Critics: Polar bear plan must fight global warming (Didja smell that one coming?)
McCain Courts Leftwing Bloggers
NOAA: Global Warming Means Fewer, Not More Hurricanes
Global Warming on Free Republic
You’d see the AGW people shouting with delight,
IF
reducing CO2 were actually their goal.
Reducing our lifestyle is the actual goal, so don’t expect them to be too excited about a smokestack scrubber that allows the power plant output to remain the same or greater with reduced CO2.
Watch them and remember.
but at least there will be no greenhouse gasses....
Seriously...has anyone picked up on just what level of CO2 would be acceptable?
Maybe just to maintain 25% of vegetation?,50%, or maybe 75%?
People are planting trees like mad, and there is a great movement to "save the forests"...so would not it be prudent to increase CO2 output just to support the increased vegetation?
Not good enough. We need 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% removed. Al Gore says so.
This is gonna piss off the Gorons!
It appears to take about 10 years to get a politician to believe some econazi’s feel-good rape the citizen’s wallet BS. Then it porbably take 50 years, if then, for them to admit to the truth.
There is no AGW and CO2 is not the cause.
(They picked CO2 because water vapor would be harder to sell as APG, harder to find reasons to tax and/or regulate.)
Costing less and working better is a death knell to the process. Now, if the report stated that it was less efficient and cost more, our congress would immediately appropriate billions and billions to fund it.
The fact that it is simple, inexpensive and effective is enough to assure that it will never be put to common use.
2008 will be the year that I have officially lost all faith in humankind.
This could be excellent news for coal fired power plants.
I wrote a little analysis of synfuel upgrades to existing coal plants. I was going to give it a vanity thread, but instead I think I’ll post it here.
A 1GWe coal-fired power plant consumes ~ 7400 tons of coal per day, at a 2008 fuel cost of over $900K (at today’s rather high coal price of $120 per ton).
The plant produces 24 million kw/h per day, worth about $1.44M at $0.06 per kw/h.
The $540,000/day difference in fuel cost vs. electricity cost must cover plant amortization and operations.
Modern coal plants perform extensive processing of this coal (pulverizing, cleaning, etc.) before burning it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karrick_process -
By adding a “Karrick process” step to the pre-processing, the coal demand of the plant would increase by about 1/3 - i.e. the plant would require 9200 tons of coal worth $1.2M per day.
However, in addtion to producing the $1.44M worth of electricity per day, the “Karrick process” augumented plant would produce 9200 barrels of synthetic crude per day, worth over $1.1M at todays extremely high oil prices.
Total US coal-fired powerplant installed capacity is over 300 GWe. If half of these plants were equipped to also produce syncrude, they would increase US domestic crude oil production by 16%.
Most of the infrastucture required for coal liquification is ALREADY in place at these power plants, and they are already cleared for the environmental impact. The cost of adding a 9K barrel/day Karrick extractor to an existing 1GW coal plant should be less than 1/5th the cost of building an identically sized (in output) F/T or “Bergius process” coal liquification plant.
At > $100/barrel crude prices, the payback time for adding a “Karrick process” step to a 1GW coal power plant would be less than two years.
Now we can build more coal-burning power plants.
The US has plenty of coal.
Sorry, but I’m way more worried about sulfer and mercury emissions than I am plant food coming out the end of a pipe.
Critics: Polar bear plan must fight global warming (Didja smell that one coming?)
McCain Courts Leftwing Bloggers
NOAA: Global Warming Means Fewer, Not More Hurricanes
Global Warming on Free Republic