This Idea Paid for by the "Clean" Coal Lobby

The first things chemical engineers learn are the mass balance and the energy balance. In a closed system, assuming no nuclear reactions, the number of each type of atoms remains the same and joules of energy remain the same. This bit of chemical engineering is the foundation of all environmental science, though from my perspective, I would say all environmental science is a subset of chemical engineering. Environmental dogma such as "reduce, reuse , recycle" is actually basic engineering design, though no engineer would ignore costs and many "environmentalists" do.

When coal is burned, a chemical engineer sees carbon reacting with oxygen to form carbon dioxide. No atoms are gained or lost in the closed system. Energy is conserved as the potential energy of the coal (prior to combustion) plus the potential energy of the oxygen that is burned equals heat of combustion of the coal plus potential energy of the ash plus potential energy of the carbon dioxide. We see more carbon dioxide in the air, which will contribute to climate change.

Research is ongoing to convert carbon dioxide from coal burning plants into algae that produces oil. But, why must the coal be combusted? Instead, burn algae and recycle the carbon dioxide from the combustion of the algae back into producing more heat energy and more algae. Use algae to reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Do not continue to burn coal, and with your process which can not be 100% efficient, create more climate change.

But, chemical engineers have a second question. What about the energy balance? Let's say we burn algae and capture the carbon to make more algae. We are running a power plant by capturing the heat of combustion of the fuel. From what source does the energy come from to make more algae? One assumes that the answer must be solar energy, and that is fine. But, if that is the case, let's put our algae burning facility in the tropics, rather than next to Mt. Coal.

We can assume the new Secretary of Energy, Nobel prize winner, Stephen Chu, understands mass and energy balances well enough to counter, at least intellectually, the fraud of the "clean coal" lobby.

Hell on Earth?

Sources of California Greenhouse Gases

Some now say the Arctic ice cap will be gone by 2012: Wired. Those worried about carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect need only cite Venus. Earth's sister planet,which once had oceans, is now hot enough to melt lead. Those who want to go to hell, because that is where all of their friends will be, may get their wish.

California, unlike most places, knows where its greenhouse gases come from: Spreadsheet

Is "reduce, reuse, recycle" truly a moral imperative? Or, is it something you say to children, like, "clean your plate, you can't waste food when there are starving people in the world?"

Reducing carbon emissions may be the imperative.

------------------

Is recycling paper even a good idea if natural gas or corn is burned to generate the heat to recycle the paper?

One of the approaches to reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases is called carbon sequestration. Here, carbon is put in the ground to replace the carbon that is burned. If instead of recycling the paper, we landfill it, and if it does not degrade, then we have sequestered the carbon.

------------------

A couple of Berkeley professors wrote in 2004 about "The Death of Environmentalism." They say that environmentalism is not powerful enough to address the critical challenge of our time, global warming. They say that dealing with global warming is fundamentally different than dealing with pollution: audio.

(The authors of Freakonomics suggest that environmental hero, Jane Fonda may be one of the biggest global-warming villains of the past 30 years, based on the success at slowing the growth of the zero greenhouse emissions nuclear industry.)

------------------

It costs a significant amount of fuel to make ethanol. Would just burning corn kernels and not making ethanol produce more energy with less emissions?

Google is launching an energy initiative RE<C". 'RE' stands for renewable energy. 'C' stands for coal. The idea is to come up with renewable energy that is less expensive than burning coal. The web page discusses high altitude wind power and solar power as options, so perhaps what they really mean is that they want to eliminate the emission of greenhouse gases. They should add a second mathematical acronym: GHG->0, to explain that they want to develop technology where greenhouse gases approach zero.

------------------

I hope that that is how they frame the issue here.

As someone who believes that science and technology can get us past even this problem, it is refreshing to hear that there may be a presidential debate covering these issues.

The Silent Energy Debate

Posted by Davetravels at Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:04 AM:
SUV drivers with W'04 bumper stickers pollute my neighborhood. In reaction, neighbors are planning rail systems that will never go faster than ten mph. They inexplicably believe they can design the system to meet the needs of no one in particular, not even themselves, and it will still be useful for the next fifty years. "Progressives" must reject both the conspicuous consumers and the liberal Luddites that dominate current environmental debate.

If being "Progressive" means we favor progress, we must favor new technology, and not just hybrid cars, solar power and windmills. I read yesterday in "Wired" that a bacteria has been designed which converts 80% of organic hydrogen to hydrogen gas. This does not solve any immediate problem, and certainly does not solve global warming, but it seems to be a step toward a viable future. Like everyone, I have been disappointed by an administration that claims it "makes decisions based on the science." Nonetheless, investment in the basic science of energy should be our top priority. One side moralizes about how we hate America, others moralize about how we are destroying the planet, and the fiddler plays on. I was disappointed by the New York Times article, yet somewhere between Green and Libertarian, there is a true center and opportunity for progress.
--------------------
Posted by Davetravels at Wednesday, November 14, 2007 04:17 PM:
We obviously should all admit that global warming is real and is caused by humans. Reduce/Reuse/Recycle is common sense, when this is economically feasible.

