Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dem guber-nominee Ted Strickland wants to double coal production in Ohio

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 05:37 AM
Original message
Dem guber-nominee Ted Strickland wants to double coal production in Ohio
Strickland Makes "Ohio Declaration of Energy Independence"

Columbus, Ohio Building on his Turnaround Ohio plan which provides $250 million a year in tax-free bonds for alternative energy investment, gubernatorial candidate Congressman Ted Strickland today pledged to vault Ohio to the forefront of Americas movement toward energy independence.

As governor, I will make this state the epicenter of the advanced energy industry. Ohio will create more jobs than any other state in clean coal, biofuels, and wind turbine technologies, Strickland said.

Stricklands plan would boost production of Ohio energy sources, including clean coal, ethanol and coal-to-liquid fuel, and make Ohio a center for renewable energy and component production.

Energy is the very foundation of our economic strength, but too often we rely on others outside our state and our country to provide it, Strickland said. Our energy should come from the Midwest, not the Middle East. Utilizing all of Ohios natural resources, we can grow our economy and become a leading energy producer at the same time.

Ohio ranks fifth in overall energy consumption in the U.S. and fourth in industrial energy use. To meet our growing energy demand, its critical we ramp up Ohios production and explore cutting-edge clean and renewable technologies.

Below are the five goals of Stricklands Ohio Declaration of Energy Independence:

1.) Double Coal Production: Today we produce only 40% of the coal we consume. By creating incentives for coal and clean coal production, we should double coal production from 23 million short tons to 46 million short tons a year. This alone will create about 1,500 direct and 7,500 indirect jobs in Southeast Ohio. The reserves are there, but we need to spur new mining and exploration efforts in our state.


2.) Double Ethanol Consumption: We should aim to double the 225 million gallons of ethanol Ohio uses every year, and expand our production capacity as well. Today, six plants are in the blueprint stage or beyond. If theyre all built, they will produce as much ethanol as we consume and we can begin to export ethanol to meet the growing demand for alternative fuels across the country. We should also develop comprehensive state approaches to biofuel use that take us from production to distribution to retail sale to consumption.

3.) Encourage Development of Coal-to-Liquid Technology: We need to make Ohio a leader in new coal-to-liquid fuel technology being explored at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. A plant utilizing this technology has the potential to bring $1.5 billion in investment into Ohio and create 1,000 construction jobs and 300 operations jobs. The plant could produce about 10% of what the armed forces need for jet and diesel fuel by turning Ohio coal into liquid fuel.

4.) Reduce State Energy Usage: By conducting an energy audit of state facilities, we will aim to cut state energy usage by 5% in the first year and by 15% by 2010. This will save taxpayer dollars and should spur those in the private sector to reap similar cost savings. (That sounds like a decreasing energy demand, not a "growing" energy demand - TBA).

5.) Make Ohio a Renewable Energy Leader: By creating a regulatory and tax climate that encourages entrepreneurship and investment, we can make Ohio a center for renewable energy generation and component production, creating more than 20,000 jobs. Its critical that the next governor be an aggressive advocate for Ohio, helping to land major projects like the Department of Energys $1 billion Future Gen plant, the worlds first coal-based, zero emissions power plant.

http://www.tedstrickland.com/news/431/strickland-makes-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 05:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. Clean coal Technolgy - great! n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Actually "clean coal" has fewer pollutants, but still produces CO2
when burned. But a possible so;ution is being developed: CO2 eating algae (that also produce biofuel as a by-product).

Algae like a breath mint for smokestacks

By Mark Clayton, The Christian Science Monitor

BOSTON Isaac Berzin is a big fan of algae. The tiny, single-celled plant, he says, could transform the world's energy needs and cut global warming.

Overshadowed by a multibillion-dollar push into other "clean-coal" technologies, a handful of tiny companies are racing to create an even cleaner, greener process using the same slimy stuff that thrives in the world's oceans.

snip

If he could find the right strain of algae, he figured he could turn the nation's greenhouse-gas-belching power plants into clean-green generators with an attached algae farm next door.

snip

Fed a generous helping of CO2-laden emissions, courtesy of the power plant's exhaust stack, the algae grow quickly even in the wan rays of a New England sun. The cleansed exhaust bubbles skyward, but with 40% less CO2 (a larger cut than the Kyoto treaty mandates) and another bonus: 86% less nitrous oxide.

