Friday roundup, Sept. 18, 2009

September 18, 2009 by Ken Ward Jr.

polandblast1.jpg

A survivor of a mining accident is brought to a hospital in Siemianowice Slaskie, Poland, Friday, Sept. 18, 2009. A methane leak in a Polish coal mine set off an explosion that killed 12 miners on Friday, Sept. 18, 2009 officials said. (AP Photo) 

This week ended tragically, with a methane gas explosion that killed 12 miners at a coal mine in Ruda Slaska-Kochlowice, southern Poland.

polandblast2.jpgAccording to the BBC, the explosion is the worst mining accident in Poland since a methane gas explosion killed 23 miners at the Halemba mine in Silesia three years ago. Other media reports quoted Jan Pajor, a 55-year-old miner at a different operation, saying he knew four of the men killed:

When there’s a methane blast, it’s like an atom bomb.  These people died for no reason. They were young men with wives and children, and now they have been left on their own.

Meanwhile, the United Steelworkers union went to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to object to the treatment of coal miners whose union struck Drummond Coal’s Colombia operations over safety conditions that led to the death of a colleague.  In a letter to Clinton, Steelworkers President Leo Gerard wrote:

It has come to our attention that Drummond has already fired the entire executive board of the local Drummond union of Sintramienergetica, and has petitioned the Colombian Labor Ministry for permission to fire all of its 4,000 or so unionized workers in retaliation for a recent work stoppage carried out by the union. This work stoppage, which the employees had the right to carry out under Colombian law and ILO Conventions 87 & 98, was carried out to protest the work-place death of miner Dagoberto Clavijo, one of numerous work place deaths in Drummond’s dangerous Colombian coal mines.

Further, a Colombian judge has just ordered that top Drummond executives, including the Alabama-based President, Garry Drummond, as well as President of Colombian operations, Augusto Jiminez who also works out of Alabama, be criminally investigated for conspiring with paramilitaries to carry out the murders of union leaders Valmore Locarno, Victor Orcasita and Gustavo Soler in 2001. This order is consistent with the USW’s ongoing efforts to hold Drummond responsible for these killings.

We call upon the U.S. State Department to pressure the Colombian government to refrain from permitting the firing of Drummond’s workers in retaliation for the aforementioned strike, to order Drummond to improve safety conditions in its mines, and to continue the investigation and prosecution of all those responsible for the killings of Valmore Locarno, Victor Orcasita and Gustavo Soler.

drummond3.jpg

Drummond, of course, was already the target of a federal court lawsuit alleging that the coal company paid millions of dollars to a Colombian paramilitary terrorist group responsible for the deaths of 67 people in an effort to disrupt union activities at its South American mine and railway operations.  Read Sue Sturgis’ account of that here, and learn about the protests in the U.S. against Drummond’s Colombian activities here.

One of the best stories out there this week about coal focused on coal’s impacts on global warming, and the continued inaction by Congress on this problem. Living With Coal: Climate Policy’s Most Inconvenient Truth, was written for Boston Review magazine by University of Californi-San Diego professor David Victor and StanfordUniversity researcher Richard K. Morse.  The piece is part of Meeting Demand, a year-long series of articles on resources and climate change.  The coal article concludes:

Getting serious about global warming will require efforts on three fronts. One is to put a price on carbon dioxide and emissions of the other warming gases. Higher prices will help encourage efficiency and some switching to less carbon-heavy practices. But even in Europe, where carbon dioxide prices are the highest in the world, prices are still much lower than needed to stimulate investment in low-emission coal technologies, notably CCS. And prices in the United States are likely to be even lower than Europe’s.

A second effort must be technological. Stopping global warming will require deep cuts in emissions worldwide over the coming decades. Reductions on that scale will require new technologies. No private company will back those technologies on its own initiative. A major effort is needed to find new, more efficient ways to burn coal and also to bury the pollution. So-called clean coal is now the object of scorn from skeptical observers, but to serious engineers and environmentalists it is a key venture in need of support. Only governments can credibly justify and afford the kinds of investment required.

