A Green Degree

This blog intends to bring a new perspective on all things 'green' and sustainable, covering (mostly) energy, politics, the economy & more, what I feel as the most pressing concerns we face. In short, sustainability needs to progress & become the social everyday. That's my passion, and our solution. Screw business as usual people!













    Join our Mailing List

Coal has always been the number one fossil fuel in our society’s list of burnable sunlight, which of course it simply is, which also begs the question why is solar taking so long to kick off? Sorry, going off on a tangent here, I think I’ll reserve that for another post. Back to the main subject.

Coal is by far the most worrisome and dirty of the fossil fuels, although its brother oil is not to be easily beaten in that respect, and has been utilised for centuries to provide electricity to our lights and heat our homes. Throughout this time, a frankly astounding amount of CO2 has been emitted into the surrounding environment and atmosphere, warming our planet and screwing with multiple climatic, biological and ocean-atmosphere interactions and feedbacks which we’re only just beginning to experience.

Only recently, the Mauna Loa carbon-detection research station in Hawaii, sitting high atop the largest volcano in the world, measured an atmospheric ppm value just shy of 400; that’s a massive figure. In fact this is the highest recorded atmospheric carbon content in the history of measurements, indicating that despite our best, and sometimes admirably successful attempts at culling emissions, it’s still doing its own thing.

This of course can be explained by a few important factors, most predominantly the rise of the BRIC nations, Brazil, Russia, India and China, who are pumping out carbon at a rate equivalent to the peak of our Western expansions, with many more countries joining them. Alongside this, the simple physical fact that carbon sticks around in the atmosphere for at least half a century, means that a good portion of the continued increase we are seeing is due to pollution spewed out within the past several years - even if we cut carbon emission to zero as of this moment globally, it would still keep going for up until past 2020.

So I find it strange that, in reading an article recommended via Grist today, and with the knowledge that natural gas, that lesser-of-two-evils fossil fuel (or perhaps not) is taking the energy world by storm, we still haven’t fully grasped this ‘green’ concept. 

Natural gas has been becoming increasingly popular in many developed nations who are trying to curb their carbon emissions through the cutting back of coal and oil burning, as it is not only just as readily available, but technically, and I emphasise technically, emits less carbon than coal when burnt. This is the reason that countries are adopting a more natural gas-orientated energy mix in future policy, as they see it as a way of securing stable energy sources at a reduced cost to the environment and wallets. 

Read More

Posted at 11:02am and tagged with: oil, natural gas, coal, fossil fuel, energy, US, NOAA, EPA, emissions, carbon, methane, science, burning, Environment, global warming, climate change, policy, BRIC, ppm,.

The American president and his environmental agency EPA have taken bold steps to reducing the nation’s reliance on coal-fired power plants by introducing new rules which, if upheld, will practically half the allowable emissions from these industries from the next generation of builds onwards. The cap would limit associated carbon emissions at just 1,000lbs per MW/hour, and with the average US coal plant producing in excess of 2,200lbs, that’s an extremely tall order for new builds to meet.

In effect, unless so far untested and relatively immature technologies such as carbon-capture and storage or much more efficient chimney filters are used, this rule blocks any new building of coal plants from the next year into the foreseeable future, as it would be near-impossible for engineers and contractors to guarantee that sort of target. This is not such an issue for natural gas plants, which also come under the watchful eye of the EPA and it’s new regulations, as the average emissions total ~1,135lbs and could quite easily, given better use of existing technologies, meet these targets comfortably. 

This is a crucial piece of legislation when you consider the IEA and IPCC reports warning that, unless new fossil-fuel plants are scrapped entirely before 2017, the carbon already locked-in to current and planned plants, and the addition of new builds, will guarantee to tip the climate over the oft-quoted 2˚C rise, and past that is territory we don’t want to be exploring. 

As you’d expect, the EPA has come under heavy fire from the Republicans, and even some Democrats fighting for position in coal-rich states, with many seeing it as an attempt by the state to outlaw coal for good. We all know how the Republicans like to view the planet and its resources as a bountiful goods store for humanity to pillage until empty, and to not feel bad about it in the process, simply as we are the dominant species and deserve our just rewards, and so it comes as no surprise to see them lobbying against the rule. 

But is surprising, to me at least, that this newly introduced law has made it this far at all. Until now it seemed pretty common place for Obama and his administration to announce new regulations or renewable subsidies at the expense of fossil-fuel funding, only for them to be scrapped under intense pressure from the dirty side of industry, or for them to be ‘tweaked’ to such a degree that their original purpose becomes buried under political twists and turns.

However, with the coming election period looming and America in a state of readiness to choose their next leader, those putting themselves forward from the Republican domain will no doubt fight this and the EPA with anger and ignorance, claiming renewable energy and green-tech are bad for the economy and slash jobs for the population. These comments are despite the growing scientific and political bodies stating that greening the nation actually creates jobs, in the thousands, and can save money in the long run through the lowering of fossil fuel subsidies and generation of cheap, clean electricity. Clearly this does not filter through to Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. 

It’s certainly brave of Obama, in a time when his presidency could be at its end, to announce such a ruling in a nation famed for its share of emissions and environmental ignorance, and for this he should be applauded. If the carbon cap makes it through the jostling Republicans and lobbying industrialists, it could be the turning point for America, leaving behind it’s coal-fuelled past and progressing towards a cleaner future. Then again, if it’s to be President Romney stepping up, I would probably bid farewell to the EPA and a comfortably temperate future. 

Sources - http://www.waterdefense.org/content/coal

Posted at 12:59pm and tagged with: coal, obama, EPA, republican,.