After the CO2 is soaked up like a sponge, the algae is harvested daily. From that harvest, a combustible vegetable oil is squeezed out: biodiesel for automobiles. Berzin hands a visitor two vials one with algal biodiesel, a clear, slightly yellowish liquid, the other with the dried green flakes that remained. Even that dried remnant can be further reprocessed to create ethanol, also used for transportation.

Read more at:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-10-algae-p...

Hi Grandpa. Hope all is well with you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. CO2 Is Released When The Algae Derived Biofuel Is Burned
Unless the algae is simply landfilled, the reduction in CO2 would seem to be minimal under a coal exhaust->algae scenario.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. The CO2 is recycled in a closed loop. As much CO2 consumed as produced.
So it's 'carbon-neutral', neither increasing or decreasing CO2. This is WAY better than burning fossil fuels, which converts millions of years of sequestered carbon back to CO2 about a million times faster than the CO2 was converted to fossil fuel.

So you're right that it's not DECREASING CO2, but at least it's not drasrticallyincreasing it, like fossil fuels do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. It Would Only Be A Closed Loop If The CO2 From The 'Biofuel' Combustion
was captured and more algae grown.

If the 'biofuel' combustion products go out the tailpipe of a car, the previously 'sequestered' coal combustion carbon is released.

What it comes down to is where did the carbon come from in the growth of the 'biofuel', from the atmosphere, or from carbon previously sequestered in the earths crust (coal).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. CO2 is CO2. As long as the AMOUNT is the same what difference?
It's like putting money in the bank. If you put in $100, then take out $100, what difference does it make if it's the "same" $100 or not? Does the question really even make sense? The net bank balance doesn't change.

A more apt comparison is like putting water in a reservoir. If you pour a bucket of water in one end of a lake and take a bucket of water out of the other end, of course it's not the "same" water, but water is water. Overall, the lake hasn't changed.

The whole atmosphere is our 'reservoir' of CO2. Burning coal overfills the reservoir, which is something to avoid. When algae photosynthesise fuel from CO2, they're taking CO2 out of the public reservoir. When the fuel is burned, the same amount of CO2 goes back in. So the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't affected. If anything, there might even be some solid organic byproduct left over (dead algae, mostly) which could be used for fertilizer--which eventually breaks down to CO2, or is incorporated into other plants.

Algae will grow on whatever CO2 is available, no matter where it 'came from'. Of course, the whole point of growing the algae in the first place is that it sequesters CO2 which is already in the air, so you're creating the second half of a loop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. I Thought We Were Discussing Algae Grown w/ Coal CO2 Emissions
and its application in reducing greenhouse gas emissions (compliance w/ Kyoto as noted in the article).

Of course a biofuel grown utilizing CO2 from the atmosphere is carbon neutral (as long as no fossil fuels are used in its production and processing).

If the carbon atom in the 'biofuel' came from coal, via coal->algae->biodiesel, it is not carbon neutral w.r.t. the atmosphere when the emission from combustion of the biofuel is expelled into the atmosphere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. If you were responding to the post by Momcat...
it doesn't say anything *specifically* about coal, just that algae produces fuel while absorbing CO2. Actually, it's not a well-worded article, in that it says biofuel is produced 'as a by-product'. It doesn't make it clear that the the CO2 absorption is exactly what produces the fuel--the carbon atoms in the CO2 end up as the carbon atoms in the hydrocarbon, while the oxygen atoms end up as O2. Note that the algae has NO mass input other than H2O and CO2--all the solids and liquids produced are made from carbon taken from CO2. In principle, you could have a big tank with lines feeding CO2 and H2O in, and one taking fuel out. As long as sunlight is provided it will produce fuel indefinitely (and the sunlight will be the limiting factor).

