EC October 2009

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

10 participants
25 discussions

Fwd: Public News Service-WVNS story for October 12, 2009 Climate Change As An Issue Of
by James Kotcon 12 Oct '09

12 Oct '09

The Air Force considered using airplane fuel made from coal, but McGinn says it didn't work because of cost and technical issues. "The notion of coal to liquid, when you first take a look at it seems appealing, but when you look at some of the technical difficulties in actually doing it, it's pretty much a non-starter." "Wow" says Jim Kotcon. See article below. JBK >>> "Public News Service" <wvns(a)publicnewsservice.org> 10/12/2009 9:40 AM >>> Public News Service-WV October 12, 2009 Climate Change As An Issue Of National Security CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Because of the importance of the coal industry in West Virginia, climate change is usually a domestic, economic issue in that state. However, according to a dozen three- and four-star retired military officers, climate change is a serious U.S. national security threat. Retired Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn says people in failed states such as Afghanistan and Somalia often turn to extremism. And he says natural disasters like floods, droughts or hurricanes, which some people have linked to climate change, can push weak nations over the edge. "Imagine, around the world, fault lines along religious, ethnic, economic and political lines. Put a big magnifying glass on top of those fault lines, increase them in frequency and intensity, and that's what the climate change dynamic will do." McGinn says the military is moving strongly towards energy conservation and alternative fuels. He says the Department of Defense wants to save money and protect the country from the possible security threats ensuing from its dependence on imported oil, and that one possible solution is domestic, renewable energy. "The Navy is investigating use of algae-based oils for ship and airborne use. In fact they're planning on flying an F-18 Super Hornet next year, using algae-based oil." The Air Force considered using airplane fuel made from coal, but McGinn says it didn't work because of cost and technical issues. "The notion of coal to liquid, when you first take a look at it seems appealing, but when you look at some of the technical difficulties in actually doing it, it's pretty much a non-starter." Some coal executives, including Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship, have disputed whether industrial activity is having an impact on the climate. McGinn says it's already causing important water problems in parts of Central and South Asia. The U.S. Senate is now debating a bill on climate change. A report written by the CNA Military Advisory Board, which includes Admiral McGinn, is available online at www.cna.org Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/10887-1 --- To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org and put the word "remove" in the subject line.

1 0

Re: [EC] FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project
by Jim Sconyers 07 Oct '09

