FOLLOWING IS AN ARTICLE IN "ENERGY INSIDER" PUBLISHED TODAY BY EMAIL, WHICH OUTLINES THE CRITICISM WE WOULD FACE IF WE REFUSE TO AT LEAST ALLOW THE "EXPERIMENT" WITH CSS GO FORWARD.

________________

*Coal on Front Burner*

* January 05, 2009* Running for office is one matter. Governing divergent interests is quite another. That's something in which the future Obama administration is now coming to grips.

http://www.energyblogs.com/site/blog_this.cfm?article_type=4&article_id=619

The administration has painted itself green. But it is now trying to avoid doing so at the expense of the coal industry, which provides about 50 percent of the fuel to run this country's electric generation. And while the president-elect has said that he supports the advancement of modern, cleaner coal technologies, his nomination of Steven Chu as the secretary of the Department of Energy is controversial.

The Nobel Prize-winning physicist who is also the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a Stanford University professor said publicly before his appointment that "coal is my worst nightmare." In the same speech, delivered last April, Chu goes on to recognize coal's dominant role in the energy portfolio but cautions that existing carbon capture and sequestration pilot projects are unproven and far too small given the gravity of the situation.

"We won't run out of energy, but there's enough carbon in the ground to really cook us," Chu says. "It's sort of a research and development issue. I think we have to do this if we're going to go forward with coal, but it's not a guarantee that we have a solution with coal." In earlier talks, however, he is quoted as saying that such carbon capture and storage technologies "can play a central role" in the battle against climate change.

The energy secretary nominee will be in a position to influence the administration. But he will be part of a team that develops energy and environmental policies and one that will reflect the tenor and philosophy of Barack Obama. Therefore, the speech given during Chu's research and scholarly days is largely irrelevant.

Nevertheless, the comments are bound to get increasing attention during the confirmation process and will assuredly frame the debate on climate change. President-elect Obama has vowed to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to 1990 levels. And by 2050, he has said the goal is to reduce them by 80 percent.

Toward that end, he has said he will invest hundred of millions in modern coal facilities that have the potential to drastically pollute less. Obama has also said he will tell the Energy Department to begin anew the development of commercial-scale coal facilities that have the potential to capture and store carbon dioxide -- something that Chu said earlier would be opposed by community organizations that fear those releases could bubble up to the surface and cause horrible repercussions.

"If you're concerned about radiation, coal might be worse than a nuclear reactor," Chu remarked in the speech. "It's worse in every other respect."

*The Tightrope*

Power companies contribute about a third of all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, according to the Congressional Research Service. While older coal-fired facilities could be retrofitted so as to trap those emissions, those remedies are expensive and less efficient than building modern coal plants called integrated gasification combined cycle plants, commonly referred to as coal gasification.

Such plants scrub the mercury, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide before they would separate the remaining byproducts: carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which could be used to power everything from cars to power plants. The largest demonstration projects are in Norway, where Statoil is placing 1 million tons of carbon dioxide per year into a saline aquifer deep in the North Sea, and in Canada, where the carbon dioxide is going into the Weyburn Oil field.

In this country, American Electric Power says that it will follow a dual course of retrofitting its older coal-fired plants while also building modern facilities that have the potential to capture carbon emissions. Meantime, ConocoPhillips, General Electric and Shell Corp. are spending billions to develop not just coal gasification technologies but also the tools to bury carbon dioxide.

Some environmental groups say that clean coal and specifically carbon capture is a pipe dream fueled by the coal industry and utilities. Others are taking a wait-and-see approach. But the one common position that the environmentalists hold is that lawmakers must better respect science in the effort to craft energy laws and that the regulatory bodies must be more aggressive in their approach to enforcing those rules.

Those groups universally object to greater coal development unless the associated heat-trapping emissions can be sequestered. By nearly all accounts, such technologies are at least two decades off, prompting green organizations to say that private interests are not spending enough of its own resources to bring this about sooner. They generally applaud the nomination of Director Chu to energy secretary, noting that he will champion science over politics during cabinet meetings.

Coal industry reps say that they look forward to working with the new administration and laud the announcements that it will channel resources into "clean coal" projects. They, in turn, are critical of those environmental groups that say such projects are a "myth," noting that the nation's energy demands are growing and it therefore requires more base-load electric generation -- something coal is well-positioned to provide.

