Check out C-span right now.

Sen. Leahy presiding over Senate discussion with AG Mukasey.

Already in opening remarks, Leahy has warned against 'King George'.. maybe not enough, but it's better than last year.

Bob

Unfortunately doing evil seems to be the one thing they're good at.

Although, maybe with the economy in trouble they'll be distracted from opening up a can of worms in Iran...

I kinda' figured your hopes were along these lines, Alan.

My best hopes have been dashed on the rocks of -- ahem! -- "political reality" so many times that I truly am in a mourning mode. Not feeling sorry for myself, but lamenting the folly of our nation. Hey, it's a dirty job, but somebody has got to do it! Who better to lament than a "Beggar"?

Meanwhile, my shoulder is to the wheel and my nose is to the grindstone, working for sustainability in spite of the floods of folly.

One day, it just may be that some good will come of the positive efforts -- and if not, at least I (and so Many People!) will have put forth their best efforts.

"Atta Boy" to you Alan, and to many others who are still in there working for positive change!

What I'd really like to start seeing is RIMBY - Renewables In My Back Yard

Two things, LevinK

1) False Dichotomy. You make it sound as if the people who oppose Nuke are therefore Pro 'CleanCoal' .. Survey the Green Nimbys and convince me that they are really Pro either one.. both are dirty, and are tearing up all sorts of land and fouling waterways to access their fuels.

2) No Injuries... Keep Repeating it. In a hundred thousand years, you won't have made it true. I've linked to Native villages in the American west that have been inundated with cancers from their Uranium Mining, testimonies to the Cancers birth defects in the Ukraine, underreported reactor accidents.. Of course, we're still effecting some 'Waste Disposal' by packaging our high explosives in DU and giving it as a gift to the future generations of Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan. But that doesn't count as a peripheral effect of Nuclear Power, does it?

Bob

I'm about twenty miles south of Mattoon, and six miles west of Toledo (pop. 1100); ten acres at the end of a dead end gravel road in God’s country. Nice and isolated, but not too isolated. Rantoul has declined somewhat since they closed down the base Air Force base there. Mattoon is not doing so well either, sometimes referred to as “Methtoon”.

Really a great post, very well worded, and I agree completely.

He's not off the grid. He's got a geothermal system, and recycles graywater to irrigate his landscaping.

There was talk of possible solar panels to run the swimming pool, but they didn't do it. Wasn't practical, I guess.

Righto! Conveniently pre-sequestered!

Two related questions:

First, on a net energy basis wouldn't the increase in oil production be offset by the additional coal consumption?

Second, wouldn't the CO2 not emitted at power plants be offset by the CO2 emitted by burning liquid transportation fuels?

ff and half empty
here is a story about great point energy and peabody jv-ing on a coal to ngas project in the powder river basin:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080125/20080125005371.html?.v=1

not much detail here, but presumably the sequestered co2 would be used for oil recovery. i have heard rumors that both wyoming and montana's governors are pushing the idea.

Coal companies may like it in the short term, but as evidenced by the China's recent problems, overreliance on coal could turn devastating in the longer term. Already the railroad infrastructure is under severe strain, what about after we are presented with that additional demand? I see coal companies simply unable to fulfill their contracts and falling under both commercial and public pressure (much like oil companies are now).

There is no way utilities will like it. Half of the utilities are already operating in unregulated markets, and the additional costs is a pure loss. For the other half - first it is not that easy to receive permission for a rate hike - this has always been a sensitive political issue; second other sources like nuclear or wind may turn out better options (which is a good news). Third - it is critically dependant on what is the legislation for the old power plants - if these are required to do CS, the costs of retrofitting will be truly prohibitive. It's not realistic that this will ever happen.

What is more likely to happen is only new power plants will be required to do CS, while old ones will be scheduled for phase out. The result of course will be that utilities will ramp up old capacity as much as they can, until they can, and fight for extensions (using the threat of impending shortages) when the phase-out dates approach.

Fractional Flow -

I agree totally!

I've always been highly doubtful about carbon sequestration, but once I put pencil to paper to make a very rough guestimate of the amount of CO2 that would have to be removed, compressed, transported, and reinjected, and the amount of additional energy that would require, I've concluded that carbon sequestration is way beyond impractical ........ it's preposterous!

Another issue that doesn't get much discussion, but should be an obvious one is: not all stationary power plants are located at or near a geological formation suitable for CO2 injection, and to practice sequestration for these plants would require the pipeline transport of liquid C02 some very long distances. What are we going to do: crisscross the country with a network of CO2 pipelines comparable in size to our massive oil pipeline system?

Then we have to be concerned with the question of whether injected CO2 is going to remain where it was injected or is going to slowly migrate vertically and/or horizontally. As any geologist will tell you, moving things around in the subsurface is a very tricky proposition with many inherent unknowns.

Also, carbon sequestration is only applicable to stationary combustion sources, thus not affecting transportation at all (or until all transportation is electric).

And last but not least, the capital investment for widespread carbon sequestration will be staggering. Compared to what could be had in terms of wind, solar, energy storage technology, conservation, and other steps intended to lessen our fossil fuel usage, carbon sequestration represents a very poor investment.

But not to worry .... given how difficult it is to get even modest alternative energy projects off the ground, and given the worsening economic climate, it just ain't gonna happen. (Apart from government-sponsored demonstration boondoggle projects.)

Know about this?
http://www.eprida.com/eprida_flash.php4

Or this?
http://www.bestenergies.com/companies/bestpyrolysis.html