07 Oct '09

Very nice analysis. Two thoughts: Offshore wind is politically more palatable than onshore. There are plenty of existing examples, just not in the US. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Mon, 10/5/09, Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)FUSE.NET> wrote: From: Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)FUSE.NET> Subject: Re: FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Date: Monday, October 5, 2009, 12:28 AM In order to be precise, each specific project must be evaluated, and then it doesn't always turn out as expected. The industry seems to have an average cost of about ten cents per KWH from new state of the art plants in good locations. I believe but cannot parse the data from where I sit, that this includes the production tax credit, which effectively reduces the capital cost even though it is applied to specific KWH's generated. Offshore wind is generally thought to cost about four cents more, of which maybe two cents is recaptured due to the better wind thought to be available. There are very few existing offshore projects, and I don't know when the ones that are under construction are going to be completed, or when the industry will publicize useful information. 12 miles is a specific measure. You would have to look at the coastal maps and see how much shallow coast in good wind areas there is. I would think that in most places 12 miles offshore would be very deep, and pointless to try to do. The more important point here is that onshore wind is presently slightly cheaper than new coal without CCS, and that when you add the price of CCS new coal becomes about as expensive as nuclear power or solar PV. CCS is unlikely to become economic at any point in time. (Solar PV, by contrast, has a large potential to reduce prices substantially - the difference is that with solar we can see where research may help, and with CCS, there isn't much about it that isn't already pretty well defined, especially the energy requirements of compression and pumping). These projects represent $3.4 billion being spent on behalf of three major industries which collectively take in about a trillion dollars a year (the petroleum and gas markets are so volatile that if you want a more specific dollar amount you need to specify the year). The research projects which inject post-combustion CO2 to enhance fossil fuel recovery are NOT CCS projects, and it is good to see them included here because it illustrates the lack of credibility that the entire group of projects have. The more responsible projects here are ones such as the C6 project which is injecting into a deep saline formation. That doesn't mean it will work, and it doesn't mean it has a greater likelihood of being economically viable. It just means it isn't obvious in the course of a summary paragraph that it is going to fail the test of keeping the carbon out of the atmosphere for ten thousand years, destroy any water tables or move toxic aromatics to the surface. I think we have enough onshore wind to do most of what wind can do for us. Efficiency is the heavy lifter in the next decade. We can triple current levels by spending $9 billion per year, which is about half of what we spent on wind last year. Doing that will triple the energy savings of last year's wind, which was nearly identical to last year's efficiency. That level of efficiency spending can be sustained for several decades. We can triple it again, if we really think it matters, in which case we might run out of efficiency potential in less than twenty years (this level of spending will eliminate electric sector CO2 in about 25 years). I advocate spending as much as we can on efficiency, because each dollar saves three. Any rate increase to fund efficiency pays for sustained efficiency for as long as we want to keep on saving more money. Part of the saving should be used to fund more wind, and if we're good investors in about five years or so we should have solar that is cheap enough to pick up the major action that wind presently has. Once that happens we get to eliminate just about all CO2. There are some concerns about how to get power in the middle of the night, and while solar thermal answers that best in my mind, there are other solutions. But figuring that out is much less important than recognizing that it doesn't matter how many coal plants there are if we are cutting total use with efficiency, and building as many renewables as we can afford to. We've already achieved our first year of net reductions, partly due to the recession but partly due to efficiency and renewables. We can keep it up, and we do that best by concentrating on the right levels of investment in efficiency and renewables. CCS will never compete in that sort of an environment. - Ned Dolph Honicker wrote: Has anyone done a study on how much it would cost to put windmills 12 miles off our coast?. A recent you tube video by a Sierra Club representative detailed how they could supply all the electricity the U.S. needs, and quickly. Capturing CO2 from coal fired plants does not address the problem of mountain top removal. I suggest that we compare the costs of off shore windmills, the time it will take to bring them on line in a big way, and calculate how much CO2 can be eliminated as an alternative to this program. Has there been an eis? There should be, as this is a major federal action. Alternatives must be examined in all eis's. If we are serious about global warming, we will immediately act to solve the problem. We don't have 50 years to wait. This is another massive subsidy for the petroleum and coal industries Jeannine Honicker Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:58:57 -0700 From: doris(a)CELLARIUS.ORG Subject: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass p.ecxMsoNormal, #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass li.ecxMsoNormal, #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass div.ecxMsoNormal {margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', 'serif';} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass h2 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:18.