Clean Coal and Reality.org Lies

You may have seen this video concerning clean-coal technology, via ThisisReality.org. They make the claim that it doesn't exist. Well, some news out of China puts a different light on the Green spin about clean-coal tech.



From Technology Review,

Technology Review-China looks set to overtake the United States in the application of technologies to clean up coal-fired power generation, if several proposed projects come to fruition. GreenGen--a joint venture established by Chinese utilities--has broken ground on China's first integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plant and signed agreements to build two more. read more...

The Chinese have been leading the way in gasification technology since 2004 versus zero attempts here in the US. Actually the technology was looked into as an alternative in the 70's due to the energy crisis. However, in the 80's when fuel prices fell the science was largely abandoned.

How it works, via Technology Review,

Technology Review-Gasification transforms coal's complex mix of hydrocarbons into a hydrogen-rich gas known as synthesis gas, or "syngas." Power plants can burn syngas as cleanly as they can natural gas. In addition, with the right catalysts and under the right conditions, the basic chemical building blocks in syngas combine to form the hydrocarbon ingredients of gasoline and diesel fuel. As a result, coal gasification has the potential both to squelch power plants' emission of soot and smog and to decrease China's growing dependence on imported oil. It could even help control emissions of carbon dioxide, which is more easily captured from syngas plants than from conventional coal-fired plants. read more...

I guess it is safe to accuse the the folks at ThisisnotReality.org of blatantly lying to the American public. With the amount of coal that is in this country our energy concerns could easily be alleviated. However, groups such as this do not want to hear about any options other than what they offer. They don't like competition, especially ones which could prove more successful. More Gore-bull Warming at its best.


Please, feel free to leave some commentary at the bottom of the page. We appreciate your thoughts.

Continue reading ...

Cap and Trade Off Another Industry

CT

I am positive I am not going to be the first to run this or the last. This is an interesting video and excerpt taken from News Busters. Seems Obama gave an interview to the San Francisco Chronicle back in January of 2008 concerning his green agenda and cap and trade requirements for coal plants.

Excerpt from Obama's interview with the Chronicle (Jan 2008).

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It's just that it will bankrupt them.

Obama has referenced using a scalpel on the economy, well this is tantamount to using an ax on the coal industry's head. Government regulation should be used as a tool to guide industries into how you want business done, not a battering ram for your philosophy on Green tech and Gorebull Warming.

If they were smart they would start tapping into the coal and shale industries for use until the Green tech can be developed. Plus incentives to these industries would also provide them motivation to speed up R&D for clean coal technology and its implementation. But alas all the Far Left understands is fear and intimidation.

Conservation and a clean environment are just common sense. We should be good stewards of the Earth, but we also have a responsibility to ourselves. Phased planning for renewable energy sources and cleaner modes of production for other industries is a must. But, you cannot successfully push all this "change" through at once and expect it to work, especially when the tech is at best version 2.0. You will further destroy the economy and harming the people you have pledged to protect.

Here is the vid if you are interested, via YouTube:

Continue reading ...

Oil Diaries Part Two; The Left's Hit Job on Big Oil (Taking Down the Competition)

C.T.

The Left is constantly bantering that we need to be using "renewable energy sources" and so we can get off oil, because we are running out and it is bad for the environment. Renewable energy sources are fine, if we had spent the time to find one that is an acceptable alternative to oil and can produce the same output, economically. To date, there is not a technology that is in existence, to my knowledge, that can accomplish this. Solar, wind, water, hybrids, none of them have any of the capacity, right now, to replace oil. So, why all the blistering debate; environment, security, lifestyle? Nope, it is about money, control, and elimination of competition through the government.

Investment activities that focus on companies or projects that are committed to the conservation of natural resources, the production and discovery of alternative energy sources, the implementation of clean air and water projects, and/or other environmentally conscious business practices. In fact, investing in "green" companies can be riskier than other equity strategies, as many companies in this arena are in the development stage, with low revenues and high earnings valuations. [1]

Green tech, as noted above, is a risky and volatile investment right now. Let's get real though, if you have an industry that is growing, the government is backing it up, and you are the government how much risk are you actually taking? But there is a huge problem with this equation and that is Big Oil. Oil companies, if allowed to exploit coal, shale, and offshore drilling would be able to extend the life of petrol products for quite along time. No one would really see a need for renewable energy sources in the near future.

Look at the potential for fossil fuel development just here in the United States alone.

The reserves of oil sands, which are actively being mined in Canada's Alberta Province, are estimated to be 1.8 trillion barrels. Experts estimate that much of this can be produced for $45 per barrel or less. Global reserves of oil shale are estimated at more than 3.3 trillion barrels, with 70 percent in the United States (primarily in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming). [2]

Shell Oil Co. last year announced it has developed a process for extracting the oil from the shale, without mining, at a price of roughly $35 per barrel. The United States also has the world's largest reserves of coal — enough for hundreds of years of production at present levels. Coal also can be turned into liquid petroleum (as the Germans and South Africans proved decades ago). Current estimates of the conversion cost are as low as $35 per barrel. [2]

Really? Proven technology in place, clean, safe, and cheap.

Why not develop it then? All we hear about is the environmental impact, derricks look ugly in the distance, the spotted owl, yadda yadda yadda. Feel good reasons and stupidity which will inevitably undermine the very economic fabric of this nation. This will force us to wait for a sound renewable energy source while remaining dependent on foreign oil and playing hostage to the Middle East and others. Yup, that sounds like a great plan.

If it were only that easy in my own twisted little mind. The only other conclusions I can draw are these. Money in big oil is already tied up with a certain list of players and I would hardly think that it includes any Harry Reid's, Nancy Pelosi's, or Al Gore's. So, they aren't in the club. Watching past fiascoes like Y2K, I think they learned something about panic and how much money it can generate, or maybe they already knew it. Secondly, the oil companies are already entrenched and would create to much competition for green tech/renewable energy. Especially if they were allowed to process coal, shale, and untapped oil. The Left must destroy or severly cripple these corporations through insane government regulations to create a need. If there is a gaping hole and green tech is the only way to fill it, imagine the money. Thirdly, through outrageous scare tactics and clever marketing, they have already created a market in the US and Europe to peddle their pill. At this point it is just a matter of removing the competition. All of this may be the why, but what about the how? Here you go.

Does it seem a bit odd that the current price of oil is more than twice the cost of producing all the oil the world presently needs and will need long into the future? The reason the price is so high is that the supply has been artificially constrained by governments. Most (88 percent) of the conventional oil reserves are owned by governments, and these governments have underinvested in new production. As is well-known, the U.S. government has restricted offshore and onshore drilling, shale development, and coal conversion. [2]

Although, there is one "small" problem and it is the American people. Let's look at a very popular Rasmussen poll taken not to long ago.

Six out of 10 Americans (61%) say Congress should return to Washington immediately to vote on lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. But voters overwhelmingly expect Congress to adjourn this year without taking action. [3]

Seems the polling data might have scared the High Priestess of the Cult of Obamafornia.

On Monday Pelosi reversed course and said she was willing to allow such a vote – in September. [3]

With all of this in mind I am not against the development of renewable energy sources. This, from a free market perspective, is a great thing. A new and potentially profitable market to tap into and it will spur some competition. Not to mention the potential it has for space exploration, medical industries, information technologies, etc. But, as of now, it is not ready for prime-time.

C.T.

[1] Green Investing
[2] Oil and Oily Politicians
[3] 61% say Congress Should Vote on Offshore Drilling Right Now

P.S. If I am right about the way the Left is going about this, their behavior is criminal and they are using the average American's future as a bargaining tool. On the other hand, I could just be giving them way to much credit for their intelligence and they are as short sighted, cultish, and idiotic as ever. I dunno.

Continue reading ...

Global Warming, More Gore-Bull or Actual Fact?

C.T.

While catching up on my back log of news junkyism, I came across an article posted on PoliPundit from Daily Tech. Basically, it talked about the American Physical Society, a group that represents about 50 thousand physicists and how they have reversed their stance on climate change. The article is titled," Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate."

Across the scientific communities there seems to be disagreement about the causes of climate change.