"By working to kill investment in clean coal technologies, they will prevent construction of new base-load power plants that experts say America needs in order to maintain the health of our electricity grid," says Roy Innis, chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality. "That increases the possibility of blackouts. And that puts families and lives at increased risk."

Pleasing all sides will be impossible. But the president-elect will try, pledging to make this nation as green as it can be while leveraging its existing natural resources and pushing utilities to use modern technologies.

More information is available from Energy Central:

- Underground Treasure - Coal Gasification Revisited, EnergyBiz, Nov/Dec 2008http://energycentral.fileburst.com/EnergyBizOnline/2008-6-nov-dec/Tech_Front_Underground_Treasure.pdf

- Deep Sea Injection - A Place for Carbon Dioxide, EnergyBiz, Nov/Dec 2008http://energycentral.fileburst.com/EnergyBizOnline/2008-6-nov-dec/Tech_Front_Deep_Sea.pdf

- The Lure of Ultra-Supercritical - Exploring the Future of Coal-Burning, EnergyBiz, Sept/Oct 2008http://energycentral.fileburst.com/EnergyBizOnline/2008-5-sep-oct/Tech_Frontier_Ultra-Supercritical.pdf

_________________

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com wrote:

I ditto Bill.

Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 603.969.6712

Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

--- On *Mon, 1/5/09, William V. DePaulo, Esq. william.depaulo@gmail.com*wrote:

From: William V. DePaulo, Esq. william.depaulo@gmail.com Subject: Re: [EC] AEP DRAFT PERMIT FOR SEQUESTRATION OF CO2 To: Duane330@aol.com Cc: ec@osenergy.org Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 12:01 PM

Duane

I understand your opposition in general. But the position you outline basically requires the Sierra Club to refuse to subject its position on carbon sequestration and storage (CSS) to any test. The reality is that DEP is VERY LIKELY BORDERING ON CERTAIN to grant the permit as drafted. Why not acknowledge that it is a test of the hypothesis and simply condition the issuance on full access to all technical data.

Ask the technical question: *How will AEP or anybody else determine whether or not CSS works?*

There have got to be objective outputs that say "YES" or "NO" to that question.

If we oppose this as a test, what is our response when they say we just don't want to confront any "inconvenient truths" that contradict our preconception?

Why not let them *prove* us right?

Yes, it's likely that, regardless of the data, AEP will report the test as a "sucess", but if we have equal access to the data, we will be in a position to independently assess it and draw our own conclusion.

I think that is the most advantageous posture to be in, especially if the permit is going to be issued anyway.

Bill

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Duane330@aol.com wrote:

...

In a message dated 1/3/2009 2:41:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, william.depaulo@gmail.com writes:

I have stated earlier my belief that we should not object, per se, to the issuance of the permit. However, I believe we should insist on complete transparency, i.e., total access by all to the data collected to see if this well effectively captures CO2.

Please let me know what thoughts you have on this issue.

BILL, ET AL........... SEEMS TO ME THAT SOMEONE OR SOME ORGANIZATION SHOULD OBJECT BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS.

I BELIEVE THAT CO2 SEQUESTRATION HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO BE AN AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY (TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE), PRACTICAL (ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE), SAFE ( NEAR TERM RELIABLE), OR PERMANENT (LONG TERM RELIABLE).

THEREFORE, IF THIS APPROACH WERE APPROVED BY THE P.S.C., IT WOULD BE AT SUBSTANTIAL PERIL TO THE STATE. IT WOULD INDICATE TO THE WORLD THAT OUR STATE IS OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY. SUCH APPROVAL WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR A.E.P. TO BUILD THE FACILITY AND THEN TAKE THE POSITION THAT THEY WOULD THEN PRACTICE SEQUESTRATION AS SOON AS IT BECOMES FEASIBLE AND RELIABLE, AND WHO KNOWS WHEN OR WHETHER THIS WILL EVER BE THE CASE.

duane nichols

---

New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlineshttp://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026 .

-- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo@gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

---

EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

Let me be clear that I am not saying we should "support" this. Rather I am saying we should state clearly our expectation that CSS won't work. But I am also saying that our expectation that it won't is no more defensible in the absence of empirical data than is AEP's expectation that it will. The key is empirical data.

If there are identifiable hazards somebody needs to speak up and identify them. From the files released by DEP it looks like a bunch of landowners in the area consented to the UIC well - possibly without adequate info.

I don't think it is germane that other orgs oppose or support the proposed well.

Note that the public hearing is Jan 20 and the comment period is thru Jan 30.

I will file comments in my own name and/or the name of Keeper of the Mountains Foundation along the lines outlined above. Let me know if Sierra wants to join.

Bill Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message----- From: "James Kotcon" jkotcon@wvu.edu

Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:22:47 To: Duane330@aol.com; Esq. William V. DePaulowilliam.depaulo@gmail.com Cc: ec@osenergy.org Subject: Re: [EC] AEP DRAFT PERMIT FOR SEQUESTRATION OF CO2

We need to think this one through very carefully.

On the one hand, Bill is correct in that WV-DEP is almost certain to issue a permit. They view their job as issuing permits, not denying them. In that respect, it is a much harder agency to work with than the PSC.

On the other hand, several local and state environmental groups are going to oppose this, and I predict that this will become very "political". The argument that "this is only a test" will not fly among those citizens who will have to live with the dangers of this in their back yard. How do we respond to the argument that, if we like it so well, do the test in our backyard?

I am perfectly OK with us taking some heat for supporting this, if we do our homework and are truly convinced that it is the right thing to do. I am against a knee jerk response in either direction where we lose credibility by supporting or opposing something without having considered all available facts.

I am inclined to suggest a "sequestration subcommittee" of the Energy Committee to prepare a comment letter, so that we do not all get bogged down in every issue.

Any volunteers?

JBK

...

...

"William V. DePaulo, Esq." william.depaulo@gmail.com 1/5/2009 12:01 PM >>>

Duane

I understand your opposition in general. But the position you outline basically requires the Sierra Club to refuse to subject its position on carbon sequestration and storage (CSS) to any test. The reality is that DEP is VERY LIKELY BORDERING ON CERTAIN to grant the permit as drafted. Why not acknowledge that it is a test of the hypothesis and simply condition the issuance on full access to all technical data.

Ask the technical question: *How will AEP or anybody else determine whether or not CSS works?*

There have got to be objective outputs that say "YES" or "NO" to that question.

If we oppose this as a test, what is our response when they say we just don't want to confront any "inconvenient truths" that contradict our preconception?

Why not let them *prove* us right?

Yes, it's likely that, regardless of the data, AEP will report the test as a "sucess", but if we have equal access to the data, we will be in a position to independently assess it and draw our own conclusion.

I think that is the most advantageous posture to be in, especially if the permit is going to be issued anyway.

Bill

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Duane330@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 1/3/2009 2:41:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, william.depaulo@gmail.com writes:

I have stated earlier my belief that we should not object, per se, to the issuance of the permit. However, I believe we should insist on complete transparency, i.e., total access by all to the data collected to see if this well effectively captures CO2.

Please let me know what thoughts you have on this issue.

BILL, ET AL........... SEEMS TO ME THAT SOMEONE OR SOME ORGANIZATION SHOULD OBJECT BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS.

I BELIEVE THAT CO2 SEQUESTRATION HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO BE AN AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY (TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE), PRACTICAL (ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE), SAFE ( NEAR TERM RELIABLE), OR PERMANENT (LONG TERM RELIABLE).

THEREFORE, IF THIS APPROACH WERE APPROVED BY THE P.S.C., IT WOULD BE AT SUBSTANTIAL PERIL TO THE STATE. IT WOULD INDICATE TO THE WORLD THAT OUR STATE IS OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY. SUCH APPROVAL WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR A.E.P. TO BUILD THE FACILITY AND THEN TAKE THE POSITION THAT THEY WOULD THEN PRACTICE SEQUESTRATION AS SOON AS IT BECOMES FEASIBLE AND RELIABLE, AND WHO KNOWS WHEN OR WHETHER THIS WILL EVER BE THE CASE.

duane nichols

---

New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlineshttp://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026 .