The Red Brick Times

Conflicts over carbon emissions (and other "greenhouse gases") have led to the specter of higher energy costs. No matter how you slice it, generating electricity, moving our carcasses, and staying warm in winter all release carbon into the atmosphere.

Remember when the holy grail of combustion was only to release water vapor and carbon dioxide? Now carbon dioxide is a bad thing. That leaves hydrogen as a combustion fuel, and hydrogen generation, with current machinery, still costs more to make than it gives back. And water vapor is still a greenhouse gas.

There is still non-combustion generation (nuclear), but the ghosts of past mismanagement, plus helplessness in the face of tons of hot waste scare the neutrons out of us all. One cost factor to consider is that in the USA, every nuclear reactor ever built was a "clean sheet" redesign. There are no two US reactors that are interchangeable as far as parts, controls or management requirements are concerned. The French nuclear industry settled on a design and built lots of them, avoiding the multi-billion-dollar cost of reinventing the wheel while commonizing the systems. Yes, that is putting all of the eggs in one basket (what if something is "wrong" with the design or the parts?), but they claim to be watching the basket very closely.

So, where are we? Currently oil, methane ("natural" gas), coal and nuclear are the major commercially viable systems online around the world. Wind, water and solar are demonstration and PR window dressing as yet, and biomass is still in Oz. Fuel cells are rare and expensive, for use by space vehicles and in military applications.

The big picture - we are sucking electricity. The internet itself is all electrical ephemera. It is woven so deep into our brains that even when you KNOW there is a power outage, you reflexively flip the light switch when entering a room. Whenever someone thinks of something to say, the hand grabs for the cell phone, whether driving, eating, walking or shoveling snow. We are all contributing. You can calculate your household carbon emissions. 41,500 pounds is about average in the United States for a household of two people over a year.

Energy generation uses "stuff". Stuff includes train cars for coal, people for construction and maintenance, land for poles and wires, poles and wires themselves, and constant attention to the business of sending, shunting, switching and trading the electrons that move in the system. And we all pay for stuff in one way or another. There are fewer trees, bigger holes at the mines, delayed trains delivering food or clothing, and less money to save against future need.

Carbon is one of the costs. Future tech aside, it is here and in our faces. We may be carboning ourselves to the climate of Venus. Wait a few millenia and all will be revealed.

But what to do now, incrementally? Add surcharges for carbon. Ouch. A recent proposal by John Dingell (House of Representatives, Democrat, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee) includes a $50 per ton carbon tax. The New York Times was skeptical. Grist, in a posting titled "Killing me loudly", wonders why the Green establishment is lambasting the proposal. A coal-fired power plant emits hundreds of tons of carbon per day. Forget the $4 per gallon for gasoline we will be paying within the next 18 months (project the curves). Envision electric bills double their current rate.

It may take another decade and untold spending to tool up for power-miserly appliances, computers and vehicles to partially offset the consumer cost. How many of our current modern appliances emit heat when they are on? All waste. A car engine gets so hot you cannot get near it. More waste. A toaster uses electricity to make stiff bread in the approved 1880's fashion. It is only the radiated infrared portion of the energy that affects the bread. The convected heat and the visible glow are irrelevant to the process. How about all of those new car lots and shopping malls illuminated like the second coming of Christ?

Coal-fired plants are still the mainstay of our lives, but existing plants are mostly old, and will need to be redone or replaced within our lifetimes. Any coal-fired installation faces stiff opposition. Newer technologies have reduced oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions, particulates, mercury and sulfur. Huge catalytic converters, bag filters and electrostatic precipitators, as well as fundamental control of the combustion process have reduced emissions. But the vast scale of power generation, while making it cheap enough for most to use, still emits tons.

Here's a good article from The Frontiersman, a publication from Wasilla, Alaska (about 40 miles NE of Anchorage) titled "Any way you burn it, coal power a political hot potato".
Posted 9:40 AM by Andy (0) comments

       Comments:

Post a Comment


---