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', 'serif';} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass h3 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:13.5pt;font-family:'Times New Roman', 'serif';} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass a:link, #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass span.ecxMsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass a:visited, #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass span.ecxMsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass span.ecxHeading3Char {font-family:'Cambria', 'serif';color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass span.ecxHeading2Char {font-family:'Cambria', 'serif';color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle21 {font-family:'Calibri', 'sans-serif';color:#1F497D;} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass .ecxMsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv1686792534 {} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass div.ecxSection1 {} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass ol {margin-bottom:0in;} #yiv1686792534 .ExternalClass ul {margin-bottom:0in;} .. Secretary Chu on Carbon Capture .Public support of CCS R&D is essential, and for this reason, $3.4 billion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money is being invested by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in CCS R&D...There are many hurdles to making CCS a reality, but none appear insurmountable. The DOE goal is to support R&D, as well as pilot CCS projects so that widespread deployment of CCS can begin in 8 to 10 years. This is an aggressive goal, but the climate problem compels us to act with fierce urgency. “ DOE Makes First Awards from $1.4B for Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage Projects 3 October 2009 The US Department of Energy (DOE) has selected 12 projects for the first round of funding from $1.4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the capture carbon dioxide from industrial sources for storage or beneficial use. The first phase of these projects will include $21.6 million in Recovery Act funding and $22.5 million in private funding for a total initial investment of $44.1 million. The remaining Recovery Act funding will be awarded to the most promising projects during a competitive phase two selection process. Projects selected include large-scale industrial carbon capture and storage projects that capture carbon dioxide emissions from industrial sources—such as cement plants, chemical plants, refineries, paper mills, and manufacturing facilities—and store the carbon dioxide in deep saline formations=2 0and other geologic systems. -- The initial duration of each project selected is approximately seven months. Projects will be subject to further competitive evaluation in 2010 after successful comp letion of their Phase 1 activities. Projects that best demonstrate the ability to address their mission needs will be in the final portfolio that will receive additional funding for design, construction, and operation. Secretary Chu on Carbon Capture Energy Secretary Steven Chu wrote an editorial for the 25 September 2009 special issue of the journal Science on carbon capture, in which he addressed the magnitude of the challenge. Noting that coal accounts for roughly 25% of the world energy supply and 40% of the carbon emissions. Chu said that it was highly unlikely that the US, Russia, China and India, which account for two-thirds of the coal reserves, “will turn their back on coal anytime soon .” ...for this reason, the capture and storage of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants must be aggressively pursued. ...The scale of CCS needed to make a sign ificant dent in worldwide carbon emissions is staggering. Roughly 6 billion metric tons of coal are used each year, producing 18 billion tons of CO2. In contrast, we now sequester a few million metric tons of CO2 per year. At geological storage densities of CO2 (0.6 kg/m3), underground sequestration will require a storage volume of 30,000 km3/year. This may be sufficient storage capacity, but more testing is required to demonstrate such capacity and integrity. ...We should pursue a range of options for new coal-fired power plants (such as coal gasification, burning coal in an oxygen atmosphere, or post-combustion capture) to determine the most cost-effective approach to burn fuel and reduce the total amount of CO2 emitted. No matter which technology ultimately proves best for new plants, we will still need to retrofit existing plants and new plants that will be built before CCS is routinely deployed. Each new 1-gigawatt coal plant is a billion-dollar investment and, once built, will be used for decades. ...Public support of CCS R&D is essential, and for this reason, $3.4 billion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money is being invested by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in CCS R&D...There are many hurdles to making CCS a reality, but none appear insurmountable. The DOE goal is to support R&D, as well as pilot CCS projects so that widespread deployment of CCS can begin in 8 to 10 years. This is an aggressive goal, but the climate