“Clean Coal” is the Wrong Road to Take

“Clean Coal” is the Wrong Road to Take

Postby Oscar » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:19 pm

“Clean Coal” is the Wrong Road to Take
by John W. Warnock
April 23, 2007

Lorne Calvert’s NDP government and SaskPower seem determined to saddle the people of Saskatchewan with a new “clean coal” generating facility. The research has been done, the Estevan site has been chosen, and the project’s supplying corporations are on side. The 300 Megawatt (MW) plant will cost between $1.5 and $2.0 billion. But this is clearly not the best way to produce energy nor to reduce carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions.
In the first place, coal fired generators are very inefficient, capturing only around 33% of the energy in the combustion process; the remaining two thirds of the energy produced is dissipated into the environment. This waste energy cannot be captured and used where power plants are far removed from industrial projects and population centres.
The “clean coal” aspect of this project is the Oxyfuel system used to capture around 90% of the carbon dioxide, compress and chill it to liquid form, and then pump it deep into the ground for sequestration. Unfortunately, this is an expensive and inefficient process. Of the total 450 MW of electricity to be produced by the new plant, 150 MW will be used in the Oxyfuel and geological storage process. As many studies have argued, down the road carbon dioxide sequestration may permit the continued use of coal for power generation. But it is no solution to the current problem of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
Furthermore, the carbon dioxide extracted by the proposed SaskPower plant will be used to enhance oil recovery. The liquid carbon dioxide is pumped into the permeable oil bearing rock strata, is dissolved in the oil which reduces its viscosity, and it then sweeps the more mobile oil to the production wells. This is the system presently used by EnCana at Midale. Some of the pumped carbon dioxide escapes in this process. And of course this strategy completely undermines the goal of carbon sequestration as more petroleum is extracted and consumed, creating even more greenhouse gas emissions.
Building a very expensive new power plant at Estevan further commits Saskatchewan and Sask Power to a highly centralized system of electrical power production and distribution. We have a great many alternative sources of energy, and their development requires a decentralized system. We must also plan for disasters which are caused by climate change. In January 1998 there was an ice storm in Quebec, and many areas were without power for several weeks. What would a similar event do to Saskatchewan? How many people would die?
Last January I was in Seattle doing research and I looked into the energy strategy of Seattle City Light, a municipal public utility. In the 1920s they built three dams on the Skagit River which serve as their base supply. They also contract for some power from the Bonneville Power Administration. In 1976 they opted out of the Washington Public Power Supply plan to build nuclear reactors and chose instead to promote conservation. In 2002 they contracted to purchase power from the Stateline Wind Project on the Oregon-Washington border.
But the Seattle area has the highest annual population growth of any region in the United States. Therefore, in 2006 Seattle City Light produced an integrated plan for power development for the period 2007-2025. Over this period they will add 460 MW of electrical power. This will include 142 MW from conservation, 100 MW from geothermal development, 55 MW from additional wind sources, 25 MW from landfill gas, and 15 MW from biomass energy. The total projected capital cost of these additions is only $170 million.
For many years Seattle City Light has been providing direct financial incentives to promote conservation and the purchase of more efficient appliances. They have a very basic demand management system: for the first 10 kilowatt hours (kWh) consumed a household pays 3.76 cents a kWh, above that the cost is 7.93 cents kWh. They are now promoting individual household and business production of solar, wind and biomass electricity. Through a net metering system households are paid market price for the energy they provide to the city grid. Households and businesses who install new generating facilities get city, state and federal rebates and tax incentives.
Seattle City Light is only one example of how communities can shift to renewable energy. How long do we have to wait before a Saskatchewan government takes this issue seriously?

John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist and environmental activist.

John W. Warnock
2156 Retallack St.
Regina, SK
S4T 2K4
(306) 352-5282
http://www.johnwarnock.ca

"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for error lies on the surface while truth lies in the depths, where few are willing to search for it." Goethe
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8280
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

'Clean Coal' Myth

Postby Oscar » Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:30 am

Published in the Wadena News on April 9, 2008

To the Editor

…another ostrich – with its head in the sand!

One must wonder about Saskatchewan Premier Wall’s pie-in-the-sky plan to bury (hide?) the emissions from the mythical ‘clean coal’ technology in a hole in the ground.

Does sweeping this dust under the carpet show any genuine concern for the environment and the health and well being of future generations…squandering millions more on yet another industry-friendly, unsustainable project?

Who will be saddled with the expense of cleaning up the sequestered emissions? Mr. Wall’s grandchildren? Mr. Harper’s?

Looks like more of the same lack of wisdom, political will and vision: the frenzy for the money today – no worries about tomorrow.

Someone, someday, is going to have to deal with our failure to care for the natural system that supports life on this planet.

There is no free lunch!


Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
Last edited by Oscar on Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8280
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Down and Dirty in Hudson Bay!

Postby Oscar » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:34 am

Published in the Parkland Review on July 18, 2008

To the Editor –

Down and Dirty in Hudson Bay!

Back in May, while the rest of us were still reeling from the prospect of having Bruce Power and their friends at Cameco build us a ‘clean and safe’ nuclear power plant on the shore of Lake Diefenbaker, three mining companies very quietly received permits to explore for coal on more than a million acres of beautiful parkland in northeastern Saskatchewan.

Coal mining? In a time when opportunities abound for the intelligent development of truly clean and sustainable energy sources, the prospect of digging up more of the dirtiest fossil fuel on the planet is making headlines – in a time when most people associate coal with the bygone Industrial Age?

One company alone, the North American Gem Inc., has a permit to explore over 950,000 acres lying some 50 kilometers north of Hudson Bay, and includes Wapawekka Lake as well as the Narrow Hills and Pasquai Hills region… a unique and fragile ecological area noted for its fishing, canoeing, tenting and bird-watching – tragically transformed into a barren and polluted moonscape!

This is economic development . . . in 2008?

Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8280
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm


Return to Coal/Coalbed Methane

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron