JUST SAYIN’-Fracking. The Keystone Pipeline. Wind and Solar. Energy-efficiency. Natural gas. Oil Power. And now Clean Coal. All these issues are being thrown at us—right and left. It is mind-boggling.
What we are now hearing more and more about media is the oil industry’s promotion of clean coal. The explanations being proffered sound reasonable. The facts, however, prove unambiguously otherwise.
Many energy corporations, numerous lawmakers, and even some international institutions unabashedly claim that “carbon capture and storage (CCS) mitigates the effects of climate change by pumping carbon dioxide underground … without curbing the use of fossil fuels”—and thus, they assert, we can have it both ways: more coal/oil production and less contamination. Even at first blush, this explanation sounds downright incredulous!
CCS is a complicated process and no one knows if it can live up to industry expectations (although there is an ongoing, high-pressure campaign for its acceptance and adoption). This method uses captured gas which is injected as much as 2.1 miles beneath the surface of the earth into a layer of brine sandstone—the gas, of course, has to penetrate the all-important water table, and will supposedly be stored at that great depth indefinitely.
However, some of this gas will ultimately be diverted for use in enhanced oil recovery by forcing out remnant oil found deep underground. The oil industry is relying on its explanation (out of sight--out of mind) as a way to encourage an ongoing willingness to burn their products in order to satisfy our variously voracious consumption needs.
The oil industry defends itself with a feel-good response that suggests that the process would cost less and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. It is not surprising that just the opposite would happen. It is all about how the facts are framed! The industry does not want to touch on the moral and ethical issues involved in its purveyance of this sticky, ugly, unholy contaminant. It does not address the issues of inequality in energy usage and cost nor the unfairness behind energy-intensive lifestyles that never seem to get penalized.
Steven Davis, Earth Scientist from UC, Irvine, claims that the energy generated through the CCS method would be more costly technologically, let alone that it would add nearly prohibitive costs for the new infrastructure system needed to support it. Ironically, “to capture and store just 10 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions would require the same amount of pipelines and pumping infrastructure that already exist for the oil industry.”
Assuming that sufficient geological formations exist for such projects to be viable, constructing facilities that can accommodate this CCS process would take years and would undoubtedly be at greater cost than its worth. Furthermore, any resulting emission reductions may be far less than purported by the industry. “Because coal mining is associated with emissions of methane, this could lead to an increase in the total emissions of a potent greenhouse gas. . . (definitely) undesirable for energy security.”
There are simply too many reasons to reject the adoption of CCS: actual viability of the process, vaster contaminating emissions, higher cost, greater risk, poorer efficiency, and possible legal entanglements—a seemingly unending list.
Another method, coal gasification, applies heat and pressure to “convert coal into gas before it is burned. . . and the end-product will be shipped via pipeline to nearby oil fields.” How risky is that? And then there is the oxy-combustion process whereby “coal is burned in oxygen and carbon dioxide instead of air to produce a concentrated stream of carbon dioxide for transportation and storage in saline rock deep underground”—again below the water table.
Both of these systems present potential environmental catastrophes. The Sierra Club, among other environmental organizations, is concerned about “the integrity of the permitting process.” Ill-conceived permits could allow coal plants to operate without limits to the carbon it can release into the atmosphere.
{module [862]}
{module [662]}
The fact is that less expensive and more reliable options exist and are already being further developed: solar; wind; energy-efficient appliances, buildings, and vehicles; insulated door frames, walls, and roofs; investment in double-paned windows and sliders; cool roofs; recycling; fans to supplement or reduce air conditioning use (you should look into Big Ass Fans … a company … for industrial buildings with high ceilings—the effect is remarkable); other useful technologies not as yet even conceived; just changing out light bulbs to long-lasting and ultimately much cheaper LED devices would produce a desirable outcome.
Such modifications and changes in our environmental behaviors would surely reduce a multitude of emissions, provide more energy security, and stimulate increased manufacture and the addition of countless green jobs.
Following and implementing such suggestions would be a win-win for all: a healthier earth along with the life it sustains, a livable environment, and higher employment brought about by an improved economy which oversees commercial growth--large and small.
Let’s think about what we can do to add to, rather than detract from, a livable world.
Just sayin’.
(Rosemary Jenkins is a Democratic activist and chair of the Northeast Valley Green Alliance. Jenkins has written A Quick-and=Easy Reference to Correct Grammar and Composition, Leticia in Her Wedding Dress and Other Poems, and Vignettes for Understanding Literary and Related Concepts. She also writes for CityWatch.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 85
Pub: Oct 21, 2014
