Climate 411 » Global Warming Science 2007: Ten Top Stories - Environmental Defense
Monday, December 31, 2007
Talking Heads Not Talking Climate - Dot Earth - Climate Change and Sustainability - New York Times Blog#more-118
Talking Heads Not Talking Climate - Dot Earth - Climate Change and Sustainability - New York Times Blog#more-118: "The odds that voters will be clamoring for climate leadership in meaningful numbers soon enough to limit building climate hazards are pretty low, a lot of analysts insist. For the moment, the Sunday shows, quite naturally, still focus on the issues voters care most about (war, money, health, candidates’ eating habits, race, religion, likability, gender). Can they step out in front? Should they? Will it matter?"
What Are They Waiting For?
What Are They Waiting For?: "The climate crisis will be the biggest challenge facing the next president.
But the top Sunday hosts don’t seem to think so. In 2007, they have asked: 2275 Questions
3 mentioned global warming"
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Rochester'sBiggest Business Story of the year:
Today’s Democrat and Chronicle highlights the biggest business story of the year, but this is not an easy thing to measure anymore. Hopefully, in the future all aspects of businesses, including their relationship to our environment will be heard:
Read Top area business story? Don't expect agreement (Dec 30, 07) "Frank Regan, former chairman of the Sierra Club's Rochester chapter, was especially passionate about the RG&E decision. "The PAETEC story may loom large in the public view of what visually constitutes change, but removing one of the largest coal-burning power plants in the Northeast and promising not to use coal in the upgrade will make all the other efforts the public makes ... to curb global warming worthwhile," Regan said in an e-mail. "If Russell Station just went back to coal, anything else our city did to stop global warming would have been negligible."
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Sequestration, a Slam Dunk?
Though building a new clean-coal power plant at the Huntley Station in the Town of Tonawanda (about an hour away by car) isn’t within the political purview of Monroe County, it is within our environmental sphere of influence. “Building a new clean-coal power plant at the site of the Huntley Station in the Town of Tonawanda would pump an estimated $133 million a year into the Erie County economy during its construction and a projected $94 million a year once the facility is running, a study to be released today found. (Nov 30, 07)” The Buffalo News: Business: Report lauds planned coal plant
Meaning, that if does not go well with the large-scale use of Sequestration (a silver bullet solution hailed as the savior of coal power) we will probably reap some of the consequences here in Rochester, just as we do from the power plants out West. I believe that all that we do personally to curb Global Warming will be negated if we, or anyone within our planetary influence, burns large amounts of coal for energy.
Here in Rochester, we have said no to coal. (Note: Russell Station plans change — Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. has withdrawn its application to convert Russell Station to a clean coal power plant and will instead go with the option of rebuilding the Greece site as a natural gas power plant. (September 29, 2007) Democrat & Chronicle) But, in a large weather system such as our (not to mention most of our weather drifts from west to east) what others do nearby affects our climate and air quality. Coal is a dirty power source: it emits lots of particulates which get in your lungs, a lot of carbon dioxide that has been trapped in the planet for millions of years and is release wholesale when burnt for energy) and mercury, when burnt in a power plant turns into “neurotoxin poisonous in soluble forms such as mercuric chloride or methylmercury.” –from Mercury (element) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, if sequestration does not work, then a lot of money has gone down the drain on a process of making energy from coal merely a dream—and a nightmare if these projects go ahead without a guarantee that they will be clean. There are no fully running clean-coal plants using sequestration, and one of those trying are in doubt of ever going online: Environment Report “A FUTURE FOR 'FUTUREGEN'?” The federal project known as FutureGen now has a home. The zero-emissions coal-to- hydrogen plant is to be built in Illinois. It's been in the planning stages for several years. But, there are skeptics who doubt FutureGen will ever be built.”
My point: Sequestration is not a slam dunk as a solution for Global Warming. It’s an interesting proposal, but it has not been done on a large scale and millions of dollars are being spent on this concept because we don’t want to let go of coal—not because it has been proven to work on a large scale. Also, if this ne
Meaning, that if does not go well with the large-scale use of Sequestration (a silver bullet solution hailed as the savior of coal power) we will probably reap some of the consequences here in Rochester, just as we do from the power plants out West. I believe that all that we do personally to curb Global Warming will be negated if we, or anyone within our planetary influence, burns large amounts of coal for energy.
Here in Rochester, we have said no to coal. (Note: Russell Station plans change — Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. has withdrawn its application to convert Russell Station to a clean coal power plant and will instead go with the option of rebuilding the Greece site as a natural gas power plant. (September 29, 2007) Democrat & Chronicle) But, in a large weather system such as our (not to mention most of our weather drifts from west to east) what others do nearby affects our climate and air quality. Coal is a dirty power source: it emits lots of particulates which get in your lungs, a lot of carbon dioxide that has been trapped in the planet for millions of years and is release wholesale when burnt for energy) and mercury, when burnt in a power plant turns into “neurotoxin poisonous in soluble forms such as mercuric chloride or methylmercury.” –from Mercury (element) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, if sequestration does not work, then a lot of money has gone down the drain on a process of making energy from coal merely a dream—and a nightmare if these projects go ahead without a guarantee that they will be clean. There are no fully running clean-coal plants using sequestration, and one of those trying are in doubt of ever going online: Environment Report “A FUTURE FOR 'FUTUREGEN'?” The federal project known as FutureGen now has a home. The zero-emissions coal-to- hydrogen plant is to be built in Illinois. It's been in the planning stages for several years. But, there are skeptics who doubt FutureGen will ever be built.”
My point: Sequestration is not a slam dunk as a solution for Global Warming. It’s an interesting proposal, but it has not been done on a large scale and millions of dollars are being spent on this concept because we don’t want to let go of coal—not because it has been proven to work on a large scale. Also, if this ne