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." [1]

Also, there is the question about the validity of the methods used by the IPCC and its 2007 climate report.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors" [1]

Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe there is something amiss with the environment. There is to much evidence to convince me otherwise. But, does this mean that all the "apoco-literature" about the end of civilization as we know it and it being mankind's fault is true? A resounding, "HELL NO!"

Mankind contributes about 5% of the CO2 emissions that are presently at work. If we are in the "end times" we have no control. Even if we staved off and cut our percentage of CO2 emissions down to nil, what would it buy us? Maybe a few years of the world we once knew? That is like going through chemo-therapy to extend your life another 3 months, it just doesn't make any sense.

Here is the rub about global warming and the Armageddon scenarios, fear sells. Remember the Y2K bug? How many companies profited from fear mongering there. In another article from Daily Tech, titled IEA: $45 Trillion Needed to Combat Global Warming ,the IAE is calling for a $45 trillion dollar plan to halve carbon emissions.

On Friday, the Paris-based IEA released its formal plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The cost? A mere 45 trillion dollars -- an amount some three times larger than the entire U.S. economy. [2]

There are a few problems though.

And because the plan grabs all the "low hanging fruit" in carbon reductions, the amount needed to complete the job wouldn't just be double that $45 trillion, but far higher. [2]

and

Worse still, the report only covers emissions from energy production -- the much larger amount arising from agriculture, transportation, land-use changes, and other factors weren't included. [2]

As I have stated in the past, alternative energy sources, conservation, cleaning up existing environmental problems, and using technology to better our environment are all worthwhile and sensible. But these tactics being used by the far left eco-terrorists amount to nothing more than the same tactics they accuse the present administration of for getting us involved in Iraq. They are hypocritical despotic megalomaniacs who are driven by a need to find any reason to increase government control over the masses. They are taking something worthwhile that needs our attention and turning it into something that will inevitably backfire on them. People will be so sick and tired of the "clean up the environment" movement, nothing will ever get done.

C.T.

[1] Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
[2] IEA: $45 Trillion Needed to Combat Global Warming

Continue reading ...

Those Crazy California Nuts

C.T.

The enviro-left is at it again. This time they are trying to label the best enviro friendly cars, trucks, and SUV's in California. We all know we aren't smart enough to figure out which vehicles are the best for economy or the environment. Now, what this article doesn't mention is that the labels can be removed once the car is purchased from a dealership, so there is a mild plus side.

California is making it mandatory for cars to be labeled with global warming scores, figures that take into account emissions from vehicle use and fuel production. [1]

The labeling law forces cars for sale to display a global warming score, on a scale of one to 10, which is based on how vehicles in the same model year compare to one another. The higher the score, the cleaner a car is. The score takes into account emissions related to production of fuel for each vehicle as well as the direct emissions from vehicles. [1]

My main problem with this is it is another attempt of government regulation and encroachment into something stupid. We are all smart enough to figure out that a Hummer is less efficient than a Prius. I don't need Uncle Sam or the elitist, Berkley dwelling, Birkenstock wearing, eco-terrorists holding my hand like a five year old.

The government needs to be worried about how to lower fuel prices (Don't try and snow job me and tell me this will solve our energy problems either), dealing with our security, and our infrastructure. Let the market regulate this, more than enough people are informed consumers and there are more than enough outlets that a person can find information about vehicles.

Now here is where our European friends are going to help the government make a buck off of this. I knew there had to be a money trail in here somewhere. I am sure our pinheads, on this side of the pond, will take a cue an try and make this green more about the color of money than the environment.

A law endorsed by the European Parliament's Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety would make governments put a monetary cost on the emissions of vehicles they plan to purchase, and add that to expense calculations. The law would exclude certain types of vehicles, such as ambulances and fire trucks. [1]

I do not give much credence to Global Warming cultists, nor do I give them much airtime on this blog. But, when they use their scare tactics as a tool to increase the size of government and its control I have a major problem with that. This is a very very small example of what we can expect in the coming years, if we let this go unchecked.

C.T.

[1] New Cars in California Must Display Global Warming Score

Continue reading ...