Stop Coal, Stop Global Warming
Is it that easy? Does my headline belie the true problem that we are facing? Is there more to the equation than just ridding ourselves of coal as a power source?
Well, according to Ed Mazria, the founder of Architecture 2030, the answer is no.
"The only fossil fuel that can fuel global warming is coal. If you stop coal, you stop global warming. End of story," he said.
Architecture 2030’s goal is to reduce the amount of energy required for buildings being built. According to their official website, "buildings are the major source of demand for energy and materials that produce by-product greenhouse gases."
His entire premise is based around a concept that "credible scientists" have provided: within 10 years we must be well on our way to GHG emission reductions to avoid suffering from "catastrophic climate change."
So when Mazria spoke at the West Coast Green conference taking place in San Francisco this past week, he was adamant about one step that we have to take to stave off this crisis: cut coal out of our plans for the future. He and his organization ask why it is that there are 151 coal-fired plants in the US alone in the planning or construction phase when we should be "well on our way" to GHG reductions.
"The silver bullet is no more coal," he said.
Unfortunately, the copious deposits of coal littering our planet undermine his plans. Governments are not going to just stop using coal because Mr. Mazria says so, especially in the time frame being given to us! It is this sort of radical decision-making that puts off so many (like my father, who would like to be "green" if it weren’t for all the big ideas with no possible means of implementation being thrown around).
I wrote a little while ago about plans to implement a new way of mining for coal that would somewhat negate the effects that strip-mining causes. At the same time that Mr. Mazria’s story hit the wires, so did news that GreatPoint Energy had received $100 million in a third round of funding for a cleaner use of coal.
The Massachusetts-based company has new technology that allows them to convert the normally "dirty" fossil fuel into a much cleaner natural gas, removing 60 percent of the carbon – along with sulfur and mercury – from the product.
The added bonus is that GreatPoint believes it can make "Bluegas™" for approximately $3.50 per million BTUs (British thermal units), compared to the $7 per million BTUs for the current market price.
However, "clean coal" is still a problematic phrase; some say it’s oxymoronic. The compounds removed from the coal, especially the carbon, still have no home, with very few options open for safe dispersal.
So, what can we take from Ed Mazria’s doomsday-ing and this new method of energy production? Only that a cleaner Earth will require the implementation of many steps. We will have to move away from being so dependent on coal, make our buildings more energy efficient and self-sufficient, and keep our fingers crossed.
"Stop coal, stop global warming, says architect"
"Clean coal" start-up GreatPoint Energy raises $100 million
More from GO
Untapped Coal Reserves: A Bridge to Cleaner Energy Solutions?
Tags: Alternative Fuels, climate-change, coal, conservation, Environment, global-warming, Green Tech, renewable
September 24th, 2007 at 3:31 am
Dear Editor, Sept. 23/07
Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun’s output cause the observed changes in the
Earth’s temperature.
In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun’s output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun’s output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.
The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth’s
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada
Ph. 807 3457258
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark
http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11462
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188993.php
September 24th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Thomas, I agree with you totally. Green Science notwithstanding it makes little sense to say that this compound (CO2) - which accounts for only 0.033% of our air - could have a significant effect on our climate unless it was increased by multiple factors of ten; not this miniscule amount about which everyone is worried. CO2 is a scapegoat for a perceived problem that is likely beyond our control. It is the easy answer to a computer model that can not account for all of the variables. At its core, however, it is a means by which some are seeking to exercise control over the masses via political action, which is not unique to any perceived or created crisis.
All that being said, you should prepare yourself for a massive recoil from the readers and bloggers at this site. They are well-informed folks who are most dedicated to “the cause”, and they will likely bombard you with references to scientific studies that run contrary to anything you offer. Lastly, they also possess and do not hesitate to deploy the ultimate weapon of the green devotee. That weapon is the ability to snub your case by simply labeling the scientists that you reference as “deniers”.
If you want to skip a lot of the preliminaries, jump over to the “Green Myth Busting: Greenland was Once Green” article and read some of the posts there. Those guys have been going at it for months.
In the end, however, I have to thank the good people at GO for having a relatively open forum for such discussions. Unless one gets unruly and abusive, the editors here do allow us dissenters the chance to state our cases. Other places are not so interested in exchanging ideas.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:04 am
The only conceivable alternative to coal , sans solar thermal ala Ausra not panning out, would be nuclear. There simply isn’t anything remotely capable of replacing coal’s 50% share. Carbon sequestration of coal is the other viable alternative, which strangely is criticized by some environmentalists, who often lie about the
probability of it being either feasible or economical, at a time when the technology is obviously evolving rather quickly. We know wind sucks and won’t get any better - so far attempts to make it dispatchable require large amounts of fossil fuel, an oxymoron. Wind can barely generate 1/2 of 1% now after 4 years of construction, while the US demand is going up 2% per year, expected to continue for the next 20 years. Wind is a total waste of resources and a horrific blight on the environment. It’s high time we stopped subsidizing this losing proposition.
Wave has a long way to go and most attempts make the mistake of generating electricity directly, thus replicating wind’s deadly characteristic. The arguments against coal sequestration are often simpleminded and
completely miss the point that we already have coal plants and coal mines and distribution networks and
connections to the grid, etc. All that’s needed is to modify existing plants. That’s one hell of a lot simpler than creating from scratch something new to replace it.
Carbon emission laws need to be written in terms of
end results, not specifically mentioning any particular
type of power generation, which introduces deadly biases,
which may repeat the utter failure of the California
laws. For example, requiring “renewable” sources is pure
nonsense - if the fuel source for the generating system will last as long as the power plant, then renewability is totally meaningless. The object is to reduce carbon, not to satisfy some mutton-headed and simple minded environmentalists who false believe that “renewable” is best. Quite often renewable is in fact worst, both in terms of carbon reduction and power output.
September 26th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Wasn’t coal supposed to run out already according to you nut jobs? Wouldn’t that solve your problem? I agree, we should go solely NUCLEAR!!!
September 26th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Thomas is spot on. Really, Josh, please take a long look at historical connection between sunspot activity and global temperatures. Solar cycle 24 is late in starting indicating an even weaker cycle then was originally predicted. I’d like to add this, as well…
http://sesfoundation.org/dalton_minimum.pdf
September 27th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Why the heck should I believe an architect talking to me about power generation and AGW?!?!?!?!?!? I am probably more qualified telling you AGW doesn’t exist as an Urban Planner… LOL! At least you didn’t use the ridiculous “peer review” comment also. Architects must be that “consensus” you alarmists talk about!
September 27th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Don’t worry Josh!!! Your prayers have been answered!!!! http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa025&ref=feedburner&articleId=43D0C499-E7F2-99DF-30F52701AD131FD0
September 27th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Josh, at least you struck a nerve. You may need to get Leggett over here to counter Thomas, Mike and myself. He’s seems to be the most well-armed AGW believer.