problem compels us to act with fierce urgency. —Dr. Steven Chu, Science Large-scale industrial carbon capture and storage selections (by amount of DOE award) include: ConocoPhillips. ConocoPhillips will demonstrate new advancements that improve conversion efficiency and economies of scale for carbon capture systems at a petcoke-based 683-megawatt integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant adjacent to its existing refinery in Sweeny, Texas. About 85% of the CO2 from the process stream will be captured and over 5 million tons sequestered into a depleted oil or gas field. (DOE Share: $3,014,666) C6 Resources. Objective is to capture and transport by pipeline approximately 1 million tons per year of CO2 streams from facilities located in the Bay Area, Calif., to be injected more than 2 miles underground into a saline formation. C6 Resources, an affiliate of Shell Oil Company, will conduct the project in collaboration with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. (DOE Share: $3,000,000) Shell Chemical Capital Company. The objective of this project is to capture, condition, and transport by pipeline approximately 1 million tons per year of by-product and off-gas CO2 streams from facilities located along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans for geologic storage. (DOE Share: $3,000,000) Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative Inc. Investigators will demonstrate advanced amines and additives supplied by Hitachi and Dow to capture 300,000 tons of CO2 per year. Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative will be building a 600-megawatt circulating fluidized bed power plant near Rogers City, Mich. (DOE Share: $2,723,512) University of Utah. More than 1 million tons of CO2 per year will be captured from various industrial sources, compressed, and transported via two new intra-state pipelines for CO2 enhanced oil recovery and deep saline sequestration research in Kansas. Beneath each enhanced oil recovery target, a major saline aquifer spanning most of the State of Kansas will be used for CO2 injection. (DOE Share: $2,696,556) Praxair Inc. Praxair will partner with BP Products North America, Denbury Resources, and Gulf Coast Carbon Center to demonstrate capture and sequestration of CO2 emissions from an existing hydrogen-production facility in an oil refinery into underground formations for CO2 enhanced oil recovery. This demonstration will be performed at the BP refinery, and a lateral pipeline will be built to connect to Denbury’s Green Pipeline to transport 1 million tons of CO2 per year. (DOE Share: $1,719,464) Archer Daniels Midland Corporation. Archer Daniels Midland Company, a member of DOE’s Midwes t Geological Sequestration Consortium, will partner with other research organizations to demonstrate Dow ALSTOM’s advanced amine process to capture CO2 from industrial flue gases and sequester the CO2 in the Mt. Simon Sandstone reservoir. (DOE Share: $1,480,656) CEMEX Inc. CEMEX USA will partner with RTI International to demonstrate a dry sorbent CO2 capture technology at one of its cement plants in the United States. CEMEX will design and construct a dry sorbent CO2 capture and compression system, pipeline (if necessary), and injection station. This commercial-scale carbon capture and sequestration demonstration project will remove up to 1 million tons of CO2. (DOE Share: $1,137,885) Air Products and Chemicals Inc. A system to concentrate CO2 from two steam methane reformer waste streams will be designed, constructed, and demonstrated at Port Arthur, Texas. More than 1 million tons of CO2 will be delivered per year via pipeline for sequestration into the Oyster Bayou oilfield for enhanced oil recovery by Denbury Onshore LLC. (DOE Share: $961,499) Leucadia Energy LLC. Leucadia Energy and Denbury Onshore will demonstrate advanced technologies that capture and sequester CO2 emissions from an industrial source. Mississippi Gasification LLC, a Leucadia affiliate, is building a petcoke-to-substitute natural gas plant in Moss Point, Miss., to demo nstrate large-scale recovery, purification and compression of 4 million tons per year of CO2. (DOE Share: $840,000) Leucadia Energy LLC. Partnered with Denbury Onshore, Leucadia Energy will demonstrate advanced technologies that capture and sequester more than 4 million tons of CO2 emissions at the Lake Charles co-generation petroleum coke-to-chemicals (methanol) project to be located near Lake Charles, La. The project will transport compressed CO2 through a 12-mile pipeline that connects to Denbury’s Green Line pipeline system in Louisiana so that it can be used for enhanced oil recovery in the Hastings and Oyster Bayou oilfields in Texas. (DOE Share: $540,000) Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Division. Battelle researchers will partner with Boise White Paper LLC and Fluor Corporation to demonstrate geologic CO2 storage in deep flood basalt formations in the State of Washington. Fluor Corporation will design a customized version of its Econamine Plus carbon capture technology for operation with the specialized chemical composition of exhaust gases produced from combustion of black liquor fuels. (DOE Share: $500,00 0) Additionally, the Department has also made conditional selections of 16 projects that demonstrate innovative concepts for beneficial carbon dioxide use. These conditional selections are subject to additional merit reviews and technical evaluation. Resources Science special issue on carbon capture - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-AIR-CEMENT-KILN-FORUM list, send any message to: CONS-AIR-CEMENT-KILN-FORUM-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

