Clean Coal

[heathermcqueen]

This just came to my attention. The problem with coal isn't just that the mountains are being ripped apart from the top down- it's where they plan to store an awful lot of waste! (a million tons per year) As a caver, I'm instantly wary of the following description of Clean Coal technology:

"The premise of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is that carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants can be captured before it enters the atmosphere and then stored underground in geological formations."

(my quote was taken from the following report by Greenpeace: "New Greenpeace report exposes CCS as a dangerous distraction"'
May 05, 2008. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/new- ... rt-exposes )

Since when has "bury it in the ground" been a good solution? Let alone 'clean'? I just thought I would put this out on the wires- as NSS cavers, I sort of feel we are stewards of the underground, and so this issue should concern us.

[trogman]

Since we emit carbon dioxide every time we exhale, I guess we had better quit going caving! In fact, if CO2 is so harmful to the environment, then perhaps the best environmental policy would be to get rid of all of us. I can see it now- a new bumper sticker-"Save the Planet-commit suicide."

Seriously, I think the folks at Greenpeace are so far out there, they won't be happy until we are all living in thatch huts and riding horses.

Stephen Brewer (The Trogman)

[Scott McCrea]

Moderator hat on.

Please remember this is a caving forum. We can discuss the cave related aspects of this issue. We can not discuss the political aspects. Keep it on topic, please.

Moderator hat off.

[batrotter]

Moderator hat on.

Please remember this is a caving forum. We can discuss the cave related aspects of this issue. We can not discuss the political aspects. Keep it on topic, please.

Moderator hat off.

I have been warned before about discussing politics on this board. But unfortunately, global warming or climate change as they like to call it now is nothing but pure politics, and we can't discuss that aspect of it on this forum. What a fricking joke.

[trogman]

Scott,
I get the impression that I am the one being chided here, so I would like to respond: While I respect your role as a moderator, I must say that the whole introduction of this topic was hardly apolitical. First was the citation of an article by Greenpeace, which is, after all a very political organization. (Not to mention they are also very much fringe and left wing) Then there was the ridiculous suggestion that CO2 is a pollutant. I know that many folks disagree; but that doesn’t make it an established fact. And because I disagree with this notion doesn’t mean I am being “political.” There are many highly respected scientists who feel the same way, and yet the global-warming crowd wants to shut them out by pretending that their case is so well-established that it is beyond debate. That’s a great way to win an argument: Just tell your opponent that they are obviously wrong, and that they should sit down and shut up. I hope that’s not what you are doing here-if this discussion is too politically charged to be on this forum, then perhaps the whole topic should be removed. Otherwise, I believe we should be allowed to discuss all aspects of it freely.
Stephen Brewer (The Trogman)

[graveleye]

The original post was about what to do with the waste from coal fired power plants and that is a relevant topic. It can remain relevant if we stay on topic.

As far as it goes, I'm sure some hair-brained bureaucrat might think of pumping the waste into caves or excavations in karst areas, but it's unlikely imho. That's what we're here for: if some crazy proposal like this comes about, then we go from caving to being activists. It's been successfully done before with waste treatment plants and whatnot.

[boogercaver71]

After reading this so called report from "green peace" I did not find any mention that karst areas were being considered as storage facilities for the naturally occuring CO2 compound. It did mention depleted oil and gas fields, deep coal seams, and deep saline aquifers, so I don't know how this "report" concerns caves or karst , if staying on topic is the issue.

[John Lovaas]

That’s a great way to win an argument: Just tell your opponent that they are obviously wrong, and that they should sit down and shut up.

So far Mr. Brewer, that's all you, and the rest of your ilk seem to ever do. Someone brings up a position paper on CO2 sequestration, and you tell them they are wrong. "CO2 isn't a pollutant", "Save the Planet-commit suicide"; right.

So, Mr. Brewer- please provide a reference to scientific papers that demonstrate that CO2 is not a pollutant. And could you also provide us with links to the scientific papers by the "highly respected scientists who feel the same way" as you do. I don't want to see a blog where a "highly respected scientist" or a pastor of a megachurch says that global warming is BS or that people who support the idea that CO2 is a significant driver in global weather processes actually want us all to "live in thatch huts and ride horses", or are Satan's Spawn, or are colluding with the Trilateral Commission. Some rational science, please.

I have encountered a few- well, OK one - scientist who isn't sure that CO2 is as significant driver of climate change as some models support. In the same breath, they also state that there is ample evidence for rapid and extreme climate change in the paleoclimate record.

So how about we look at or society's production of CO2 this way- it is a measure of how efficiently we utilize our resources, particularly our fossil fuels. If human society is going to survive a rapid and extreme change in global climate(and it WILL happen at SOME point), we are going to need those resources to move tens or even hundreds of millions of people to more habitable locations, or else move vast quantities of food to areas where production is no longer possible. That would require, of course, vast quantities of fossil fuels.

Or you could have them live in thatch huts and ride horses. If the horses hadn't been eaten already (and horse is mighty tasty!), and if anyone actually knew how to build a habitable thatch hut.

As to the idea of sequestration; I am reminded of a VERY not-safe-for-work Will Ferrell/John C. Reilly online video entitled "Green Team". In the video, one of the ways they suggest of being 'greener' is to wrap your crap in aluminum foil, then store it in a cooler. CO2 sequestration is a similar technique, only on a societal scale. We are, as Buckminster Fuller tried to get us to understand, living on a spherical spaceship 8,000 miles in diameter. Nothing Goes Away.

CO2 is good for my plants, and I'm sure my crap would be good for my plants, too. Grow more hay to feed my horse and repair my thatch hut, I guess.

[boogercaver71]

So, Mr. Brewer- please provide a reference to scientific papers that demonstrate that CO2 is not a pollutant. And could you also provide us with links to the scientific papers by the "highly respected scientists who feel the same way" as you do. I don't want to see a blog where a "highly respected scientist" or a pastor of a megachurch says that global warming is BS or that people who support the idea that CO2 is a significant driver in global weather processes actually want us all to "live in thatch huts and ride horses", or are Satan's Spawn, or are colluding with the Trilateral Commission. Some rational science, please

Since I may some of the "ilk" you are referring to, here is some "science for you to ponder while building you thatch hut and eating your horse. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm By the way, over 31,000 scientists agree with this hypothesis

[graveleye]

let's try to keep insulting words out of the thread please.
We can all make points without getting personal.
Thanks.

[batrotter]

I just love this stuff. You can tell from the posts here what we are dealing with. Politics, pure and simple.

[John Lovaas]

Since I may some of the "ilk" you are referring to, here is some "science for you to ponder while building you thatch hut and eating your horse. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm By the way, over 31,000 scientists agree with this hypothesis

You posted a link to a non-peer reviewed paper from the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" that was shown to be nonsense back in 1999. One could kill several evenings reading all of the debunking articles that are available on this 'report'. I see a bunch of pretty charts without any references to the source of the data used in each chart. If we knew where they sourced the data for each chart, we might be able to see if the were actually telling the truth. Yes, I see references at the bottom of the page.

Oh- it was peer reviewed? If you count its publication in the "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons", a publication from a conservative organization(the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons) that does not support 'evidence based medicine', considers the Social Security Act to be "evil and immoral", and supports the theory that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Their journal, by the rest of the planet's standards, is conservative fundamentalist junk, pure and simple.

When I said 'scientific paper', I didn't mean a piece put out by an 'institute' in the boonies of Oregon that was published in a nonsense 'journal'. Real research, real peer review, please.

And don't get me start on their homeschooling 'curriculum'. They are selling CD-ROMs of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica as a reference source. Nineteen f***ing eleven. I don't know what bums me out more; that people would represent a 1911 encyclopedia as a useful item for homeschooling, or that someone would actually ante up the money for it. Sad.

[Teresa]

The original post was about what to do with the waste from coal fired power plants and that is a relevant topic. It can remain relevant if we stay on topic.

As far as it goes, I'm sure some hair-brained bureaucrat might think of pumping the waste into caves or excavations in karst areas, but it's unlikely imho. That's what we're here for: if some crazy proposal like this comes about, then we go from caving to being activists. It's been successfully done before with waste treatment plants and whatnot.

Get ready to put on your activist hat, Gravel.
Such a proposal (to pump CO2 resulting from coal burning PP beneath 1800 feet of limestone/shale/sandstone containing two aquifers, and floored in relatively tight igneous rock) has been proposed and is being studied for SW Missouri. This is very near a town called Springfield (nope, Homer Simpson has nothing to do with it) which is built directly upon a Mississippian limestone sinkhole plain, and which gets a substantial amount of its municipal water from groundwater. Oh, did I mention the karst contains federally threatened Ozark cavefish? Spfld. is a conservative area bent on economic development; there is the political will to do such things and common sense and geology be d******d.

This situation is very much removed from an oil production situation, like in Texas/Oklahoma (yes karsty) but where the pumpdown is 10,000-25,000 feet (2-5 miles) and the CO2 is used to force oil up out of highly saline formations.

They need to find a way to use the CO2 as a raw material in itself, and make it a win-win. The enviros need to learn some chemistry and geology, rather than always condemning mining as they drive around in SUVs. In my other life, I just wrote a letter to the editor of a national enviro magazine, over an article which stated, "Mr XYZ has found a way to remove carbon from coal before it is burned." Say what? Coal IS carbon (plus some minor stuff). The real issue is that coal burning is a horribly inefficient means of energy recovery...only between 30% and 36% of energy in coal is recovered, and that doesn't count the energy wasted in hauling it via diesel electric locomotive 900 -1200 miles to the Midwest from Wyoming. 30-36% efficiency is what you got from a belching black coal fired steam locomotive 100 years ago. The tech hasn't really evolved that much since then even though a lot of R&D has tried. Even modern wood stoves, with smoke baffles, air traps, combustors, and all sorts of high tech design can make 60% efficiency or higher calories into heat.

Instead of saying we're going to put CO2 underground, they just need to learn how to make less of it, and recover more of it. You can't retrofit a behemoth steam locomotive into a Prius. and that's what some people are trying to do. We also need more wind, water and solar. But then the bat and bird people go ballistic, fisheries are appalled at the idea of in-stream turbines, and people scream because PV cells are expensive. We cannot win. But we can make a good stab at that old desk sign, "I have done so much for so long with so little, that now I'm qualified to do anything with nothing." A good motto for energy efficiency, no?

[wyandottecaver]

hey... it is the CAVE state...just make sure we add water too....water supersaturated with co2 sounds like a great cave making machine

hey...does N Korea have limestone? pump some saturated co2 water into rock fractured by nuke testing and Voila! a cave to rival mammoth...probably take at least a few hundred years though...

[Cody JW]

Just wait until a 200 electric bill starts to look like about 4to500 .It will be a caving issue because no one will be able to afford to go.Not just electricity but all forms of energy.Prices on everything will go up.I wonder if all who support this crap are going to be willing to pay my increased energy costs,I did not think so.I say wait until the market finds a suitable , affordable "green" alternative before you pull affordable coal out from under us.