(Coal) Smoke And Mirrors
Robert Samuelson take s a clue bat to the Hollywood version of global warming and exposes the biggest flaw in all the Gorezilla led logic. All the posturing aside, even if the most stringent controls are put in place - at great cost to Western economies - it will not curb the reality of increased carbon emissions. Because the world's developing countries are increasing their use of coal.
Global warming has gone Hollywood, literally and figuratively. The script is plain. As Gore says, solutions are at hand. We can switch to renewable fuels and embrace energy-saving technologies, once the dark forces of doubt are defeated. It's smart and caring people against the stupid and selfish. Sooner or later, Americans will discover that this Hollywood version of global warming (largely mirrored in the media) is mostly make-believe.
Most of the many reports on global warming have a different plot. Despite variations, these studies reach similar conclusions. Regardless of how serious the threat, the available technologies promise at best a holding action against greenhouse gas emissions. Even massive gains in renewables (solar, wind, biomass) and more efficient vehicles and appliances would merely stabilize annual emissions near present levels by 2050. The reason: Economic growth, especially in poor countries, will sharply increase energy use and emissions…..
…..Unless we can replace coal or neutralize its CO2emissions, curbing greenhouse gases is probably impossible. Substitution seems unlikely, simply because coal use is so massive. Consider a separate study by Wood Mackenzie, a consulting firm. It simulated a fivefold increase in U.S. electricity from renewables by 2026. Despite that, more coal generating capacity would be needed to satisfy growth in demand.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a bright spot: Catch the CO2and put it underground. On this, the MIT study is mildly optimistic. The technologies exist, it says. Similarly, geologic formations — depleted oil fields, unusable coal seams — provide adequate storage space, at least in the United States. But two problems loom: First, capture and storage adds to power costs; and second, its practicality remains suspect until it's demonstrated on a large scale.
Samuelson points out that "carbon capture" equipment on coal plant - in the very best case scenario - will make the plants cost 40% more while delivering 20% less electricity. The economics are no good here. The real solutions to curbing CO2 emissions will have to include a lot of nuclear. That is the harsh reality. The feel good Hollywood choices are simply not going to do any good. Especially with people like Gorezilla increasing their energy use at a stunning pace.
Energy, Environment | Gaius Wednesday, 21 March , 2007
By daveinboca, Wednesday, 21 March , 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Yes, there are no magic bullets or pleasure pills. Nuke power using small cookie-cutter plants employing German/French technology developed in the eighties is the best solution, but the ossified neuro-ruts in Lib brains remember The China Syndrome.
These pre-programmed Skinner-box ultra-lefties can’t think past their lie-extended noses. Nukes are the answer.
BTW, the USA is the Saudi Arabia of coal, high-quality coal we should mine and export. And coalbed-methane is a technology that can produce clean gas from coalfields.
By iftheshoefits, Wednesday, 21 March , 2007 @ 4:53 pm
Put the economic issues aside for a minute - what about the possible contamination of underground acquifers by pumping all of that crap undergroud? I doubt that what they’re talking about would be 99-44/100’s percent pure carbon or CO2.
Environmentalists (of which I consider myself one) don’t understand the enviornmental damage that will be done by chasing after the wrong problem of atmospheric CO2.
I shake my head every day at the pompous, world-class stupidity going on regarding global warming, and how absolutely silly it will all look in another thirty (ten?) years as more of the real climatological story emerges.