Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Climate Energy Questions for Candidates

By

Jim Hansen’s (of NASA) Declaration of Responsible Stewardship: (pdf)

1. Will you support a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants that do not capture and sequester CO2?

2. Will you support legislation to transform utility rewards so as to encourage increased profitability as they help achieve improved user energy efficiencies?

3. Will you support imposition of a fair and gradually rising price on carbon emissions, so as to encourage a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, with the price determined by a political authority based on combined economic and environmental considerations?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I know some of their positions, but if anyone knows enough to make a 5 (candidate) X 3 (question) grid of yes/no/unknown, that would be really helpful.  Extra credit for links.

  2. …according to articles in Scientific American over the last couple of years there are no known methods to sequester CO_2 emissions.  Several methods have been proposed, but they have not been (I’ll put it lightly) proven.

      • StatOil reinjects CO2 that is separated from extracted natural gas.  It isn’t CO2 produced by the burning of that gas.  I’m guessing that the latter is a significantly more difficult technological challenge.

        • 1.  The right location
          2.  They’re already drilling holes

          <

          p>
          CO2 certainly is possible in general; it’s not clear if it’s safe and reliable for coal power plants yet though.

        • Look at the StatOil page, on the process tab.  As you note, they have to separate CO2 and natural gas.  They use an amine process that if memory serves is one way to do a coal plant. 

          <

          p>
          If anything, coal plant exhaust would be easier because it’s predominantly CO2.  I think the challenge comes from other trace pollutants, like mercury, etc., which you probably want to handle separately.

          <

          p>
          As mentioned in a different response, I am of the opinion (I was very up to date with the field circa 2000, but am not current) that the main issues with carbon capture & sequestration are economic.  The engineering challenges are not trivial but not horrible.  When you consider the ingenuity and knowledge the oil companies have developed getting stuff out of the ground, I have no doubt that with the proper incentives they could help Big Coal get stuff in the ground.

      • …but with a little difference.  According to SciAm, the CO_2 sequestration technology has not been shown to be effective enough to make a major difference.

        <

        p>
        I’ll acknowledge your expertise in deep-ocean sequestration, but what about facilities that are not near deep oceans?  The Gulf of Mexico isn’t particularly deep.  And facilities far inland don’t have oceans nearby.  I suppose that pipelines could be built for delivery to the ocean depths, but that would seem to be a bit inefficient.  And, in a recent issue of SciAm, there was an indication that the oceans were beginning to get saturated with CO_2.

        <

        p>
        What the SciAm articles seem to have indicated is that sequestration from facilities inland would primarily be in pits (I presume limestone pits) dug deep underground.  It is that latter technology that is still questionable.

        • Actually, I’m not big on deep-ocean sequestration, for a number of reasons.  It’s probably a little better than the status quo, but there are many other options for avoiding atmospheric CO2 that are better still.

          <

          p>
          Note that Statoil is injecting into deep saline aquifers.  You can do this on land as well; deep saline aquifers are probably a pretty good carbon trap.  You can also use old oil fields; they are known to be geologically stable!  You can even use the CO2 to force more oil out, though that’s not really helping the CO2 issue much!

          <

          p>
          The main issue with sequestration is economics. It costs more and takes more energy to capture & sequester- so you’d actually end up digging more coal, which has other environmental impacts.

          <

          p>
          The engineering aspects of capture & sequestration are not fully solved, but in my opinion are not so terribly daunting.  It’s fairly straightforward chemical + geological engineering.  Oil companies, who have a ton of expertise in said fields, could crack the nut in 2 months if the incentive was there.

          • Oil companies, who have a ton of expertise in said fields, could crack the nut in 2 months if the incentive was there.

            <

            p>
            …it would probably take 5 years or so for the nut to be implemented.  From what I have read, in some oil fields there is more than a bit of re-injection of methane (natural gas) into the ground to obtain an increase in the amount of oil extracted.  It strikes me that CO_2 could be used for the same purpose, but that doesn’t mean that the CO_2 would stay down there.

            <

            p>
            Let me ask you a couple of questions.  According to articles in SciAm, the oceans are being currently being overfilled with CO_2–another dumping ground for humans.  If so, are they overflowing with plant life (plankton, et al) which might damage the environment for fish life, which require oxygen?

            <

            p>
            Two, I’m not sure where these “deep saline aquifers” might be (I know what the words mean) but are they saline because the fresh water has been pumped out of them, and replaced with salt water?  If so, that would be a tragedy in waiting.

            <

            p>
            FWIW, I do read all of your comments on this topic, and appreciate that you are commenting here.

  3. Hello, thank  you for your questions.  I just got home from the Mass Alliance Fifth Congressional District debate, which was excellent.

    <

    p>
    Here are the answers to your questions:

    <

    p>
    I believe that the United States must put a moratorium on any new coal-fired power plants, period.  Sequestration is extremely expensive, and there is no guarantee that the carbon dioxide emisions won’t be released.

    <

    p>
    I support legislation to require utility companies to become more energy efficient, and to purchase a certain percentage of clean alternative energy (for example, wind or solar).  I am generally resistant to tax incentives or rewards to corporations for doing things that they should already be doing.

    <

    p>
    I support implementing a progressive carbon tax on the use of fossil fuels, in order to increase investment in clean alternative energy, expand subsidies for public transportation, and move consumers and corporations away from the use of fossil fuels for their energy needs.

    <

    p>
    For more information on my progressive positions on energy and the environment, please check out my position paper on these issues at http://www.jamieforc…

    <

    p>
    – Jamie

    • that currently electricity companies make more money if their customers use more energy.  Their incentives are to encourage wasteful usage of electricity by their customers… especially if that waste is during off-peak hours.

      <

      p>
      Perhaps if the electricity company was paid a “flat fee” based on how many of their customers had reliable power, then they’d instead have the incentive to discourage wasteful usage, since they’d have no marginal benefit to selling more power, but the marginal cost of more overhead.

      <

      p>
      I’m just thinking on the keys here; this isn’t a policy proposal or nothing.  It does strike me as perverse that energy companies are rewarded not on how much is accomplished with the energy, but on how much is used.  They have no stake in helping customers conserve, just the opposite!

      • I haven’t been by here too much lately, stomv.  (hey, hi!!)  So if this has been covered, my apologies, but have you been following the “decoupling” progress in MD?  There are proceeding already underway in NH and RI and considerable activity on that front in CT, VT and NY. 

        <

        p>
        And while I’m downthread from Jamie Eldridge, I’d like to say THANK YOU!!  You’ve got it just right. 

      • Some of our neighboring states have “Efficiency Utilities” – utility companies set up by the state whose mission is reducing energy use.  They essentially generate and distribute efficiency to customers (residents).

        <

        p>
        I learned a bit about EfficiencyVermont at a presentation at Solarfest a few weeks ago.  For example, one of the tips the presenter gave was, “if you want to know how much power you’re drawing, or how much you’re saving by making a chance, call EfficiencyVermont’s toll free number and they will lend you a meter you can stick on your home circuit to measure”.  Stuff like that.

        <

        p>
        We should learn from Maine and Vermont and set up a state efficiency utility whose primary mission is energy efficiency.

  4. 4) Refuse to support any legislation that encourages replacements to foreign energy sources that increase our CO2 emissions.  (Such as coal liquification).

  5. Lets remember that sequestration can mean more than pumping CO2 into the ground for “permanent” storage. Sequestration can be short, medium, long term or permanent.

    <

    p>
    Short term might be as paper (1 to 10 years), medium might be timber as in your house (perhaps 30 to 100 years) or adding C to soils. Long term, grow a new forest and don’t touch for 100 to 200 yrs. The latter has lots of appeal in that many other benefits come along too – cleaner air and water and habitat for species. The issue for forests – of course – is where is there space to do it as we are running out of land (thinking gloablly) that isn’t already needed for food. Any way we can store it buys us time to deal with climate change and puts further off into the future the possibilty of the extreme effects.

Archives