U.S. Air Force cancels plans for coal to liquid fuel project
by Sam Abuelsamid on Feb 2nd 2009 at 8:55AM
For a military forces, a steady reliable supply of fuel is critical to success. Given that, the U.S. Air Force has been investigating the idea of putting a coal-to-liquid facility at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. Coal is readily available in the continental U.S. and being able to economically produce synthetic liquid fuel would be highly beneficial to the military.
The proposals that the Air Force looked at involved having a privately-funded and -operated fuel plant on the site. However, the investigators found that the proposals would have interfered with normal operations at the base and hurt security. There were also safety concerns because of the weapons stored on site. The Air Force has chosen to abandon the idea for now, but it hasn't said whether it will pursue other alternatives for synthetic fuel production.
[Source: U.S. Air Force]
Tags: coal to fuel, coal to liquid, CoalToFuel, CoalToLiquid, us air force, UsAirForce
(6)Share
.Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1jharlan
12:11PM (2/02/2009)
Using coal in any way increases atmospheric CO2. It's never going to be carbon neutral. The argument can be made that biofuels are carbon neutral.
Reply
↓↑report2BOB DOWELL
12:30PM (3/15/2009)
It will be if they use nuclear energy to develop the fuel
↓↑report3harlanx6
2:26PM (3/15/2009)
Why not use nuclear energy? Do we need to go any further than producing electricity with it?
I don't have all the answers, but I believe those who oppose nuclear energy are a group of subversives that want the US to fail. If the French can use it safely, COME ON!
↓↑report4simms
12:21PM (2/02/2009)
You don't mention that coal to liquid fuel pollutes twice as much as oil, a backwards idea!
Reply
↓↑report5Scott
11:35PM (3/12/2009)
Your brain forgot to think that we cannot produce enough oil to guarantee enough fuel supply, hence any additional fuel we can supply increases our National Security. How much carbon/green house gas is put in the air transporting oil from the Middle East or South America to the US Tree Hugger Commy Moron?
↓↑report6BOB DOWELL
1:57PM (3/15/2009)
None of you guys are willing to park your cars and go back to horse and buggy.
You are all idealistic dreamers and refuse to be realistic.
Here is what is happening. The rest of the world has already gone 50 to 70% diesel because they are at least 30% more efficient. Every foreign car manufacturer on the US streets has a diesel version of what they sell us that they sell in the rest of the world. (I rented a Toyota rav 5 diesel in Costa Rica last year that got 60 mpg) These diesel versions get 50 to 60 mpg while we are struggling with 30 mpg. That means Americans have less money to spend on food, clothing, consumables.
If you do a little investigating, you will find out that the end result fuel that is made from coal is the cleanest purest fuel that can be made. The pollution does not come from the fuel. The co2 comes from the fact that the process takes 2 high temperature firings to convert the coal. If conventional coal or natural gas is used to produce the firings, the process does create much co2. However there is an answer that gets around that. The latest break through in nuclear energy is what is called a pebble bed reactor. The whole world is going to these because they are extremely save and produce no co2.
Oil companies do not want to go down this street because of the nightmare of permits and EPA regulations. They don't have the money. They can barely stay afloat now.
If the Obama administration was smart, which they are not) they would buy up 100 acre tracks of land in strategic places that already have the EPA permits attached. They would give the oil companies a 30% subsidy to build the plants. If the government wanted to create jobs they could set up on site housing and training for workers. Then for extra motivation they should give the oil companies a 20% tax deduction on what is sold. They should also mandate that 10% of their net profits go into the general Social Security fund.
To fuel the plants, the government should build what ever number of nuclear plants around the country with tax payers money. The plants should be a non-profit organization that only services the coal to liquid projects. The cost could be added to the end cost of making the fuel. Similar housing and training could be set up to train and house workers. Excess power could be sold to the power companies.
Oil companies are racking up RECORD profits! Barely stay afloat? Dont have the money ????
Showing posts with label nuclear energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear energy. Show all posts
Monday, July 20, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Save Birds by Promoting Wind Energy
Save Birds by Promoting Wind Energy
9 May, 2009 10:53 am Enlarge text Reduce text size Send this article
A new study shows that wind farms and nuclear power plants are substantially better for avian wildlife than fossil-fueled power stations.
One could be tempted to think, after reading the more than 600 studies about wind farms and the deaths of birds and bats read by this author the past year, that the evidence linking wind turbines with avian mortality is indisputable.
