New Research Produces Energy From Coal Without Burning

Promising new research at Ohio State is using chemical reactions to produce energy from coal without burning it, capturing 99 percent of the carbon dioxide produced in the process. The system ran for 203 continuous hours in the recent test, and according to the researchers could have run longer. The reaction uses coal that has been ground into powder and mixed with iron oxide beads and heated. Details from the link:

The coal and iron oxide are heated to high temperatures, where the materials react with each other. Carbon from the coal binds with the oxygen from the iron oxide and creates carbon dioxide, which rises into a chamber where it is captured. Hot iron and coal ash are left behind. Because the iron beads are so much bigger than the coal ash, they are easily separated out of the ash, and delivered to a chamber where the heat energy would normally be harnessed for electricity. The coal ash is removed from the system.
The carbon dioxide is separated and can be recycled or sequestered for storage. The iron beads are exposed to air inside the reactor, so that they become re-oxidized be used again. The beads can be re-used almost indefinitely, or recycled.

The US Department of Energy is helping to fund this research and is building a pilot scale reactor set to go online later this year. While there are still environmental concerns with coal mining this technology could possibly remove the air quality issues involved with using coal for energy.

Western Tribes Defend Sacred Sites Against Coal Export Plan

Photo: Paul Anderson for The New York Times

Chuck Boyer operated a skiff that brought people from their fishing boats to shore to watch speeches during a protest against the building of North America's largest coal terminal at Cherry Point, Wash.

Tribes in the Pacific Northwest have allied with environmental groups to oppose a plan to build six coal export terminals along the west coast. The coal would then be transported to the booming markets of Asia where industrial air pollution is far less regulated and air regularly reaches unhealthy levels of pollutants. The proposed plan would disrupt traditional fishing sites as well as disturbing numerous sacred sites according to tribal leaders and elders.

Why should this concern us thousands of miles away?

Because air pollution does not respect national boundaries and already pollution from China reaches the air above us where it can come back to earth in rain and snow to contaminate our lands and waters. This and the fact that coal is a major source of carbon dioxide emissions that are increasing global temperatures to ominous levels are enough reasons to oppose this new coal export capacity. Despite what some political ads say, the main reason coal production has fallen so drastically in the US is not overzealous government regulation but competition from suddenly cheap and abundant natural gas. Coal companies are just trying to shift their smoky product to another market so they can continue to remove mountaintops at their leisure. The world economy needs to transition away from the unsustainable dependence on fossil fuels and the sooner we realize that burning coal is nineteenth century technology unfit for a twenty-first world the sooner we can transition to more sustainable sources of energy. Coal is also a significant source of mercury which can find its way up the food chain through a process called bioaccumulation. This has led to alarmingly high mercury levels among First Nation people in arctic Canada.

Coal is a bad deal for all involved and the government needs to do more to assist families whose livelihoods depend on coal to transition away from it because eventually the government will realize that the price of coal energy is far higher for the planet than just the cost of a ton of coal.

Coal Power

The Minnesota Legislature passed two bills that would lift the current regulation on carbon dioxide emissions at coal-fired plants. In Minnesota coal-fired plants are required to offset their carbon dioxide emissions. The plants must not contribute any additional carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The law regulating these emissions was passed four years ago as part of a package to increase alternative energy production in Minnesota. Some claim that the law is too restricting and that coal plant production cannot occur because the offset practices are too expensive. The House and Senate will vote on the bills in April.

The environmental impacts that occur from burning coal for energy are numerous, including more than emissions of carbon dioxide. We need to use alternative energy and clean up the current energy production. Coal is a fossil fuel, and there is only a limited amount of that coal in the earth. We are going to run out of these fossil fuels, and in the meantime, we are damaging the planet by burning them without the most effective clean burning methods. Americans use a great amount of energy and because we are unwilling to give up our current standard of living, we need to plan for the future and plan how to use our current resources in the most appropriate way.

If we are going to continue with burning coal, we need to use the best technology we have to produce the fewest emissions and cause the smallest environmental impact. We have only one planet and we are very dependent on that planet for survival.

Image from the Energy Bulletin.

EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Are A Threat To Public Health

Big news on the climate change front courtesy of Joe Romm and his excellent blog Climate Progress.

The EPA has ruled that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. This finding follows a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that ordered the EPA to review the science on greenhouse gases and determine if regulation is necessary under the Clean Air Act. This ruling should prod Congress into passing strict regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, because industry will realize that if Congress doesn't pass legislation then the EPA can regulate them by itself under the Clean Air Act.

Score one for those of us trying to maintain a habitable climate for future generations.

The Effect Of Excess Carbon Dioxide That No One Wants to Talk About

The climate chaos caused by the rapid rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is only one reason that we need to reduce carbon emissions, the other is that it is making the oceans more acidic.

The oceans naturally absorb around one third of our CO2 emissions every year, but while removing it from the atmosphere is a good thing from a climate standpoint, the effect on ocean chemistry could be just as catastrophic. CO2 dissolves in seawater and forms carbonic acid which lowers the PH. This reduced PH is already being seen by scientists. Many life forms at the base of the oceanic food web depend on carbonate shells or exoskeletons, and if the sea becomes too acidic they will no longer be able to make them. Studies of corals on the Great Barrier Reef have shown that growth rates are slower now than they have been in 400 years.

Over 150 marine scientists have signed the Monaco Declaration (pdf) expressing their alarm over findings of increased ocean acidification worldwide. Although CO2 levels have been higher in the past, the extreme rapidity of the current changes will leave no time for ecosystems to adapt. I recently read a study on the correlation between lack of coral reefs and mass extinctions, so even if you don't think our excess CO2 emissions are warming the earth there are other important reasons we need to reduce them.

EPA Files Objection To Coal Plant Air Permit

In a move that shows the that the new Obama administration wants to put the "EP" back in the EPA the agency has filed an objection to the Air Permit issued by South Dakota for the Big Stone II Coal fired power plant on Minnesota's western border. The state has 90 days to make changes to the air permit and the project still needs to have an environmental impact statement approved, so this is not the end for the proposed 580 megawatt plant, but even if it is eventually approved it will have more stringent air pollution controls than if the EPA had not stepped in.

Critics charge the plant will increase NOx and SO2 pollution which contribute to acid rain, increase mercury levels in the region, and add an unacceptable amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. If the price of carbon increases as part of a plan to fight climate change then the price of power from coal will skyrocket, leaving the electric customers footing the bill.

It would be better to think long term and invest in renewable energy sources and in improving the electric grid overall to make renewable sources more economical.

Climate Change - Some Good News, Some Bad News

I saw a couple of news items on climate change today.

First, the good news - scientists have found a type of rock that can soak up carbon dioxide.
From the link:

When carbon dioxide comes in contact with the rock, peridotite, the gas is converted into solid minerals such as calcite.

Geologist Peter Kelemen and geochemist Juerg Matter said the naturally occurring process can be supercharged 1 million times to grow underground minerals that can permanently store 2 billion or more of the 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide emitted by human activity every year.

Their study will appear in the November 11 edition of the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences.

Peridotite is the most common rock found in the Earth's mantle, or the layer directly below the crust. It also appears on the surface, particularly in Oman, which is conveniently close to a region that produces substantial amounts of carbon dioxide in the production of fossil fuels.

Now for the bad news - the warming we are now experiencing is the sharpest increase in the last 5000 years , so we had better hope they can scale up that carbon sequestering rock in a hurry.

Oops! forgot to close the blockquote - the last part in bold is from me, not the link.