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

Architecture 2030

Coal Under Fire

More from GO

Untapped Coal Reserves: A Bridge to Cleaner Energy Solutions?

Mankind has had its share of great accidents, among them x-rays, penicillin and the internet. They pop up because of scientific endeavor being allowed to flourish. It comes as no surprise, that what could be heralded as the answer to our future energy concerns could be solved due to an inherent accident.

John Kanzius, from Erie, Pennsylvania, has come across a way to burn sea-water. Obviously, scientists have not seen this as a viable research goal, (seeing as water is all wet and everything.) According Kanzius, the man who was originally trying to find a cure for cancer, given the right circumstances, sea-water may be able to provide us with a very renewable energy source.

First thought of as a hoax, this discovery was later backed up by Rustum Roy, a professor of chemistry at Penn State University, who recreated the experiment in his own controlled lab. Roy describes this discovery as "the most remarkable in water science in 100 years.”

His colleagues at Penn State warned him “not to be fooled”, explaining the phenomenon away by saying that Kanzius had just put electrodes in the water. However, Roy proved the theory true in the Materials Research Laboratory in State College.

Radio frequency directed at the water breaks down the bonds that hold together the elements that make up salt water – sodium chloride, hydrogen and oxygen – which then makes hydrogen. When ignited, hydrogen will burn continuously as long as it is exposed to the RF energy field produced by Kanzius’ generator, originally made to desalinate water and help in the treatment of cancer. An independent source – outside of Penn State and Kanzius’ reach – measured the flame’s temperature, and noted that it exceeded 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

Dr. Roy – who has taken up the research of this discovery – will have already met with U.S. Department of Energy and Department of Defense officials in Washington by the time you are reading this, to discuss the discovery and to hopefully gain funding for further research.

"We will get our ideas together and check this out and see where it leads," Dr. Roy said. "The potential is huge. In the life sciences, the role of water is infinite, and this guy is doing something new in using the most important and most abundant material on the face of the earth."

Mr. Kanzius isn’t just your average scientist, who stumbled upon this discovery. His novel treatment to cancer – targeting cancer cells with metallic nanoparticles then destroying them with radio-frequency – is already proceeding at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and at the University of Texas’ MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Apparently while he was demonstrating the generators ability to heat nanoparticles, someone noted that there was condensation on the inside of the test tube, and suggested that Kanzius use his equipment to desalinate water. When he attempted this unexpected suggestion, a spark was emitted, and in time he and his laboratory partners struck a match and ignited the water, which continued to burn as long as the test tube remained within the radio field. "This is the most abundant element in the world. It is everywhere," Dr. Roy said of salt water. "Seeing it burn gives me chills."

One can only hope then, that maybe, just maybe, we’ve found one of our answers.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Salt water as fuel? Erie man hopes so

via Treehugger - "Fuel" from Salt Water?

YouTube Video Demonstration

One of the problems that advocates of global warming awareness face is what is actually causing global warming. As a whole, we have a tendency to blame global warming on anything that comes our way, from coal to cats. It opens us up to counter attack, and at the rate at which it happens, it degrades our credibility. What we have to be careful of is not attributing everything that is reported as being a cause of global warming with our full support; occasionally, people are wrong.

So that is why the news of massive coal deposits underneath Wyoming and Montana has to be treated with kid gloves.

An American federal report released last week identified an estimated 550 billion tons worth of coal in the Powder River Basin that straddles Wyoming and Montana. According to the report, Wyoming has an estimated 510 billion tons of coal, and Montana some 40 billion. This coal reserve is enough to power America’s current electric appetite for the next 493 years.

It is not up for debate that the current process of converting coal in to energy for earth’s populations has been detrimental to the planet. The carbon emissions released by burning the coal has substantially added to the already growing mass of greenhouse gases choking our atmosphere, and burning a hole through the ozone above Antarctica.

However, this time around, we may be looking at a less damaging process, considering the political mess it would cause and the geological issues.

The major issue is the fact that, at 500 feet underneath the earth, this bank of coal is well beyond conventional mining methods, ie, strip mining and turning the surrounding area in to a lunar like impact crater.

John Wold, chairman and CEO of GasTech Inc., has come out saying that "The need here in America is for development of technology to get that…" coal. In fact, GasTech is expecting to make an announcement soon regarding a partnership that will pioneer a new form of mining for coal.

The process would involve underground gasification, a process that turns carbonaceous materials in to various forms of energy, including syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen released from the gasification process.

The new mining method would involve drilling down to the coal, and manipulating the coal reserves underground. By creating the process underground, the next step would be to then pump the refined product to the surface to produce the electricity.

Underground gasification is theoretically safer for the environment, as well as a productive means of acquiring coal reserves too deep for normal strip mining. And though it may be prohibitively more expensive, gasification has long been held as a possible answer to the need for cleaner energy sources.

In fact, gasification is hoped to one day be able to create energy using anything from wood – not all that ecologically friendly – or plastic – rather more ecologically friendly, considering the growing piles of it in the worlds trash heaps.