Birds, for instance, can directly crash into a turbine blade when they are fixated on perching or hunting and pass through its rotor plane; they can strike its support structure; they can hit part of its tower; or they can collide with its associated transmission and distribution lines.
We are told that these risks are exacerbated when turbines are placed on ridges and upwind slopes, built close to migration routes, or operated during periods of poor visibility such as fog, rain, and at night. Some species, such as bats, face additional risks from the rapid reduction in air pressure near turbine blades, which can cause internal hemorrhaging through a process known as barotraumas. Indirectly, wind farms can positively and negatively physically alter natural habitats, the quantity and quality of prey, and the availability of nesting sites.
Yet the deluge of studies making such claims, while useful and important, nonetheless suffers from three common problems. Studies rarely compare their results with studies of other wind farms to contextualize their estimates, instead relying on a narrow sample size. Most do not compare the possible avian deaths from wind electricity with other sources, and when they do, studies typically do not compare them to other energy sources. None have so far attempted to calculate the number of avian deaths per kWh from energy sources so that more meaningful comparisons might be made between different forms of electricity supply.
In an attempt to address some of these shortcomings, one new albeit preliminary study conducted by this author has compared the avian deaths per GWh from three electricity systems: wind farms, fossil-fueled power plants (coal, natural gas, and oil generators), and nuclear power plants.
Avian wildlife can perish not only by striking wind turbines in the ways described above, but by smashing into nuclear power plant cooling structures, transmission and distribution lines, and smokestacks at fossil-fuel fired power stations. Birds can starve to death in forests ravaged by acid rain, ingest hazardous and fatal doses of mercury, drink contaminated water at uranium mines and mills, or die in large numbers as climate change wreaks havoc on migration routes and degrades habitats.
For wind turbines, the risk appears to be greatest to birds striking towers or turbine blades and for bats suffering barotrauma. For fossil-fueled power stations, the most significant fatalities come from climate change, which is altering weather patterns and destroying habitats that birds depend on. For nuclear power plants, the risk is almost equally spread across hazardous pollution at uranium mine sites and collisions with draft cooling structures.
When these avian deaths are correlated with the units of electricity those power plants produce, some may find the results surprising. Based on real world operating experience of 339 wind turbines comprising six wind farms constituting 274 MW of installed capacity in the U.S., average avian mortality for wind appears to be about 0.269 fatalities per GWh.
Based on real world operating experience for two coal facilities as well as the indirect damages from mountain top removal coal mining in Appalachia, acid rain pollution on wood thrushes, mercury pollution, and anticipated impacts of climate change, average avian mortality for fossil fueled power stations appears to be about 5.18 fatalities per GWh.
Based on real world operating experience at four nuclear power plants and two uranium mines and mills, average avian mortality for nuclear systems is about 0.416 GWh.
In terms of birds killed per electricity produced, nuclear power is slightly worse but comparable to wind energy, but fossil-fueled facilities are about 17 times more dangerous to birds on a per kWh basis. In absolute terms, since wind turbines produced a relatively small amount of national electricity in the United States in 2006, they may have killed about 7,000 but fossil fueled stations killed 14.5 million and nuclear power plants 327,000.
Clearly, wind energy is not as bad for birds as many environmentalists make it out to be, and conventional resources are much more damaging to birds than is commonly believed.
Of course, a few caveats must be stated. Far more detailed, rigorous, and sophisticated analysis is called for that takes into account the complexities of the wind, fossil-fueled, and nuclear energy fuel cycles, and the sample size for many parts of this study is small.
Yet perhaps wind turbines seem to present a significant threat to birds because all of their environmental impacts are concentrated in one place, while those from conventional and nuclear fuel cycles are spread across space and time. Avian mortality and wind energy has consequently received far more attention and research than the avian deaths associated with coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power generators, even though this study suggests that wind energy may be the least harmful to birds.
For further reading
Benjamin K. Sovacool, “Contextualizing Avian Mortality: A Preliminary Appraisal of Bird and Bat Fatalities from Wind, Fossil-Fuel, and Nuclear Electricity,” Energy Policy 37(6) (June, 2009), pp. 2241-2248, available at http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Benjamin_K_Sovacool.aspx.
9 May, 2009 10:53 am Enlarge text Reduce text size Send this article
A new study shows that wind farms and nuclear power plants are substantially better for avian wildlife than fossil-fueled power stations.
One could be tempted to think, after reading the more than 600 studies about wind farms and the deaths of birds and bats read by this author the past year, that the evidence linking wind turbines with avian mortality is indisputable.
Birds, for instance, can directly crash into a turbine blade when they are fixated on perching or hunting and pass through its rotor plane; they can strike its support structure; they can hit part of its tower; or they can collide with its associated transmission and distribution lines.
We are told that these risks are exacerbated when turbines are placed on ridges and upwind slopes, built close to migration routes, or operated during periods of poor visibility such as fog, rain, and at night. Some species, such as bats, face additional risks from the rapid reduction in air pressure near turbine blades, which can cause internal hemorrhaging through a process known as barotraumas. Indirectly, wind farms can positively and negatively physically alter natural habitats, the quantity and quality of prey, and the availability of nesting sites.
Yet the deluge of studies making such claims, while useful and important, nonetheless suffers from three common problems. Studies rarely compare their results with studies of other wind farms to contextualize their estimates, instead relying on a narrow sample size. Most do not compare the possible avian deaths from wind electricity with other sources, and when they do, studies typically do not compare them to other energy sources. None have so far attempted to calculate the number of avian deaths per kWh from energy sources so that more meaningful comparisons might be made between different forms of electricity supply.
In an attempt to address some of these shortcomings, one new albeit preliminary study conducted by this author has compared the avian deaths per GWh from three electricity systems: wind farms, fossil-fueled power plants (coal, natural gas, and oil generators), and nuclear power plants.
Avian wildlife can perish not only by striking wind turbines in the ways described above, but by smashing into nuclear power plant cooling structures, transmission and distribution lines, and smokestacks at fossil-fuel fired power stations. Birds can starve to death in forests ravaged by acid rain, ingest hazardous and fatal doses of mercury, drink contaminated water at uranium mines and mills, or die in large numbers as climate change wreaks havoc on migration routes and degrades habitats.
For wind turbines, the risk appears to be greatest to birds striking towers or turbine blades and for bats suffering barotrauma. For fossil-fueled power stations, the most significant fatalities come from climate change, which is altering weather patterns and destroying habitats that birds depend on. For nuclear power plants, the risk is almost equally spread across hazardous pollution at uranium mine sites and collisions with draft cooling structures.
When these avian deaths are correlated with the units of electricity those power plants produce, some may find the results surprising. Based on real world operating experience of 339 wind turbines comprising six wind farms constituting 274 MW of installed capacity in the U.S., average avian mortality for wind appears to be about 0.269 fatalities per GWh.
Based on real world operating experience for two coal facilities as well as the indirect damages from mountain top removal coal mining in Appalachia, acid rain pollution on wood thrushes, mercury pollution, and anticipated impacts of climate change, average avian mortality for fossil fueled power stations appears to be about 5.18 fatalities per GWh.
Based on real world operating experience at four nuclear power plants and two uranium mines and mills, average avian mortality for nuclear systems is about 0.416 GWh.
In terms of birds killed per electricity produced, nuclear power is slightly worse but comparable to wind energy, but fossil-fueled facilities are about 17 times more dangerous to birds on a per kWh basis. In absolute terms, since wind turbines produced a relatively small amount of national electricity in the United States in 2006, they may have killed about 7,000 but fossil fueled stations killed 14.5 million and nuclear power plants 327,000.
Clearly, wind energy is not as bad for birds as many environmentalists make it out to be, and conventional resources are much more damaging to birds than is commonly believed.
Of course, a few caveats must be stated. Far more detailed, rigorous, and sophisticated analysis is called for that takes into account the complexities of the wind, fossil-fueled, and nuclear energy fuel cycles, and the sample size for many parts of this study is small.
Yet perhaps wind turbines seem to present a significant threat to birds because all of their environmental impacts are concentrated in one place, while those from conventional and nuclear fuel cycles are spread across space and time. Avian mortality and wind energy has consequently received far more attention and research than the avian deaths associated with coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power generators, even though this study suggests that wind energy may be the least harmful to birds.
For further reading
Benjamin K. Sovacool, “Contextualizing Avian Mortality: A Preliminary Appraisal of Bird and Bat Fatalities from Wind, Fossil-Fuel, and Nuclear Electricity,” Energy Policy 37(6) (June, 2009), pp. 2241-2248, available at http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Benjamin_K_Sovacool.aspx.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
clean coal ?
What is clean coal?
By: Matthew McKnight | Posted: January 23, 2009 at 8:29 AM Print Email RSS
environment
going green
greenhouse gas
What is clean coal?
matthew.mcknight
01/23/2009 08:29
Politics is full of rich oxymorons: peacekeeping missiles, business ethics and Gov. Rod Blagojevich, just to name a few. Add to those one that is being used ever more frequently these days: clean coal.
In America's industrial history, coal has been both dirty and deadly, but it has been anything but clean. The use of coal—in the old way—is still the biggest contributor to the emission of greenhouse gases—the suspected culprit of global warming. Additionally, there are other harmful byproducts of coal including: fly ash, acid rain, mercury, uranium and other harmful metals. And with the recent fly ash spill in eastern Tennessee, the idea of clean coal seems laughable. So what exactly is "clean coal?"
The answers are varied—depending on the time period you're talking about and who you are talking to.
The first example of a "cleaner" version of coal came early in the 20th century, when coal was used to power transportation (trains and boats). There were early experiments with "smokeless" coal by U.S. and British navies who prized this brand of coal for its lighter, lesser-detected smoke. Nevertheless, this "smokeless" coal was no more environmentally pure than its "dirtier" cousin.
And, prior to WWII, anthracite and bituminous coal were used in homes for cooking and heat for the same "smokeless" properties. Because coal was necessary for electricity and heat, the government, in the decades since WWII, worked to develop more efficient methods for use and to improve oversight. Since 1970, the environmental impact has lessened.
Nowadays, though, the term is used to describe its process and technology, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity offers this definition: "Any technology to reduce pollutants associated with the burning of coal that was not in widespread use prior to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990."
What is different is the process by which we extract and use coal. Since 1990, technology has rapidly improved and warranted a more specific definition for “clean coal.” Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize winner who was nominated for energy secretary, believes that there is more to be done. Nuclear power and carbon capture and storage (CCS) are seen as cleaner alternative methods to the old-fashioned ways of producing electricity and heat.
Nuclear power plants are not new, but they remain alternatives because they do not produce greenhouse gas emissions. Coal power plants burn coal to heat water and produce steam. This steam turns turbines and generates electricity. Nuclear power plants produce electricity in the same process, except that they use uranium, instead of coal, thus avoiding the byproducts of burning coal. It is odd to consider nuclear power as “clean coal technology” because it avoids the use of coal altogether.
CCS is a new method that literally captures the carbon dioxide, and it can be stored safely in ways so that it would be unable to further contribute to global warming. CCS has been tested in Europe, but major attempts in the U.S. were stopped by the Bush administration.
Despite the various notions behind "clean coal," coal, the material we still burn, has not changed. There is not yet a singular grasp on what clean coal really is or could be. All signs, however, indicate that we should and can be doing things differently.
Matthew J. McKnight is a graduate student at Georgetown University and a writer for The Root
By: Matthew McKnight | Posted: January 23, 2009 at 8:29 AM Print Email RSS
environment
going green
greenhouse gas
What is clean coal?
matthew.mcknight
01/23/2009 08:29
Politics is full of rich oxymorons: peacekeeping missiles, business ethics and Gov. Rod Blagojevich, just to name a few. Add to those one that is being used ever more frequently these days: clean coal.
In America's industrial history, coal has been both dirty and deadly, but it has been anything but clean. The use of coal—in the old way—is still the biggest contributor to the emission of greenhouse gases—the suspected culprit of global warming. Additionally, there are other harmful byproducts of coal including: fly ash, acid rain, mercury, uranium and other harmful metals. And with the recent fly ash spill in eastern Tennessee, the idea of clean coal seems laughable. So what exactly is "clean coal?"
The answers are varied—depending on the time period you're talking about and who you are talking to.
The first example of a "cleaner" version of coal came early in the 20th century, when coal was used to power transportation (trains and boats). There were early experiments with "smokeless" coal by U.S. and British navies who prized this brand of coal for its lighter, lesser-detected smoke. Nevertheless, this "smokeless" coal was no more environmentally pure than its "dirtier" cousin.
And, prior to WWII, anthracite and bituminous coal were used in homes for cooking and heat for the same "smokeless" properties. Because coal was necessary for electricity and heat, the government, in the decades since WWII, worked to develop more efficient methods for use and to improve oversight. Since 1970, the environmental impact has lessened.
Nowadays, though, the term is used to describe its process and technology, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity offers this definition: "Any technology to reduce pollutants associated with the burning of coal that was not in widespread use prior to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990."
What is different is the process by which we extract and use coal. Since 1990, technology has rapidly improved and warranted a more specific definition for “clean coal.” Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize winner who was nominated for energy secretary, believes that there is more to be done. Nuclear power and carbon capture and storage (CCS) are seen as cleaner alternative methods to the old-fashioned ways of producing electricity and heat.
