Dave Montgomery at Star-Telegram.com wrote an interesting article about the recent legislation tentatively passed by the House regarding Clean-Coal technology and a $300 million incentive. Rep. Phil King lead the effort for the bill and states that it would "make Texas a pioneer" in the race to develop clean coal technology.
Pause.
May I insert here that I agree with blogger WCNews from Eye on Williamson when he or she states that there is no such thing as clean coal. The blogger suggests "not so dirty" coal and "cleaner" coal, but I personally am fond of "clean-ish" coal and "less yucky" coal. "Not so gross" also would suffice, in my opinion.
Play.
Now, while we are all severely concerned with the HOW's of "not-so-grimy" coal technology, let's first take a look at the $300 million and where it is going. The money is incentive: the first three corporations to develop and implement the technology are eligible for up to $100 million in tax breaks. King makes a point of saying that the tax break will not be given until certain benchmarks are reached, but between blogger WCNews and his sources, the point is also made that "it seems foolish to offer this kind of money" when the technology for it has not even been properly developed, utilized, and/or proven.
The type of "nearly immaculate" coal technology to be implemented is called Carbon and Capture Storage (CCS). The general idea is to capture carbon dioxide (the CC part) and store it (the S part) underground, therefore keeping it out of the atmosphere. Those in favor of the bill toss out an almost philanthropic point that the stored CO2 can then be used to push hard-to-reach oil into more reachable heights within depleted wells. According to the Bureau of Economic Geology at UT Austin, this would put between 4 and 5 billion barrells of oil back into the Texas economy. And, why, look at that. That 4 to 5 billion barrells of CO2-producing fossil fuel retrieved from the hard work of CCS technology designed to protect our environment will make up for that $300 million lost in general tax revenue from these big corporations.
Let's repeat that in case you didn't get it: Oil. Fossil fuel. The basis of the product you use in your car. It produces CO2 which from your tailpipe then pours into the atmosphere. This oil/fossil-fuel/product-used-in-your-car will be retrieved from CO2 deposited into the earth with the intent that it will then not be in the atmosphere. Therefore, we are using captured and stored CO2 to ultimately produce free and acquitted of all charges CO2.
Now that that's been said, allow me to state that I am entirely for the bill IF and only if the technology can be implemented in a timely and safe manner. I believe a lot of good can come from using CO2 as a resource to extract desperately needed fossil fuel instead of simply allowing that power to go unharnessed, and I believe that the $300 million is a fair incentive to these companies to do just that considering the large investment that I'm sure it will take and the possibility of failure resulting in no tax break.
But let's be honest with ourselves: this bill is about making money and leading the way into new technology in order to make money and look good to the rest of the nation as a "pioneer." This bill is well designed because it satisfies the environmentalists (particularly those who are too excited about "shiny" coal technology to think the oil thing through), grimly satisfies those of us who support protecting the environment and treating it as a resource to be used respectfully although we recognize the paradox the bill presents, and satisfies the ones concerned about the costs of the bill and how it will help the state financially and economically.
I see the bill as very well-rounded. It has been praised for not adhering to one party or another (both sides of the ballot were bipartisan), and particularly for the way it has caused Republicans to agree that CO2 emissions are a problem.
I'm rather excited to see what unfolds and who the 3 companies will be that will potentially receive the tax cut. However, I am interested to see some numbers regarding the difference between CO2 emissions from vehicles and the 4-5 billion barrels of fossil fuel that is to be obtained and the CO2 emissions from these companies.
Test Blog #1
14 years ago
The full text with embedded links available at: http://liberalscientist.blogspot.com/2009/05/angry-ramblings-of-science-nerd.html
ReplyDeleteI agree with my classmate that there is no such thing as clean coal. However, what is the point of all this political maneuvering and cash incentive to drive a process that IS NOT POSSIBLE? It reminds me of the time that Sen. John McCain (on the campaign trail) offered the same amount of money to anyone who could develop “a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars." Funny how nothing came of that $300 million, either. Common logic maintains that if someone was able to figure out HOW to capture and sequester one of the smallest and most dangerous molecules in our atmosphere . . . they would have done it already.
But let’s go with it. Let’s imagine that the first step is refined and we can now catch all the carbon dioxide pouring from a smoke stack as we burn some coal. Now we plan on . . . burying it? I get SO tired of this old standby. Burying something on our own planet is not getting rid of it. When the only option that chemists and physicists can come up with is “Eh, we’ll bury it,” that means the problem is not solved. Not only is it unsolved, now it’s a problem for future generations that will surely compound itself in the intervening years. Frankly, it is absurd to me that our lawmakers would rather bury radioactive waste and greenhouse gases than realize where our petroleum road is leading us and start investing in different avenues of energy production. I get it lawmakers, general public. You are comfortable with coal, with oil. Unfortunately, these things have gotten us where we are now – on a planet that (according to some) has already moved beyond the tipping point concerning climate change. I think my ears would perk up if someone, anyone would take the sci-fi route and suggest dumping the CO2 in deep space - not that trashing space is any more probable or desirable, but at least it would involve a new story line.
We still have not addressed the CO2 pouring from the vehicles that unearthed and transported the coal, or the way in which modern coal is extracted. Watch this video for that argument.
Last, but not least, the logistics of the burying. The first time I heard the game plan for sequestered carbon dioxide, I knew it was impossible. It seems even more insidious, and blatantly pandering, to distract the layman with promises of more oil from hard to reach places in an attempt to bypass any explanation of how they will keep the CO2 below ground once injected.
Let me briefly paint a picture for you about carbon dioxide. It’s a very small molecule, and even though it has one carbon at its center, it’s technically not an organic molecule. Animals breathe it out as a waste product of cellular metabolism. Plants breathe it in, separate the carbon from its two oxygens, release these oxygens into our atmosphere, and fix the carbon into long organic chains that comprise wood, leaves . . . almost everything you’d see if you looked around a forest. We animals ingest this fixed carbon when we eat carbohydrates, protein, fiber, or fats and our bodies rearrange the carbon in ways that suit our internal landscape. CO2, as a waste product in our body, moves freely outward thourgh cell membranes it the same way that O2 diffuses into our cells. Even water, sugar, amino acids, or small proteins cannot simply pass through this smallest of membranes. Without rambling on further, in what universe am I to believe that after mass quantities of CO2 are placed beneath the earth or beneath the ocean that they won’t simply diffuse back up again?? Gas molecules, by nature and by definition, diffuse away from each other continually until they are as evenly distributed as possible. (This is one reason why smog is everyone on the planet’s problem, not just the people who live in the city.)
I could expound upon the perils of injecting it below the sea, having it diffuse through the ocean, and thus acidifying the ocean, but I won’t. This clean coal nonsense is denial – denial that the ways the rich have become uber-wealthy will not continue to make the lucky few even wealthier. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross (doctor, scientist, educator) described the process humans use to deal with grief and tragedy as five discrete stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. They are not necessarily addressed by every person and can be experienced out of order. If Republicans are finally admitting CO2 emissions are a problem, it sounds as if they’re vacillating between denial and bargaining. Personally, I’m alternately angry and depressed when I read “science” along the lines of clean coal. What will it take to get this country to accept that alternative energy forms are the only way to proceed from here?