2 1

Fw: Re: FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project
by Jim Sconyers 05 Oct '09

05 Oct '09

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Mon, 10/5/09, ROBERT KELLER <rkeller49(a)VERIZON.NET> wrote: From: ROBERT KELLER <rkeller49(a)VERIZON.NET> Subject: Re: FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Date: Monday, October 5, 2009, 2:16 PM FYI - Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium (VCERC) has studied the engineering feasibility, cost, and economic development potential of Virginia’s offshore wind resource. These studies indicate that multi-megawatt wind turbines placed beyond sight of Virginia’s beaches could provide more than enough energy to meet 25% of the state’s electricity needs by 2025, creating thousands of new jobs throughout the state, with a cost of energy less than that from a new coal-fired generating plant. George Hagerman is the Senior Research Associate at the Virginia Tech Advanced Research Institute in Arlington and VCERC Director of Research. Members of the Virginia Chapter have met and talked with Hagerman who has been working on the project for about five years. He has estimated, conservatively, that if Virginia had the will there could be wind turbines off the coast of Norfolk in six years (the Navy is looking at a wind turbine project in the area to help it meet its mandatory RPS). A link for reference information - http://www.eesi.org/071709_offshore Rick Keller Energy Chair, Mount Vernon Group, Virginia Chapter rkeller49(a)verison.net ----- Original Message ----- From: F.J. Morris To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project Also, 90% of the US population lives within 50 miles of the coast, and the near constant sea breezes are a very reliable source of energy. Off shore turbines would probably would put electricity where the population is. Of course, efficiency first. fm From: Chp & Grp Global Warming Energy Chairs [mailto:CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Jim Sconyers Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 11:13 AM To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: Re: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project Very nice analysis. Two thoughts: Offshore wind is politically more palatable than onshore. There are plenty of existing examples, just not in the US . Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Mon, 10/5/09, Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)FUSE.NET> wrote: From: Ned Ford <Ned.Ford(a)FUSE.NET> Subject: Re: FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Date: Monday, October 5, 2009, 12:28 AM In order to be precise, each specific project must be evaluated, and then it doesn't always turn out as expected. The industry seems to have an average cost of about ten cents per KWH from new state of the art plants in good locations. I believe but cannot parse the data from where I sit, that this includes the production tax credit, which effectively reduces the capital cost even though it is applied to specific KWH's generated. Offshore wind is generally thought to cost about four cents more, of which maybe two cents is recaptured due to the better wind thought to be available. There are very few existing offshore projects, and I don't know when the ones that are under construction are going to be completed, or when the industry will publicize useful information. 12 miles is a specific measure. You would have to look at the coastal maps and see how much shallow coast in good wind areas there is. I would think that in most places 12 miles offshore would be very deep, and pointless to try to do. The more important point here is that onshore wind is presently slightly cheaper than new coal without CCS, and that when you add the price of CCS new coal becomes about as expensive as nuclear power or solar PV. CCS is unlikely to become economic at any point in time. (Solar PV, by contrast, has a large potential to reduce prices substantially - the difference is that with solar we can see where research may help, and with CCS, there isn't much about it that isn't already pretty well defined, especially the energy requirements of compression and pumping). These projects represent $3.4 billion being spent on behalf of three major industries which collectively take in about a trillion dollars a year (the petroleum and gas markets are so volatile that if you want a more specific dollar amount you need to specify the year). The research projects which inject post-combustion CO2 to enhance fossil fuel recovery are NOT CCS projects, and it is good to see them included here because it illustrates the lack of credibility that the entire group of projects have. The more responsible projects here are ones such as the C6 project which is injecting into a deep saline formation. That doesn't mean it will work, and it doesn't mean it has a greater likelihood of being economically viable. It just means it isn't obvious in the course of a summary paragraph that it is going to fail the test of keeping the carbon out of the atmosphere for ten thousand years, destroy any water tables or move toxic aromatics to the surface. I think we have enough onshore wind to do most of what wind can do for us. Efficiency is the heavy lifter in the next decade. We can triple current levels by spending $9 billion per year, which is about half of what we spent on wind last year. Doing that will triple the energy savings of last year's wind, which was nearly identical to last year's efficiency. That level of efficiency spending can be sustained for several decades. We can triple it again, if we really think it matters, in which case we might run out of efficiency potential in less than twenty years (this level of spending will eliminate electric sector CO2 in about 25 years). I advocate spending as much as we can on efficiency, because each dollar saves three. Any rate increase to fund efficiency pays for sustained efficiency for as long as we want to keep on saving more money. Part of the saving should be used to fund more wind, and if we're good investors in about five years or so we should have solar that is cheap enough to pick up the major action that wind presently has. Once that happens we get to eliminate just about all CO2. There are some concerns about how to get power in the middle of the night, and while solar thermal answers that best in my mind, there are other solutions. But figuring that out is much less important than recognizing that it doesn't matter how many coal plants there are if we are cutting total use with efficiency, and building as many renewables as we can afford to. We've already achieved our first year of net reductions, partly due to the recession but partly due to efficiency and renewables. We can keep it up, and we do that best by concentrating on the right levels of investment in efficiency and renewables. CCS will never compete in that sort of an environment. - Ned Dolph Honicker wrote: Has anyone done a study on how much it would cost to put windmills 12 miles off our coast?. A recent you tube video by a Sierra Club representative detailed how they could supply all the electricity the U.S. needs, and quickly. Capturing CO2 from coal fired plants does not address the problem of mountain top removal. I suggest that we compare the costs of off shore windmills, the time it will take to bring them on line in a big way, and calculate how much CO2 can be eliminated as an alternative to this program. Has there been an eis? There should be, as this is a major federal action. Alternatives must be examined in all eis's. If we are serious about global warming, we will immediately act to solve the problem. We don't have 50 years to wait. This is another massive subsidy for the petroleum and coal industries Jeannine Honicker Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:58:57 -0700 From: doris(a)CELLARIUS.ORG Subject: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] FW: 1st Cement Plant CO2 Sequestration Project To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG .. Secretary Chu on Carbon Capture .Public support of CCS R&D is essential, and for this reason, $3.4 billion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money is being invested by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in CCS R&D...There are many hurdles to making CCS a reality, but none appear insurmountable. The DOE goal is to support R&D, as well as pilot CCS projects so that widespread deployment of CCS can begin in 8 to 10 years. This is an aggressive goal, but the climate problem compels us to act with fierce urgency. “ DOE Makes First Awards from $1.4B for Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage Projects 3 October 2009 The US Department of Energy (DOE) has selected 12 projects for the first round of funding from $1.4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the capture carbon dioxide from industrial sources for storage or beneficial use. The first phase of these projects will include $21.6 million in Recovery Act funding and $22.5 million in private funding for a total initial investment of $44.1 million. The remaining Recovery Act funding will be awarded to the most promising projects during a competitive phase two selection process. Projects selected include large-scale industrial carbon capture and storage projects that capture carbon dioxide emissions from industrial sources—such as cement plants, chemical plants, refineries, paper mills, and manufacturing facilities—and store the carbon dioxide in deep saline formations=2 0and other geologic systems. -- The initial duration of each project selected is approximately seven months. Projects will be subject to further competitive evaluation in 2010 after successful comp letion of their Phase 1 activities. Projects that best demonstrate the ability to address their mission needs will be in the final portfolio that will receive additional funding for design, construction, and operation. Secretary Chu on Carbon Capture Energy Secretary Steven Chu wrote an editorial for the 25 September 2009 special issue of the journal Science on carbon capture, in which he addressed the magnitude of the challenge. Noting that coal accounts for roughly 25% of the world energy supply and 40% of the carbon emissions. Chu said that it was highly unlikely that the US, Russia , China and India , which account for two-thirds of the coal reserves, “will turn their back on coal anytime soon .” ...for this reason, the capture and storage of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants must be aggressively pursued. ...The scale of CCS needed to make a sign ificant dent in worldwide carbon emissions is staggering. Roughly 6 billion metric tons of coal are used each year, producing 18 billion tons of CO2. In contrast, we now sequester a few million metric tons of CO2 per year. At geological storage densities of CO2 (0.6 kg/m3), underground sequestration will require a storage volume of 30,000 km3/year. This may be sufficient storage capacity, but more testing is required to demonstrate such capacity and integrity. ...We should pursue a range of options for new coal-fired power plants (such as coal gasification, burning coal in an oxygen atmosphere, or post-combustion capture) to determine the most cost-effective approach to burn fuel and reduce the total amount of CO2 emitted. No matter which technology ultimately proves best for new plants, we will still need to retrofit existing plants and new plants that will be built before CCS is routinely deployed. Each new 1-gigawatt coal plant is a billion-dollar investment and, once built, will be used for decades. ...Public support of CCS R&D is essential, and for this reason, $3.4 billion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money is being invested by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in CCS R&D...There are many hurdles to making CCS a reality, but none appear insurmountable. The