Nuclear power plants are not new, but they remain alternatives because they do not produce greenhouse gas emissions. Coal power plants burn coal to heat water and produce steam. This steam turns turbines and generates electricity. Nuclear power plants produce electricity in the same process, except that they use uranium, instead of coal, thus avoiding the byproducts of burning coal. It is odd to consider nuclear power as “clean coal technology” because it avoids the use of coal altogether.
CCS is a new method that literally captures the carbon dioxide, and it can be stored safely in ways so that it would be unable to further contribute to global warming. CCS has been tested in Europe, but major attempts in the U.S. were stopped by the Bush administration.
Despite the various notions behind "clean coal," coal, the material we still burn, has not changed. There is not yet a singular grasp on what clean coal really is or could be. All signs, however, indicate that we should and can be doing things differently.
Matthew J. McKnight is a graduate student at Georgetown University and a writer for The Root
Monday, October 27, 2008
McCain commentary
What are McCains deeds, really? He has admitted to voting with Bush on at least 90% of his votes. That is not a maverick, much more like a conservative Republican/Bush party-line follower. He, like most Republicans for the last century, has been for small government and deregulation all along that allowed the rich to loot the economy to the point of us being in an international crisis! I believe he is a decent man and probably honest, altho I have my doubts about the honesty of ANY politician, in any party, these days. I am concerned about his ties with Big Oil. Big Oil is not going to push for energy alternatives that might put them out of business and probably explains why McCain has no real energy plan, other than more drilling and nuclear power, both of which will be of NO benefit for the next 8-10 years. Thats how long it will take for either one of those options to become viable and productive. In the meantime I refuse to just turn over my paycheck to the Big Oil companies and pay whatever they want. We CANNOT drill our way out of this energy crisis. The Bush policies that he has followed so closely obviously hasnt worked. We need a new direction, a new game plan.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
debate errors
McCAIN: "We can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by building 45 nuclear power plants right away."
THE FACTS: For nuclear power to lower oil dependency would require a massive shift to electric or hybrid-electric cars, with nuclear power providing the electricity. No new U.S. nuclear reactor has been built since the 1970s. Although 15 utilities have filed applications to build 24 new reactors, none is expected to be built before 2015 at the earliest. Turmoil in the credit markets could force cancellation of some of the projects now planned, much less spur construction of 45 new reactors, as reactor costs have soared to about $9 billion apiece.
— The Associated Press
___
OBAMA: "I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent."
THE FACTS: Obama constantly says this. But the independent Tax Policy Center says his plan would cut taxes for 81.3 percent of all households in 2009.
— The Associated Press
THE FACTS: For nuclear power to lower oil dependency would require a massive shift to electric or hybrid-electric cars, with nuclear power providing the electricity. No new U.S. nuclear reactor has been built since the 1970s. Although 15 utilities have filed applications to build 24 new reactors, none is expected to be built before 2015 at the earliest. Turmoil in the credit markets could force cancellation of some of the projects now planned, much less spur construction of 45 new reactors, as reactor costs have soared to about $9 billion apiece.
— The Associated Press
___
OBAMA: "I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent."
THE FACTS: Obama constantly says this. But the independent Tax Policy Center says his plan would cut taxes for 81.3 percent of all households in 2009.
— The Associated Press
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Obama shift?
Obama flatly said he favored nuclear energy – embracing it more warmly than in the past:
Obama: Contrary to what Sen. McCain keeps on saying, I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix.
Previously Obama has been more hesitant. He said at a town hall meeting in Newton, Iowa, on Dec. 30, 2007, when asked if he was "truly comfortable" with the safety of nuclear power:
Obama (Dec. 30, 2007:) I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. ... I am not a nuclear energy proponent.
He then went on to say later in the same response that he has "not ruled out nuclear ... but only so far as it is clean and safe." The energy plan Obama released in October 2007 only grudgingly conceded that more nuclear power is probably needed to reduce carbon emissions: "It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table."
Obama: Contrary to what Sen. McCain keeps on saying, I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix.
Previously Obama has been more hesitant. He said at a town hall meeting in Newton, Iowa, on Dec. 30, 2007, when asked if he was "truly comfortable" with the safety of nuclear power:
Obama (Dec. 30, 2007:) I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. ... I am not a nuclear energy proponent.
He then went on to say later in the same response that he has "not ruled out nuclear ... but only so far as it is clean and safe." The energy plan Obama released in October 2007 only grudgingly conceded that more nuclear power is probably needed to reduce carbon emissions: "It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)