Attention fans of coal, singing or otherwise: here's an important announcement by the city of Los Angeles:
...commissioners at the Department of Water and Power moved forward with plans to dump the utility's interest in a coal-burning plant in Arizona and convert another one in Utah to natural gas. The plants provide nearly 40% of the city's energy.
The changes, coupled with new commitments to renewable power, would make the city coal-free by 2025, utility officials said.
While clearly a victory for the environment, L.A's decision seriously undermines the message of the Clean Coal Carolers, those jolly carbon crooners from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity who were so gleefully dismantled on this show four years ago. Obviously, if the C.C.C. chooses to respond musically to these developments, you'll see it here first.
Leave a Comment:
Highly efficient, very clean, climate change-friendly coal energy is possible. What it ain't is cheap, and that's what natural gas is these days.
Let's remember that natural gas is not climate change friendly. It could be made so by cracking off the carbon during refinement, and that this process is current technology. (It's how most of the nation's hydrogen is produced). What we are not doing is sequestration, or making it economically viable for companies who could sequester to compete with those who do not.
Clean coal and fracking sittin' in a tree...watching solar panals and wind mills spinning free...hopefully...renewable means survival.
At least there is no fly-ash problem with the natural gas.
With or without fly-ash, the truth is that we are rapidly accelerating CO2 production.
So after the global climate devastation and loss of life comparable to that of a nuclear war, we can console ourselves that at least their won't be a fly ash problem?
Natural gas is taking over from coal because it is cheaper, and that is because of fracking. Using only the hydrogen in natural gas would totally reverse this. The LA decision is economic and has little to do with CO2 reduction or probably any environmental issue, although any such incidental advantages may be prominent politically.
Does Los Angeles avoid California's cap and trade program by purchasing power from an out of state producer of CO2? It would be an obvious dodge, so I would think that the Utah and Arizona installations would be subject to the constraints of the program.
If so, that would defray the costs of the sequestration of the CO2 released when steam is blown at high temperatures into the natural gas to release the hydrogen. Formula for chemistry geeks:
CH4 + (2)H2O ⇌ CO2 + (4) H2
good job LA.
And of course we know who the lead singer of the Clean Coal Carolers is - that fine baritone Barack Obama, been singing the tune since 2004 that I know of.
Maybe the carolers could sing about Fracky the Gas Man and his explosive personality.
I am so sick of hearing about "clean" coal. There is no such thing.
"Clean coal" is an excellent example of an oxymoron.
Coal fired power plants are much more labor intensive then gas fired plants. Good for jobs and not so good for the environment.
We're paying thru the noze for energy out here, but Clean Coal is a bleepin' joke.