DOE goal is to support R&D, as well as pilot CCS projects so that widespread deployment of CCS can begin in 8 to 10 years. This is an aggressive goal, but the climate problem compels us to act with fierce urgency. —Dr. Steven Chu, Science Large-scale industrial carbon capture and storage selections (by amount of DOE award) include: ConocoPhillips. ConocoPhillips will demonstrate new advancements that improve conversion efficiency and economies of scale for carbon capture systems at a petcoke-based 683-megawatt integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant adjacent to its existing refinery in Sweeny , Texas . About 85% of the CO2 from the process stream will be captured and over 5 million tons sequestered into a depleted oil or gas field. (DOE Share: $3,014,666) C6 Resources. Objective is to capture and transport by pipeline approximately 1 million tons per year of CO2 streams from facilities located in the Bay Area, Calif. , to be injected more than 2 miles underground into a saline formation. C6 Resources, an affiliate of Shell Oil Company, will conduct the project in collaboration with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. (DOE Share: $3,000,000) Shell Chemical Capital Company. The objective of this project is to capture, condition, and transport by pipeline approximately 1 million tons per year of by-product and off-gas CO2 streams from facilities located along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans for geologic storage. (DOE Share: $3,000,000) Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative Inc. Investigators will demonstrate advanced amines and additives supplied by Hitachi and Dow to capture 300,000 tons of CO2 per year. Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative will be building a 600-megawatt circulating fluidized bed power plant near Rogers City, Mich. (DOE Share: $2,723,512) University of Utah. More than 1 million tons of CO2 per year will be captured from various industrial sources, compressed, and transported via two new intra-state pipelines for CO2 enhanced oil recovery and deep saline sequestration research in Kansas . Beneath each enhanced oil recovery target, a major saline aquifer spanning most of the State of Kansas will be used for CO2 injection. (DOE Share: $2,696,556) Praxair Inc. Praxair will partner with BP Products North America, Denbury Resources, and Gulf Coast Carbon Center to demonstrate capture and sequestration of CO2 emissions from an existing hydrogen-production facility in an oil refinery into underground formations for CO2 enhanced oil recovery. This demonstration will be performed at the BP refinery, and a lateral pipeline will be built to connect to Denbury’s Green Pipeline to transport 1 million tons of CO2 per year. (DOE Share: $1,719,464) Archer Daniels Midland Corporation. Archer Daniels Midland Company, a member of DOE’s Midwes t Geological Sequestration Consortium, will partner with other research organizations to demonstrate Dow ALSTOM’s advanced amine process to capture CO2 from industrial flue gases and sequester the CO2 in the Mt. Simon Sandstone reservoir. (DOE Share: $1,480,656) CEMEX Inc. CEMEX USA will partner with RTI International to demonstrate a dry sorbent CO2 capture technology at one of its cement plants in the United States . CEMEX will design and construct a dry sorbent CO2 capture and compression system, pipeline (if necessary), and injection station. This commercial-scale carbon capture and sequestration demonstration project will remove up to 1 million tons of CO2. (DOE Share: $1,137,885) Air Products and Chemicals Inc. A system to concentrate CO2 from two steam methane reformer waste streams will be designed, constructed, and demonstrated at Port Arthur , Texas . More than 1 million tons of CO2 will be delivered per year via pipeline for sequestration into the Oyster Bayou oilfield for enhanced oil recovery by Denbury Onshore LLC. (DOE Share: $961,499) Leucadia Energy LLC. Leucadia Energy and Denbury Onshore will demonstrate advanced technologies that capture and sequester CO2 emissions from an industrial source. Mississippi Gasification LLC, a Leucadia affiliate, is building a petcoke-to-substitute natural gas plant in Moss Point , Miss. , to demo nstrate large-scale recovery, purification and compression of 4 million tons per year of CO2. (DOE Share: $840,000) Leucadia Energy LLC. Partnered with Denbury Onshore, Leucadia Energy will demonstrate advanced technologies that capture and sequester more than 4 million tons of CO2 emissions at the Lake Charles co-generation petroleum coke-to-chemicals (methanol) project to be located near Lake Charles , La. The project will transport compressed CO2 through a 12-mile pipeline that connects to Denbury’s Green Line pipeline system in Louisiana so that it can be used for enhanced oil recovery in the Hastings and Oyster Bayou oilfields in Texas . (DOE Share: $540,000) Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Division. Battelle researchers will partner with Boise White Paper LLC and Fluor Corporation to demonstrate geologic CO2 storage in deep flood basalt formations in the State of Washington . Fluor Corporation will design a customized version of its Econamine Plus carbon capture technology for operation with the specialized chemical composition of exhaust gases produced from combustion of black liquor fuels. (DOE Share: $500,00 0) Additionally, the Department has also made conditional selections of 16 projects that demonstrate innovative concepts for beneficial carbon dioxide use. These conditional selections are subject to additional merit reviews and technical evaluation. Resources Science special issue on carbon capture - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-AIR-CEMENT-KILN-FORUM list, send any message to: CONS-AIR-CEMENT-KILN-FORUM-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2414 - Release Date: 10/05/09 06:19:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