So is a relatively cleaner use of coal going to be the bridge between the abusive power generators of our generation to the renewable sources such as ocean and wind power? Or is it just another grab by the coal industry to continue making money with no regard for future generations?

Reuters

Star Tribune

Photo Courtesy of dogcaught

John Howard, Prime Minster of Australia, and lap-dog to George Bush, has been granted the power to help shape the Asia-Pacific regions future goals and targets to combat global warming and increased carbon emissions by leading this year’s APEC Forum.

I have but few words to say to that: “God Help us All!”

For too long Howard has managed to stumble blindly along in Bush’s wake, acting almost as if he was Bush’s man in the Australian Government, and ignored the responsibilities that he was given, if not as leader of Australia, but as a sane (we assume) human being.

I’m allowed to be this callous too. You see, I’m an Australian, and I’ve had to suffer through the past decade or so with Howard at the helm, and watch as he decided it would be funny to steer us right at those rocks over there that say "Global Warming!" and other such issues.

Together with Bush, Howard decided to forego signing the Kyoto Accord, as it would apparently not sit well economically if countries like Australia, America, etc, were forced to meet carbon emission cuts and countries like China and India were not. What’s been weird is that, despite this apparent desire to see their respective countries continue to pollute the world to extinction, both leaders spearheaded local and international calls for global emissions cuts!

Pardon me if I’ve missed something, but wasn’t that was the Kyoto accord was all about? Granted, it left out some rather major polluters, but you have to start somewhere.

This rant comes in response to the fact that Howard is this year leading the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) forum in Sydney, and has apparently put atop the agenda the desire for the 21 member-countries to formulate a plan to combat global warming.

It was only a month or so ago that Howard used a report delivered by "experts" to publically suggest that the warming we are experiencing is simply a natural occurrance, and that the "crisis" that is all but eating his breakfast is non-existent.

The facts are, though, that we are indeed in the grip of a natural global warming, but that due to the increase in carbon emissions – unheard of when my dad and the dinosaurs were around – the warming cycle has been escalated to a point where it is essentially on the verge of being out of our control.

It is this escalation that scientists, researchers, laymen and my cat see as a crisis, and that must receive direct attention immediately.

Thankfully, it seems, Howard, Bush, and other world leaders are beginning to realize that we weren’t all spouting rubbish to scare everybody in to not voting for them, and that there is actually a problem at hand.

This is exemplified by the agreement that has – according to inside sources from the APEC forum – been reached by the 21-member countries meeting in Sydney. Indonesia’s envoy – Salman Al-Faris, who was involved in formulating the agreement - has said that a major concession by the poorer countries involved has lead to setting an "energy intensity" reduction target.

The agreement was for all 21 APEC members to work towards a 25% cut in energy intensity by 2030, according to a Southeast Asian official who only commented on condition of anonymity. This agreed target comes despite the poorer countries saying they would not agree to a fixed target. The reduction forced developed nations to recognize - in compromise - that the U.N. believes poorer nations to have fewer responsibilities when it comes to cutting carbon emissions.

"Everybody cannot get everything, but everybody did not lose too much," Al-Farisi said of the compromise. "It is up to members’ discretion to follow, in accordance to their national programs," he added to the fact that any APEC agreement is non-binding.

This all came after George Bush had made his speech to business leaders, saying that "The United States is committed to seizing this opportunity and we need partners in this region to help lead the effort." He also pressed the member-nations of APEC to reach a conclusion on Global Warming, the topic that Howard has put at the top of the agenda.

Putting aside the fact that, if we were to look at the world’s leaders in the fight against global warming, the US would come somewhere in the last third, I think it is time to say that, we’re glad America has finally decided to come to the party, even if they’re the smug guy over in the corner acting as if he had planned the party.

On a lighter note, approximately 200 world religious leaders met Friday on a cruise ship amid icebergs near Illulisat on the west coast of Greenland. Their aim: to pray for … well, something!

Apparently, so as not to follow in the steps of the 11th-century English King Canute who prayed to stop the rising tide, the participants – a mixture of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Christians – prayed to express a common concern about climate change and global warming, rather than ask a higher power to halt or reverse the current ice-thaw occurring at the north and south poles.

"In our small world we all need to struggle together," said Sofie Petersen, the bishop of Greenland.

Patriarch Bartholomew, spiritual head of the world’s Orthodox Christians, lead the assembled in a two minute prayer, where those attending noted that the overwhelming sound was that of water lapping against the icebergs in the fjord; a fitting soundtrack to a needed step forward by a powerful group of humans.

In reality, I do not think I could have ended an article primarily focusing on the exploits of George W. Bush and John Howard better than by mentioning a prayer vigil. Maybe we should all begin praying for another miracle at the APEC forum.

APEC 2007

ENN

APEC draft climate statement seen a compromise

Bush presses Asia-Pacific on trade and climate

Religious Leaders Unite In Prayer On Climate Change

Image courtesy of APEC 2007 Taskforce