaner technologies. Investing the $137 billion slated for new coal-fired power plants into cleaner alternatives would yield economic and energy security benefits for the United States. If invested in energy efficiency, those funds could reduce U.S. electricity demand by about 19 percent in 2025 vs. business as usual – obviating the need for the all of the coal plants on the drawing board. If invested in wind energy, the United States could develop 110 gigawatts of the best wind energy locations in the western U.S., which could produce electricity at an overall cost comparable to coal. “We could avoid the need to build any new coal plants if we simply invested the same amount of money in energy efficiency,” said Travis Madsen, a policy analyst who authored the report for USPIRG, “and we’d save money at the same time.” Economic risks for ratepayers, utilities and generators, who could be liable for the cost of complying with any new rules to limit global warming emissions from power plants – rules that are increasingly likely as evidence mounts of the potential environmental and economic impacts of global warming. “Companies that build coal-fired power plants today are gambling with their investors’ money,” said Leslie Lowe of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a coalition of investors promoting social responsibility. “They are betting that operating coal fired power plants will continue to be cheap, despite the near certainty that global warming pollution will be regulated within the lifetime of the plants.” Despite these problems, the “coal rush” appears to be accelerating across the United States. In April, TXU Corporation announced plans for eight new coal-fired units in Texas, adding to three previously announced projects, for a total of 8,600 MW and $10 billion in capital investment. In June, NRG Energy announced six new coal-fired projects from Texas to Connecticut. And in July, PacifiCorp announced plans for two new coal-fired facilities to serve markets in Oregon. The report, Making Sense of the Coal Rush: The Consequences of Expanding America’s Dependence on Coal, calls for several steps to stem the “coal rush.” First, our leaders should join Idaho officials in establishing a moratorium on new coal plants in, in order to evaluate the environmental and economic impacts. Second, our leaders should establish a cap on carbon dioxide pollution, to be lowered over time. Third, public money should not be spent on coal technology. Finally, our leaders should dramatically expand programs to develop energy efficiency and renewable energy resources. At the federal level, on June 20, Rep. Waxman introduced the Safe Climate Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. It would require the U.S. to reduce its global warming pollution 15 percent by 2020 and by 80 percent by 2050. To achieve these targets, the bill calls for improved energy efficiency and a greater reliance on clean, renewable energy sources, while providing companies flexibility in meeting the pollution-reduction goals through a “cap-and-trade” program. Senator Jeffords of Vermont is introducing a similar bill in the Senate today. “America could substantially reduce its global warming pollution using existing technology to improve energy efficiency and increase the use of clean, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass,” said Sargent. “What’s more, these steps would be good for America’s economy; creating jobs and improving productivity. But, none of this is possible if we stake our future on coal.” U.S. PIRG, the National Association of State PIRGs (Public Interest Research Groups) , is a network of state-based, non-partisan public interest advocacy organizations with a national advocacy office in Washington, D.C. We uncover threats to public health and well-being and fight to end them, using the time-tested tools of investigative research, media exposes, grassroots organizing, advocacy and litigation. U.S. PIRG’s mission is to deliver persistent, result-oriented activism that protects public health and the environment, encourages a fair, sustainable economy, and fosters responsive, democratic government. In some states, the PIRG's environmental work is housed in partner organizations: Environment California, Environment Colorado, Environment Illinois, Environment Maine, Environment Maryland, Environment Michigan, Environment North Carolina, PennEnvironment and Environment Texas. For more information, see www.pirg.org. |
|
COAL OR RENEWABLES?
YOU DECIDE. |
|
"We are morally compelled to take |
|
Nearly half of the nation has voted, or is about to act, on state-specific
plans rejecting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's flawed Clean
Air Mercury Rule to control emissions from coal-fired power plants. "The
fact that so many states are choosing a different course clearly shows
that the federal rule does little to protect the environment while it puts
residents -- especially children, pregnant women and unborn babies -- in
jeopardy of continued damaging exposure to mercury," Environmental
Protection Secretary Kathleen A. McGinty said. Pennsylvania is not alone. Because of the toxicological effects that mercury has on humans, wildlife and the environment, other states have announced their intention to do the same. Mercury is a persistent, bio- accumulative neurotoxin that can remain active in the environment for more than 10,000 years. Mercury accumulation in aquatic ecosystems in Pennsylvania, and 45 other states, has caused $1.6 billion worth of pollution damages to the state's recreational fishing industry. ...According to EPA's April 12 Toxic Release Inventory report, Pennsylvania moved from third to second in 2004 in the total amount of mercury pollution spewed from power plants. The commonwealth previously had been third behind Texas and Ohio, respectively. Texas remains first. |
|
THE WAR AGAINST
RENEWABLE ENERGY - WHO ARE THEY TRYING TO KID? |
|
|
|
"FutureGen is a partnership between
government and the private sector to develop innovative technologies for
an emissions-free coal plant that will remove
all environmental concerns over
coal’s use, including climate change concerns, by sequestering
carbon emissions from coal-based power plants." |
|
| BIG COAL IS MOVING TO KILL OFFSHORE WIND THROUGH | |
 |
CARBON PUPPET MITT ROMNEY. THIS IDIOT THINKS PEOPLE WANT A COAL PROSTITUTE FOR PRESIDENT. BUT VOTERS ARE STARTING TO REALIZE THAT MERCURY POISONING, ACID RAIN AND POLLUTION ARE WAYS UTILITIES TRANSFER THEIR CLEANUP COSTS TO CITIZENS. |
| ROMNEY'S RESPONSE? TO FORCE ALL BUSINESSES IN HIS STATE TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE - A STATE-MANDATED TRANSFER OF COSTS! BLIND TO A PUBLIC DEMANDING CLEAN, SAFE ENERGY, ROMNEY'S ARROGANT STANCE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE ONGOING SUICIDE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. -- RDM | |
|
"There seems to be no logical
explanation for Romney's rejection of RGGI [Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative] other than that he wanted to
capture the support and campaign dollars of the coal and utility
industries." |
|
|
An Ill Wind from Congress |
|
|
The country's most important renewable energy project is in
danger of being sandbagged in Congress. An amendment to a spending bill
for the US Coast Guard would grant veto power over the plan for a wind
farm off Cape Cod to Governor Romney, an outspoken opponent. As important
as funding for the Coast Guard is, Congress should reject this bill and
stop playing games with the nation's hopes of weaning itself from fossil
fuels and the greenhouse gases they emit. ...If Congress accepts the bill with the veto power for Romney, it would be a victory for the project's well-heeled opponents on the Cape and Islands, who have funded the lobbying campaign waged against Cape Wind in the backrooms of Congress. The veto provision is also a blatant example of the kind of special-interest earmarking that subverts the democratic process in Washington. more
|
|
|
| FAIR
USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, health, political, economic, scientific, national/global security and social issues pertaining to the use of hydrogen as an energy carrier. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to Cornell Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The International Clearinghouse for Hydrogen Commerce has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
|
