Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Coal conversion dilemma for US
BBC
The US is the world’s greatest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide with each US citizen responsible for 20 tonnes of gas annually – the world average is less than four.
As global warming campaigners increase pressure on the White House to cut emissions, policymakers in the US have other concerns: they say there is a threat not just from climate security but from what is known as energy security.
“We’re expending tens of billions of dollars annually on the purchase of oil from other countries,” explained Congressman Rich Boucher, a member of Congress’s Energy and Commerce Committee.
…Congressman Boucher believes it is vital the US achieves a higher degree of energy self sufficiency for security and economic reasons.
America has a plentiful source of domestic energy – coal. Half of the US’s electricity comes from coal-fired power stations, but amid the political debate over climate change the fuel is not seen as eco-friendly.
The solution, according to Congressman Boucher, could be liquid coal – a type of oil produced by heating the mineral to high temperatures to squeeze out the oil.
It is a tempting prospect for politicians to use a home-grown fuel source to replace imported oil, and keep cars on the road, planes in the air.
The US Air Force wants coal-to-liquid to replace jet fuel in its fleet.
As might be expected, the coal producers and mining unions are lobbying hard.
… But green groups are horrified.
…The congressman agrees that carbon sequestration technology would be essential to capture and store the carbon and reduce damaging emissions. However, he concedes that the technology to do that has yet to be developed.
The coal lobby is pinning its hopes on federal research funding for an experimental project.
(6 November 2007)
New plants put King Coal in the cross hairs in Iowa
How should the state get its energy and fight global warming?
Perry Beeman, Des Moines Register
Proposed coal-fired power plants near Waterloo and in Marshalltown are keeping the debate over global warming burning in Iowa.
Environmentalists, NASA’s chief climate scientist, industry experts and citizens are lining up to testify about the coal-burning plants, which could affect Iowans’ lungs, power bills, fish-eating habits and ability to find jobs.
The debate over whether to build the two Iowa plants is part of a national argument as utilities and a new breed of so-called “merchant generators” have plans for 150 new coal-fired plants.
States as different as Kansas, California, Idaho and Florida have blocked new coal-fired plants. Even Texas forced its biggest utility to pare down a proposal for 11 new coal plants to three.
(7 November 2007)
Related from the Des Moines Register: More from NASA’s Hansen on coal
Late last month NASA’s chief climate scientist, James Hansen, entered the battle over a proposed coal plan in Marshalltown, submitting testimony with the Iowa Utilities Board that opposes any new coal plant that doesn’t capture its carbon emissions, a main factor in global warming.
.
Coal in 3 nations could undo much of world’s efforts
Perry Beeman, Des Moines Register
A worldwide boom in coal-burning is so big in just three countries – the United States, China and India – that by 2012 the added carbon dioxide from the plants will be five times the amount the Kyoto Protocol was supposed to cut, a Christian Science Monitor analysis of emissions data predicted in 2004.
This year, the International Energy Agency predicted that China – which six years ago emitted less than half as much greenhouse gas as the United States – could be the world leader in the emissions by the end of the year.
…Utility lobbyist Jeff Holmstead agreed. With China opening a new plant or two every week, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, and India’s population threatening to overtake its northern neighbor in the next couple of decades, it’s an issue that isn’t going away.
“In terms of climate change, there is no difference between a coal plant in Iowa and a coal plant in China,” said Holmstead, of law firm Bracewell & Giuliani. “Plants go where there are less restrictions. Unless we have worldwide solutions, you can do things that look like you are doing something, but really you’re not.”
(7 November 2007)