Developing countries sit at the third vital front. Coal is abundant, cheap, and indispensible. Developing countries, which already account for most of the world’s coal consumption and nearly all of the coal industry’s growth, are not likely to shift to rival fuels. Huge success in driving down the cost of technologies such as advanced wind and nuclear power systems might allow them (and the rest of the world) to shift away from coal without much economic pain. The decreasing cost of more efficient coal technologies has already made it possible for China and India, among others, to justify buying some of the most advanced technologies on commercial terms. But the more likely scenario is that the best low-emission technologies, including clean coal, will be more expensive than what these governments are willing to pay on their own. An indication that the world is not yet really serious about global warming is that no system exists to finance the use of these technologies in the countries that will dominate the energy future.

The United States has a critical role to play in this effort. At home it must adopt serious policies to push investment in new technologies to reduce emissions. Abroad, it must be prepared to help pay developing countries to test and deploy these technologies as well. And the keystone to all these efforts is coal. So far, however, real investment in low-emission coal is at a tiny fraction of the level needed. As the politicians dither, the world keeps warming.

byrd1.jpgCoal Tattoo wrote last week about Sen. Robert C. Byrd’s efforts to get more funding for coal and carbon control into the Senate version of the climate change bill.  That prompted this post by Joseph Romm at Climate Progress, noting Byrd getting involved in crafting the bill, rather than just opposing it. Like many experts, Romm is skeptical about Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology’s chances for being much help to the planet, but he says:

I could be wrong, and it’s early well worth finding out if CCS works.  That’s especially true since if it does, the future is cofiring coal and biomass with CCS and producing negative-carbon electricity.  If more money for CCS gets Byrd’s vote — at least to block a filibuster — and the votes of people like Baucus, it’s well worth it.  True, he might well bail on the final bill, but engaging him in the process seems like a positive step.

The biggest flaw in the proposal seems to be that gives too much money upfront to new coal plants that promise to do CCS, but then has no penalties if they fail to deliver on the CCS.  That needs to be fixed, but I can’t see many scenarios where new coal plants without CCS get built after this bill passes.  And the only CCS plants that get built will be ones that the government essentially covers most of the cost of, which means not bloody many until costs drop sharply, probably post-2030.

rockychange.jpgAnd, my buddy Darren Samuelsohn at ClimateWire (via The NY Times) had a story about West Virginia’s junior Senator, Jay Rockefeller also choosing to engage on the climate change bill — rather than taking the route of Massey Energy President Don Blankenship, most of the rest of the coal industry, and the general business community in West Virginia, and just opposing the bill outright, mostly based on misleading rhetoric.  The story quotes Rockfeller:

I cannot strategically negotiate and fight for West Virginia’s future if I just say no outright.

I think doing nothing at all on legislation causes three horrible things to happen, all of which mean the end of the coal industry. And people don’t think of that because they hear ‘cap and trade’ and they say they don’t like it.

How many don’t understand it is another question. But if you don’t do it at all, you just do nothing, and just say no, natural gas probably is firing all present coal power plants within three or four years. Secondly, Wall Street, there being no legislation, therefore no predictability, lends no money to people trying to build power plants. And it just cedes completely to the EPA newly empowered by the Supreme Court under very strict terms to just tear at carbon related things. All of that is talking about the end of coal and that is not where I want to be at all for West Virginia.

Meanwhile, Kate Sheppard had some interesting quotes from Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, about “clean coal” technology:

Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, raised questions on Wednesday about the viability of capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants underground, and suggested that coal may not even be part of the energy mix by 2050.

“I actually can see a future where coal is not in the equation in 2050,” Rogers told reporters at an event in Washington.

He argued that it’s unlikely that the United States will be able to develop and bring to scale carbon-capture-and-storage – often called “clean coal” technology. “I think there’s no way we can scale in this country,” he said. “It’s more likely that China will develop and bring CCS to scale. I’d like to be China for a day so we can get CCS done. They’re more likely to get it scaled and deployed than we are. We’re going to be buying their technology.”

And Rogers had this to say about mountaintop removal:

I’m under incredible pressure on moutaintop mining. Most of the coal we use in the southern part of the country is from mountaintop mining. I’m doing the math now and looking to determine my contracts and posing the question to my team, what if we made a policy decision that we’re not going to buy coal as a consequence of mountaintop mining.

The New York Times’ story on water pollution violations, focused on the situation down in Prenter, W.Va., got a lot of attention this week.  There is some commentary here from Jeff Biggers on The Huffington Post and here by Rob Perks of the NRDC.

Meanwhile, the Rural Blog  and the Society of Environmental Journalists’ TipSheet  point out that the Times made the data it used for its story available for the public and for other reporters to use. But the Knight Science Journalism Tracker blog pointed out some questions about the way the story was handled by the Times:

The meat of the piece is evidence that the Times reports uncovering that  violations of the Clean Water Act are on the rise and, further, that “the vast majority of … polluters have (sic) escaped punishment.” The series – as any investigative piece ought – has a stiff and alarming tone. This is crusading journalism. But one wonders if there is some selective data citation here, and perhaps use of statistics that don’t quite reinforce how common are some of its most alarming examples. One passage for example describes coal mining waste as having as much as 1000 percent (which sounds so much worse than ten times) the legal level of heavy metals. But it’s not clear whether that’s the legal level for waste, or for drinking water. And “up to ” leaves the statement’s meaning in limbo. It then follows up with reference to 4,200 water pollution violations – but of what severity? One wonders.

There is much to admire in this series – including the vast amount of data and obscure reports that the Times and [reporter Charles] Duhigg have sifted. The results need reporting. But one wonders further, given the occasional disclaimers the story itself provides saying it is impossible yet to know how many or which ailments are caused by what pollutants,  whether its suggestion of demonstrated and considerable public harm is justified.

And in other coal-related news and commentary this week:

— West Virginia Blue covered the idea of a New Deal for Appalachia,  and the Lexington Herald-Leader had coverage of the same issue, featuring a speech by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

— The Oak Hill Gazette in Austin, Texas, reports on U.S. EPA’s promise to study the water quality and human health effects of coal-tar sealants.

—  The New York Times reported on TVA’s plans to spend more than $40 million on economic development projects in the area where the company’s coal-ash disaster occurred.

— Grist had this story about whether President Obama might propose eliminating economic subsidies for fossil fuel industries,  and the Times Online reported:

The World Bank is spending billions of pounds subsidising new coal-fired power stations in developing countries despite claiming that burning fossil fuels exposes the poor to catastrophic climate change.

— The New York Times had this article examining the decision to abandon a new railroad into the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Dustin Bleizeffer of the Casper Star-Tribune reported on declining coal production in Wyoming.

International Coal Group announced that  had acquired international patent rights to sell its ADDCAR highwall mining system beyond North America. Key coal-producing countries added to the ICG ADDCAR marketing area include China, Russia and South Africa, ICG said.

— There was an interesting mention of coal in this Wall Street Journal blog about natural gas:

So what does market see in natural gas? Analysts at Barclays Capital and Raymond James & Associates say the driver for the gas rally is coal. As natural-gas prices dropped to the lowest level in seven years in early September, it dethroned “King Coal” to become a cheaper fuel source for power plants. Natural gas is still down about 40% this year.

— The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on a judge’s ruling throwing out local government efforts in that state to control coal-mining damage:

Blaine Township supervisors, in an attempt to protect the local environment, passed two ordinances to try to stop mining and drilling there.

One local law prohibits any corporation from doing business within the township if it has a history of more than three violations against it over the past 20 years. The ordinance also says that the township will not recognize corporations as having the same rights as individuals.

The other ordinance prohibits corporations from mining in Blaine.

— Following up on my Coal Tattoo posts (see here and here) about WVU naming a department chair for coal operator Bob Murray in exchange for a $1 million donation,  Jeff Biggers pointed out in The Huffington Post (Headline: Blood Money) that WVU had also recently collected $500,000 from Massey Energy:

While no one begrudges WVU for cashing these checks in these hard times, and while no one is calling for the institution to return the donations–as many universities did with tainted tobacco industry contributions–the WVU president needs to explain to his students, faculty, the alumni, the governing board of the university, the United Mine Workers of America, and the general public, why he has chosen to honor two of the most denounced and controversial coal barons in the country instead of his state’s own children, and our nation’s coal miner heroes and mining safety workers buried in Crandall Canyon.

beyondcoal.jpg

And finally, the Sierra Club has launched a Campuses Beyond Coal Campaign described this way:

While our nation’s colleges and universities should be leaders of innovation and technology, they have a dirty secret: most are still running on dirty, 19th century coal. Whether they operate their own coal plants right on campus, or purchase coal-generated electricity form the grid, these schools are stuck in the past. They need to act now, investing in 100 percent clean energy solutions, to move beyond coal.

There’s more in the Sierra Club magazine here,  and there were demonstrations on campuses across the country, including the one shown above at the University of Missouri. I didn’t see any coverage of such an event at WVU (if I missed it, please some reader point it out), but I did see an editorial in my old student newspaper, The Daily Athenaeum about The New York Times coal water pollution story:

It is clear from the stories shared to The New York Times and from our own recent examples of water pollutants that swift action is needed.

There should be no reason that in the 21st century a resident of the United States shouldn’t expect clean, potable water.

In addition to investigation into the causes of such poor, unusable water, we should also investigate those who allowed it to happen.

 

15 Responses to “Friday roundup, Sept. 18, 2009”

  1. Nanette says:

    Ken the story from the NYT is really making some big news now. You posted:
    The New York Times’ story on water pollution violations, focused on the situation down in Prenter, W.Va., got a lot of attention this week. There is some commentary here from Jeff Biggers on The Huffington Post and here by Rob Perks of the NRDC.

    Just a few minutes ago MSNBC had a segment on this very thing and showed the family involved in that story. I am glad that this is making national news. I believe that the national pressure is giving the WVDEP a bit of a well deserved headache.

  2. Ken Ward Jr. says:

    Nanette,

    I would encourage you and everyone to take a close look at the criticism of the NY Times piece I linked to … It’s well worth understanding the potential holes in the Times’ story.

    Ken.

  3. Thomas Rodd says:

    Duke’s CEO Rogers is echoing some comments made about China and CCS by posters on this blog: specifically that “we are going to be buying the technology from them.” Coal Tattoo posters rule!

    This complex issue must have a lot to do with the fact that they have hundreds of millions of people who are getting by with almost no electricity, whereas we have a mature, albeit conventional electron economy. They may be able to leapfrog past us in many areas?

    Nevertheless, the bottom line is that for a modest investment of 1-2% GDP — and yes, a hell of a jolt to some places, like here in the coalfields — we CAN move to a low-carbon-emissions economy in the next forty years, and create a vibrant, job-filled economy at the same time.

    Yes, we can! (And, as Rogers realizes, we have to).

  4. rhmooney3 says:

    While I care less if coal mining continues I do care more than a lot about the people that mine coal and their communities that are very dependent upon them.

    There’s more than a lot of coal on the ground — stockpiled at both power plants and at many mines. See:
    http://geology.com/news/wp-content/uploads/a-misc/coal-stocks.gif

    Ken notes a couple of recent articles regarding decreasing production in Wyoming and increasing use of natural gas by power plants. Those are just small tid bits on what’s happening.

    This is more descriptive:
    http://www.purchasing.com/article/295665-High_stockpiles_are_weighing_down_coal_prices.php
    (Excerpt) Currently, they are averaging $48/ton, which is down 57.5% year over year (from $113 last June) because demand from power plants has decreased and because competitive fuel natural gas has deflated. Atop that, electricity generation through mid-June is 1.7 million gigawatt hours, down 4.7% versus the same period in 2008. Available audited market data through April shows coal as a percentage of utility generation at 44.1% (vs. the usual 48-50%). “Coal’s portion of generation was 44.1% in April, down from 44.8% in the prior month and 48.4% year over year.” Overall U.S. coal production in May, according to monthly data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, was down 12.6% overall, 8.2% in the western U.S., and 18.1% in the East and Mid-Atlantic.

    REALIZE that closing of mines — even temporarily — creates tremendous hardships in the coalfield communities and that many companies will not fulfill their reclamation responsibilities.

  5. Nanette says:

    Thanks Ken, I have read most of the links that you have provided. There is a lot to absorb.

  6. rhmooney3 says:

    Mine layoffs announced due to lack of energy demand
    http://www.boomboxradio.net/boombox/PlayerSetup/Players/WTRFPlayer.aspx?FileId=211738_wtrf (2:13 minutes)

    In the letter to [Jefferson County] commissioners, Charles O. Kapp, vice president of operations and general manager for OhioAmerican, a subsidiary of Murray Energy Corp., said lists of the job titles to be affected and the number of affected employees in each job classification will be made available for the commissioners’ inspection, if desired.

    (This surface mining operation near Brilliant, Ohio openned in mid-2007.)

    ===

    Montana — The competition

    By afternoon, barely two hours later, the nearly milelong train was full and headed for Chicago and on to its destination at FirstEnergy’s power plant in Ohio.

    There’s enough ready-to-ship coal to fill 10 trainloads, Placha said. The next trainload will ship out in three to four days, he added.

    According to Byron Kinn, surface superintendent for Signal Peak Energy, the mine will ultimately load two to three coal trains per day, or possibly four when the massive underground longwall mining machine begins operation in November.

    The underground coal seam at Signal Peak, which encompasses about 50 square miles, holds upwards of 1 billion tons of reserves, or 30 years’ worth at projected production.

    When the longwall machine is operational, production is expected to jump from the current 150,000 tons per month to 30,000 tons per shift. Based on tons of production per man-hour, that’s two to three times more than today’s most productive coal mine, said Bud Viren, vice president of engineering for Signal Peak Energy.

    Source:
    http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_48002dc6-9e68-11de-a897-001cc4c03286.html

  7. Lewis Baker says:

    Senator Rockefeller may have been right when he speculated in the NY Times that nearly all the power plants in USA could switch to burning natural gas within the next few years. Natural gas produces about half as much CO2 for the same amount of electricity produced. It also burns clean so there’s no ash to deal with at the power plant or sludge at the mine’s wash plant, no acid rain to capture at the power plant or acid mine drainage to treat at the mine site for decades to come, no mercury emissions to capture at the power plant (not yet being done), and no fine particulates to capture (also not yet being done, but on EPA’s plate). To top it off the price of natural gas is now very cheap.

    Coal use at US power plants is also being increasingly replaced by wind power. Although coal still produces 25 times as much power as wind, wind power is doubling every 2 years. Wind now provides about 25 times as much power as it did in 1998, and with its high growth rate it could replace half the coal use in another 10 years.

    With wind power coming on fast, or a quick switch to natural gas (instead of waiting for coal to become “carbon neutral” someday), we may find coal production falling rapidly. Worst case scenario for coal: it gets replaced completely by alternative such as wind and natural gas in the next decade or so.

    King Coal’s fall may already be starting. According to US EIA website, production of electricity in USA for first half of 2009 was 5% less than in first half of 2008. This is no doubt due to the recession and a mild summer, but the website also showed coal use in 2009 is running 12% below last year. The extra drop in coal use can be attributed to use of other sources of power. As the recession ends, the question for the coal industry will be whether its production picks back up or continues to drop.

    If coal production in USA is on the way down, in West Virginia it could fall even faster. Our coal is relatively expensive to mine. When demand for coal drops, the price for it can drop even faster. Sooner than most people expect, WV coal could become unprofitable to mine.

  8. rhmooney3 says:

    Coal will still be with us although increasingly more from the western states.

    Coal gained greatly after the oil embargo hit the electric utilities in the early 1970s. Now that natural gas is back it will regain even more than it lost back then.

    The real problem is the slowdowns and closings of mining operations while the current excess stockpiles of coal get used.

    Smaller companies cannot survive it.

    Companies will go through bankruptcy and also forfeit performance bonds in lieu of performing reclamation — quite often such bond funds are woefully insufficient to complete the reclamation.

    How well prepared are the states and OSM for this market downturn?

  9. scott 14 says:

    Mr Baker, I believe that your prediction of the coal markets demise might be a little premature. While electricity produced by coal is down, it is mostly because of reduced electrical demand in the industrial manufacturing sector of the economy. Most of those production facilitys are in coal dependent areas of the county like midwest and the south. Give us a few years and well be right back to record production here in wv.

  10. rhmooney3 says:

    Scott14,

    I sure hope so, but I won’t put money on it — nor will the large coal companies. Note: There stock’s took a beating on Friday —
    http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=123762&cat=1

    Electric generation with natural gas: generating plants are cheaper to build and can be placed close to urban areas; stockpiling is not an issue; waste-disposal is not an issue; and those plants cyle (power-up and down) quickly.

    Note that many planned new coal generation plants were not built.

    Lastly, Pennslyvania has a humougous reserve of natural gas to develop – http://www.wpsu.org/gasrush/

  11. civil joe says:

    1. At first the SSC Coal Campaign (“Campuses Beyond Coal”) did not want to be involved with WVU, but the campaign went through some recent changes and is more applicable to WVU efforts now.
    2. There is an action planned at WVU in protest of dirty money from coal. Stay tuned – it looks like Monday, October 12 is the day.
    3. Anyone know an avenue to let Jim Rogers know we support his policy to move away from mountaintop removal coal?

  12. rhmooney3 says:

    (All of this would be funny if we weren’t the ones paying for it — our supposed free-markets system.)

    September 19, 2009

    The U.S. government delivered more than twice as many federal dollars to research initiatives, tax incentives and other programs benefiting fossil fuels than it supplied to renewable energy from 2002 to 2008, according to a report released Friday by two public policy groups.

    Over that seven-year period, government subsidies to fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas totaled about $72 billion, according to the study by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Environmental Law Institute. The center is a non-partisan think tank and the institute describes itself as a non-partisan research group that aims to strengthen environmental safeguards.

    The analysis comes as Congress considers an Obama administration proposal to slash tax incentives for the oil and natural gas industry. It could add fodder to arguments from environmentalists and their allies on Capitol Hill that the tax breaks the White House has targeted for elimination are giveaways to an industry that doesn’t need the help.

    The data also could help color a looming Senate debate on energy and climate-change legislation that would cap greenhouse gases blamed for contributing to global warming.

    (Continued)

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6626252.html

    September18, 2009
    U.S. Tax Breaks Subsidize Foreign Oil Production
    (Washington, DC) — The largest U.S subsidies to fossil fuels are attributed to tax breaks that aid foreign oil production, according to research to be released on Friday by the Environmental Law Institute in partnership with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. (Continued)
    http://www.eli.org/pressdetail.cfm?ID=205

    Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002-2008
    September 2009
    http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf (37 pages)

    ====

    May 12, 2008
    Today’s WSJ reports on an Energy Information Administration study detailing current federal energy subsidies. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That’s double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you’d expect given all the money Congress is throwing at “renewables.” Even more subsidies are set to pass this year. (Continued)
    http://www.volokh.com/posts/1210597265.shtml

    Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055427930584069.html

    SR/CNEAF/2008-01
    Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies
    in Energy Markets 2007
    http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/srcneaf(2008)01.pdf (274 pages)

  13. Thomas Rodd says:

    This post has generated a very civil and informative discussion. I apprfeciate it. Most posters are correctly assuming that atmospheric CO2 emission constraints are coming soon. The main uncertainty is the timetable for phasing-in those constraints. My guess is that no matter how weak or strong they start out, they will become more strict sooner than most anyone is willing to admit — as the evidence of the effects of past emissions on the climate becomes clearer, and the need for drastic action even more urgent and apparent.

  14. Red Desert says:

    Real Men Tax Gas

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20friedman.html?em

    Also, per the Reuters article in Friday’s Round-up a couple weeks ago and following along the discussion above, natural gas works better with renew ables because it can cycle up and down more quickly.

    http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/08/28/friday-roundup-august-28-2009/#more-1131)

    http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE57Q43O20090827

    The other amazing article in that Round-up no one discussed–the coal fuel cell. 70% efficient! Cycles on and off. No conventional emissions. Compare that to a 30% conventional coal plant with CCS. Lots more energy from much less coal.

    http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/08/26/26climatewire-is-there-some-light-at-the-end-of-coals-long-29519.html

  15. […] Friday roundup, Sept. 18, 2009That's especially true since if it does, the future is cofiring coal and biomass with CCS and producing negative-carbon electricity. If more money for CCS … 2009-09-18 US DOE disburses additional USD 62m in CCS stimul…Entities receiving funding in this category include the University of Kansas Center for Research, the board of trustees of the University of Illinois at … 2009å¹´9月19日星期六04:41 BJTOne potential less polluting way to burn coal is carbon capture and storage (CCS), as yet unproven on a large scale. Duke wants to study a CCS plant as part … Bellarmine looking to reload after sensational 2009 season… lineman Nico Lautmann (University of San Diego). The fab five went 10-2 as juniors, but didn't pull out an elusive CCS title come playoff time. … Menlo adding 4 to hallChris Mead finished his Menlo career with 1749 points in basketball, placing him 17th on the CCS career list, and helped lead the Knights to CCS … Multiple Presentations at the European Society of Cardiology …An oral presentation of the results of a prospective, randomized, controlled, proof-of-concept study at the ESC conducted by researchers at Charite Hospital … Menlo School names its '09 Hall of Fame classJulie Gardner helped lead the Knights to a CCS water polo championship; was selected as an All-American and section Player of the Year in 1998. … Kickoff '09: Falcons already written in as SCCAL champs, but …The results came — at least on paper. Tackle Tyler Sambrailo, who has aspirations of playing for the University of Colorado, added 30 pounds of muscle, … Amerigon and 5N Plus Establish Partnership to Develop and …CCS, which is the only system of its type on the market today, uses no CFCs or other environmentally sensitive coolants. Amerigon maintains sales and … Carrots better than sticks in building team work:D ombos Proscriptive Society – wonder if other CCs are as controlling as Oxfordshire's current Tory administration led by Cfreak Keith Mitchell? heyessa …  Videos: Ccs University Result 2009 uphsl cs cheerdancers 2009 CPU Day: CCS Poetry Choir 2009 CCS Uday 2009 Chorale… su college of computer studies- cheering ’09 general rehearsal Silliman University CheerDance Competition 2009–CCS Champion! Mr & Ms CTA 2009 part 1 Mr & Ms CTA 2009 part 1 Silliman University CCS Cheerdance 2009 RECS 2009: Stanford Professor Discusses CO2 Storage Strategies SAMAKA Party-List Candidates SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Ccs University Result 2009”, url: “http://chanelnews.org/ccs-university-result-2009-2.html” });Related NewsNavodayaNcertIndira Gandhi National Open University […]

Leave a Reply