Fwd: Chapter position on proposed change to national Sierra Club policy on drilling for natural gas
by James Kotcon 05 Oct '09

05 Oct '09

Ross: I am forwarding this message to the rest of our Chapter Energy Committee for comment. We are also quite concerned about Marcellus shale gas, as West Virginia has weaker regulation and enforcement than many surrounding states. We are experiencing problems with brine disposal, fracing fluids, and more, not to mention the unscrupulous land agents that are now engaged in a land rush to buy up mineral rights from surface property owners. We through the West Virginia Environmental Council) are including a "Surface Owners Bill of Rights" on our legislative agenda in the state capitol because the problems are so widespread. We also have widespread problems with coal-bed methane, although the issue of mountaintop removal mining for coal remains our top coal-related priority. Thanks for bringing your position to our attention, as I am sure the Chapter will want to comment on this. Jim Kotcon 304-293-8822 (office) 304-594-3322 (home) >>> Ross Gould <rgouldesq(a)gmail.com> 10/4/2009 11:55 PM >>> Fellow Sierran: My name is Ross Gould.I am a representative from the Atlantic Chapter's Natural Gas Task Force and I have been asked to contact chapter leaders on this important issue.I am reaching out to you because the national club is suggesting a major change in Sierra Club’s 2006 Energy Resources Policyand to implement a new Sierra Club policy regarding unconventional sources of natural gas, namely “deep shale gas” as a transitional fuel. The conclusion, that “gas from shales and tight sandstones is an acceptable transitional fuel if produced using best practices to limit environmental damage” represents a major shift in policy from the Sierra Club’s 2006Energy Resources Policywhere “new onshore natural gas” was specifically categorized as “resources opposed by the Sierra Club.” The previous policy only condoned the use of natural gas from existing fieldsas an acceptable transitional fuel. The Club's proposed policy can be found at: http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/conservation/policy/unconventional-natural-… The comment period on this proposed policy ends on October 10, 2009. The Atlantic Chapter takes this change seriously, as the rush to produce in the Marcellus and Utica shale formations threatens to transform as much as a third of New York State into a grid work of pipelines and well pads. We have yet to see evidence that this type of extraction can be executed in a manner that is sufficiently protective of our air, water, and remaining wild places. In the past year the chapter has successfully campaigned against the expansion of natural gas extraction resulting in the State mandated environmental review the process, which has also served as a de facto moratorium for new well permits since July of 2008. We are concerned that this change in national Sierra Club policy will undermine our credibility with grass roots activists through out the state who do not share the sentiment that their water, air and landscape should be sacrificed for the advancement of a transitional fuel. Our Chapter is against this proposed policy change. We are reaching out to other chapters around the country to get a feel for their position. I have attached a copy of our Chapter's recent resolution relating to Shale Gas drilling. I have also attached an article from Scientific American which outlines water pollution and other threats related to drilling for natural gas. We look forward to your response, your comments and discovering your chapter's position on this significant policy change. Please note that the comment period on this proposed serious policy change ends on October 10, 2009.We are reaching out to ask for your support in our proposed policy and for your chapter to submit comments opposing this significant change in policy. Thank you,Ross -- Ross H. Gould 10 Park Ave, 5L New York, NY 10016 T: 917-658-7144 E: rgouldesq(a)gmail.com ~ Think green. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail ~

1 0

Fwd: A new month and a new chance to get your story out
by Paul Wilson 02 Oct '09

02 Oct '09

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: West Virginia News Service WVNS <wvnsnews(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 11:53 AM Subject: A new month and a new chance to get your story out To: Hi Friends, October is suddenly on us and I'm looking for stories. Let me know if you have anything that you want to get out... drh -- West Virginia News Service (WVNS) Toll Free: 1-800-317-6705 Fax: 540-301-0801 E-mail: wvns(a)publicnewsservice.org -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC October 2009