When you reference Michael Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma", perhaps you are suggesting that individuals should restrict themselves to small areas, eat locally produced food and the like. Thomas Malthus lives on when we are told that economic growth can not be sustainable. I may not personally object to a geographically constrained lifestyle, but that does not mean we have the right to impose it on others. Jello Biafra, whom I highly respect, jokes that we should vandalize the SUV's. Guess what? If that is our environmental policy, then we are no different from George W. Bush, in that we are starting a war that gets us nowhere.

Coal research gets more government funding than any other energy technology, and oil seems to be at root behind the current war in Iraq. We promote wasteful technologies that damage the planet. Far too little attention gets paid to nuclear fusion.

We need to invest in basic science toward alternative energy sources that are sustainable. I submit that any other approach is not viable policy.

--------------------
Posted by Mikuleck (whom I have never met) at Wednesday, November 14, 2007 06:15 PM:
These debates are all nonsensical. The only answer from a biological and planetary perspective is a radical drop in consumption. The idea that capitalism can survive by use of technology is shear nonsense. I watch the gas guzzling boats go out to catch a few fish and wonder where people's minds are. I see Humvee's on the road along side SUVs and other gas guzzlers. I watch the third world mimic our lust for motorized power. These are all very real. The idea that some magic bullet technology will solve this problem mimics the greedy mentality that asks a magic bullet drug to cure a disease that resulted from excesses and poor health habits. We are suicidal.

We wage war when peace is the only answer to a stable world. We have a government populated by people beholden to the interests that are causing the problem. If we throw out one bunch the other will simply replace them with more people willing to serve consumer driven capitalism.

The choices that will make real change happen are radical. When will that be acknowledged?
--------------------
Are Mikuleck and George W. Bush two sides of the same coin? Each just as fearful? Each just as dangerous? Each just as mainstream in their thinking? Each just as willing to impose their paranoia on others?

Regardless of who is right and wrong (and yes, I have been wrong on occassion, just not this time), there is too little debate here. Now, I am curious. What radical changes does Mikuleck propose? Maybe, I agree with some of them.

Context: Full thread at Rockridge Nation

A Related Link, and reason for some optimism: Evangelicals and Climate Change

Where Action Will Take Place? (and be vetoed by the US): United Nations

I Wish Justice Scalia Would Lay off of the Garlic

Neighbors have successfully protested a garbage burner that was to supply the local paper recycling plant with steam. Various options, including burning corn or wood, are now being considered. When asked about the change of focus from odors and cancer causing chemicals to carbon dioxide emissions, I was told, "The Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant." Punchline: Is Scalia's breathe really that bad?

Burning of corn or wood chips is being considered because it is "carbon neutral," and "whatever carbon is emitted is renewed with next year's crop." This is true if we assume zero emissions are emitted to produce the seeds, the farmer emits zero emissions during planting and harvest, and the crop is either burned on the farm, or transported to the burner using a zero emissions mode of transportation. Corn burners typically use shelled corn, so for our process to truly be "carbon neutral," the shelling or chipping needs to be done in a "carbon neutral" fashion as well. (Chemical engineers are trained to see all of the inputs and outputs of processes.) The devil is in the details. Rather than being told a process is carbon neutral, I would like to be shown with numbers.

But, in principle, burning corn seems like it should be more carbon neutral than oil. Self-sufficiency is a good thing, so why not use local product rather than imported oil? Coffee causes me to think of questions during the night.

Should we have the same concerns as we had with the garbage burner? Is corn-burning a clean process emitting only carbon dioxide and water, or will odors and cancer causing chemicals be emitted? There are oil refineries in Vallejo, California that emit zero emissions (and I did not smell any odor), which indicates that processes can be well designed, if the expertise, attention and dollars are correctly applied. But, good processes (and sturdy bridges) do not happen without expertise, attention and dollars.

Ethanol burns cleanly, which is one reason why it is currently used as a fuel. Should the recycled paper plant be located at an ethanol producing plant, given that ethanol producing processes are well defined?

Waste Management Company hauls garbage trucks from Minnesota to landfills in Iowa. Should the garbage trucks return full of shelled corn for burning?

What is the anticipated efficiency and cost of the process, and does this warrant technology scale up?

As energy intensive as paper recycling seems to be, will the company demand the lowest energy rates? Do economics force these plants, like aluminum companies, to be located next to the hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants? Is the plant going to move the moment the government financing ends?

In addition to the office holders who get paid to answer these types of questions, it will be interesting to hear what the chemical engineers have to say.

Another view: TC Daily Planet
Carbon Footprint of Twin Cities Power Plants: Carma.org

I Want to Hear Politicians Say This

Who does a politician work for? One answer is his or her funders. The campaign donations from the top GOP donor, Ken Lay of Enron, to George W. Bush "bought a certain level of access" according to Martin Anderson, Hoover Institute, in 2001. But, from someone who lived in California during engineered blackouts, it turns out those donations bought policy. The energy industry may even have something to do with war, as Ray McGovern quotes Alan Greenspan.

I know there will be at least one party on the ballot that does not accept corporate donations. To get my vote, I want to hear a politician say what John Edwards is quoted here.

Update, 9/14/07: I also like John Edward's position on the Iraq War, here and Colin Powell's position, here, except where he lies about not knowing he was lying to the UN (see the Downing Street Memo).
Update, 10/7/07: Chris Dodd, unlike others, commits to getting out of Iraq by 2013.

Rail Light or Rail Right?

Last night, at the Central Corridor Resource Center (CCRC), Bob Baker, Director of Parking and Transportation, presented the light rail plans of the University of Minnesota. Safety is the primary concern with light rail, as he is quoted here. Bob points out that the University of Minnesota has the highest density of pedestrians in the state. To prevent further light rail deaths, the University proposes that rail service through campus be underground.

The same safety issue also applies at the intersection of Snelling Avenue and University Avenue, the neighborhood with the most traffic accidents in the state (traffic study). However, at a CCRC meeting in January, Mark Fuhrmann, Metro Transit deputy general manager, was adamant that there was no money to put the rail system underground, insisting that the railway will be safe. However, if the intersection is not currently safe, how will adding a railway make it safe? The argument is about cost, not whether an underground system would be safer.

The St. Paul light rail proposal stands at $932 million per Fuhrmann. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) budget is $8.9 billion for 2007. The FTA prioritizes with a formula which divides construction cost by estimated ridership. Therefore, Fuhrmann pointed out that extensions to existing lines tend to get the funding, because these extensions are cheapest, because infrastructure cost is less. Because the FTA focus is purely on cost, safety issues are not part of the formula, and the safety at Snelling Avenue and University Avenue is really not his concern.

In Bangkok, you can go up or down a dirty river in a public transit boat for less than a quarter dollar. You will see dilapidated shacks and naked, swimming children. Also, in Bangkok, for a little more money, you can take a state of the art, air conditioned, above street level sky train that apparently is too expensive for Minnesota, USA.

Certainly, in an era where climate change is fact, America can enact an energy policy to reduce automobile emissions. Certainly, in an era where countries are going to war over oil, America can do something to lessen its dependence on foreign sources. Light rail in the cities of America is a great idea. Light rail should be funded sufficiently so that systems are safe, reliable and comfortable. Certainly, we can afford what Thailand can afford.

I agree with Bob Baker. Put the rail system underground through the University of Minnesota. That is the only way to make it safe. It should be underground at Snelling and University, in downtown St. Paul, and most all of the way.

World News and Views

I`ve been collecting newspaper stories from Taiwan and Hong Kong newspapers. Here is some news, which you might not have noticed in your local paper.

News:
1) Hong Kong media slam China`s decision to amend Hong Kong`s constitution (Basic Law), and change the term of the next leader from five years to two years. James Keith, retiring Consul-General from the United States, advises that "rule of law be preserved."

2) Shan Prince Surkhanpha declares himself president of Shan, in the northeast section of "Burma". He seeks recognition from Taiwan and the United Nations. "Our country`s mandate comes from 48 of 56 townships in the Shan State, who voted for independence." (Burma is now known as Myanmar.)

3) Polls in South Korea and Taiwan show increasing dislike of Japanese. Television dramas in Korea about national heroes have jumped to the top of the ratings, driven by a new interest in history. [Recently, Japan claimed the Totko islands, also claimed by Korea. Japanese textbooks, statues, and statue visits of leaders are other points of contention. Proposed Japanese membership on the UN Security Council may drive these issues.]

4) Per the Guardian of the UK, world oil production may have peaked, which may possibly trigger global economic collapse.

5) The chair of Toyota is concerned over backlash in the United States. Toyota made $10 billion last year, while GM lost that much. Toyota, is ahead in hybrid vehicles, and proposes a joint venture with GM on vehicles which use alternative fuels.

6) Global tax havens hold 31% of total global assets and 26% of the stock of multinationals. This causes the US to lose $60 billion per year in tax collections.

7) Lab scale nuclear fusion was demonstrated at UCLA. However, this demonstration did not generate a net gain in usable energy.

8) From an editorial: "I propose that Chinese officials will no longer refer to Taiwanese counterparts as "splittists" or "Taiwan authorities". To recipricate, Taiwan leaders will no longer refer to their counterparts as "Communist bandits" or "bloodsucking authoritarian bastards."

9) Protests greet renewed US beef imports to Taiwan, which is the first Asian country to allow US beef after a Mad Cow Disease scare.

10) Nine Australians face the death penalty for drug trafficking in Indonesia. [I meet an Australian who questions the legitimacy of the charges.]

11) Taiwan receives destroyers from the United States later in the year. These destroyers will be somewhat effective against a missile strike from the mainland per computer simulations.

12) Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono met with China President Hu Jintai at the Asia/African Summit. China is ready to help Indonesia re-arm, toward oil tanker safety.