Reply #12: My Rebuttal

[seasat]

Feminist_man wrote: "Gigatons per yeasr sounds like a lot. However, one would inject the CO2 directly into geologic formations. You may find it hard to believe, but people inject CO2 into the ground today; it's used in a process called a miscible flood in an oil field. But there are other formations that one could inject CO2 into as well, for instance deep salt-water aquifers. No reaction is needed to sequester the CO2."

My response: The miscible flood technology is to increase the yields for oil wells not for storage of huge amounts of CO2. If this approach is such a good idea for carbon sequestration then why is it not used now? You could inject the entire emissions from a a coal fired plant into old oil wells without the need for increased pollution control if this was a cost effective solution. It appears to be theoretical that a significant amount of CO2 can be stored this way. I need to do further study but I haven't seen anything yet that shows the CO2 can be affectively trapped in deep wells and that the deep wells would have the necessary capacity. They have problems of permeability of the deep saline aquifers. You also have the problem of transport of the emissions to the appropriate site. You would have to construct huge pipelines to these areas.

Feminist_man wrote: " I'm not sure what you were saying here, but the process I was describing is a clean coal technology. The incentive to adopt it will be provided by the marketplace. With high natural gas prices, the incentive is probably here today."

My response: The gasification technology currently results in the coal product costing more than natural gas. My point is that the Bush EPA has postponed the rules on enforcement of the Clean Air Act on coal fired power plants. Why would a power company have incentive to switch to a more expensive technology when they can burn old dirty coal and get away with it?

Feminist_man wrote: " These are not test plants!!! The plant in Tampa Florida is running and is producing power as clean as that from a natural gas fired plant."

My response: You mean this plant? I'm surprised that the FL DEP actually fined this plant. TECO was cited by the Clinton administration over violations of the Clean Air Act and was going to force them to upgrade their pollution control equipment. The FL DEP stepped in and was going to let them off with a minor fine (thanks to Jebbie). The Clinton administration over road the FL DEP and was going to force TECO to clean up its act. When Shrub took the White House however, this was reversed and nothing was done to TECO except for a small fine. If this is you example of a "clean coal" plant then your program is in trouble. I live in the Tampa Bay area and fish out in the bay. We've go terrible air quality and TECO is a major source of the pollution. I can post more articles on TECO if you would like me to further back this up.

From St. Pete Times Article: " The state fined Tampa Electric Co. $333,100 Wednesday for improperly storing waste at a Polk County plant that's billed as a state-of-the-art "clean coal" facility.
The plant, in Mulberry, is a showcase facility for the U.S. Department of Energy, and regularly hosts visitors from all over the world.
But the Florida Department of Environmental Protection says the plant burned inefficiently, and produced huge piles of unburned coal, ash and a waste product called slag, threatening groundwater."

Feminist_man wrote: " I agree that mining is a dirty business. We need to make sure that the companies that are polluting are held accountable."

My Response: My problem with this the current administration is not holding anyone accountable and is loosening the rules. The clean coal technology is certainly better than the current technology but is not better IMO than biofuels or nuclear power. There is no incentive for the companies to switch to this technology and it appears the cost of using it would far outpace even more environmentally friendly technologies. I also see mixed signals on the effectiveness of clean coal technology when compared to natural gas. Some (environmental groups) report that the emissions are not near as clean as natural gas. Here's some more information on Bush's http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/action/clear_skies.asp ">Clear Skies Initiative.

I'm very skeptical of the "clean coal" initiative since it appears to me to be a bandaid to preserve an outdate mode of non-renewable energy. The time money and research would be better spent investigating new renewable technologies.