Start with a carbon-containing fuel from ANY source. Burn it. Trap the CO2 and feed it to algae (plus lots of sunlight--essential!). The algae make fuel, which is then burned to make CO2 in a loop. So you do need to start with carbon from somewhere, but it doesn't matter where. (Again, this is in principle, and nothing is 100% efficient...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Are We Even Talking About The Same Article?
And, no, they do not specifcally mention coal. But what other type of 1000+ 'greenhouse-gas-belching' power plants do we have? I really can't see them doing this at natural gas peaking stations.

From the article:

Enter Dr. Berzin, a rocket scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. About three years ago, while working on an experiment for growing algae on the International Space Station, he came up with the idea for using it to clean up power-plant exhaust. If he could find the right strain of algae, he figured he could turn the nation's greenhouse-gas-belching power plants into clean-green generators with an attached algae farm next door.

After the CO2 is soaked up like a sponge, the algae is harvested daily. From that harvest, a combustible vegetable oil is squeezed out: biodiesel for automobiles. Berzin hands a visitor two vials one with algal biodiesel, a clear, slightly yellowish liquid, the other with the dried green flakes that remained. Even that dried remnant can be further reprocessed to create ethanol, also used for transportation.

. . .

Fed a generous helping of CO2-laden emissions, courtesy of the power plant's exhaust stack, the algae grow quickly even in the wan rays of a New England sun. The cleansed exhaust bubbles skyward, but with 40% less CO2 (a larger cut than the Kyoto treaty mandates) and another bonus: 86% less nitrous oxide.

. . .

Greenfuel isn't alone in the algae-to-oil race. Last month, Greenshift Corporation, a Mount Arlington, N.J., technology incubator company, licensed CO2-gobbling algae technology that uses a screen-like algal filter. It was developed by David Bayless, a researcher at Ohio University. A prototype is capable of handling 140 cubic meters of flue gas per minute, an amount equal to the exhaust from 50 cars or a 3-megawatt power plant, Greenshift said in a statement.

For his part, Berzin calculates that just one 1,000 megawatt power plant using his system could produce more than 40 million gallons of biodiesel and 50 million gallons of ethanol a year. That would require a 2,000-acre "farm" of algae-filled tubes near the power plant. There are nearly 1,000 power plants nationwide with enough space nearby for a few hundred to a few thousand acres to grow algae and make a good profit, he says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pf99 Donating Member (251 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
2. Are the polls still showing a big Strickland lead?
Edited on Mon Jul-10-06 05:49 AM by pf99
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 05:50 AM
Response to Original message
3. Isn't Ted from a part of the state that produces coal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 06:10 AM
Response to Original message
4. Peak Oil and Peak Gas Will Force More Politicians This Way
This is the beginning of a trend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaurenG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 06:47 AM
Response to Original message
6. I am VERY pleased to read that.
I hope that we can go from coal to something else quickly too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
9. Coal made WV and KY what they are today. Now OH can join them. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
partylessinOhio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. My thoughts EXACTLY! Seems like Strickland wants to take us back a
century.

How is this coal going to be mined? Will we see more deaths of miners?

Will we see strip mining and the ugly deforestation so obvious when driving through West Virginia?

In all the years I have watched the House on CSpan, I have never seen Strickland take the floor. Where has he been? Seems he was Mr. Invisible.

Ohio Democrats screwed up when they failed to run a better candidate for governor. I still will not vote for either candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. LOL.
That's not really fair. Coal is not the reason that KY and WV never got a diversified economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
17. Both candidates portrayed themselves as friends of the coal industry
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

In separate speeches to the Ohio Coal Association yesterday, the two major candidates for governor took different tacks, underscoring an emerging tone early in the campaign.
...
Both candidates portrayed themselves as friends of the coal industry in a state that ranks seventh nationally in coal reserves and third in coal consumption.
Blackwell decried Ohios "excessive regulation of coal," saying Ohio is the only state that gives two agencies the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Natural Resources regulatory power over the industry.
As governor, he said, he would meet with coal users, producers and regulators to "figure out which of these two agencies should have singular responsibility."
Strickland, who hails from coal country in southeastern Ohio, focused on what he would do to help the industry including a goal of doubling the states annual production of coal from the current 23 million tons.
He also pledged to push for expanded markets for Ohio coal and new clean-coal technologies as part of his energy plan, saying he could balance environmental and industry concerns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar 24th 2017, 06:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC