Should Existing Energy Sources Ever be Denied Further Development?

[Pangloss]

Filters only keep microscopic particles, ash, and other toxins from getting into the air, or into your lungs, where ever they happened to be applied. They are used quite often and are common place, either in factories (where they remove little tiny metallic particles and ash), or sometimes in the household (removing dust). It doesn't actually make the source less polluting in and of itself though, all it does is divert the trash somewhere else. You still have to deal with disposal, and in the case of industrial filters, you can't always just dump it into the environment.

 

Until you have to start replacing them. Filters get quite dirty very quickly, especially if you are going to put them in smokestacks. And its a lot harder to recycle industrial filters because of the types of toxins that get stuck on them, so most of the time they are just simply discarded. The costs can pile up quite quickly.

 

Okies, well I appreciate the reply. Maybe I'm just tilting at the wrong windmills again. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

It still sounds to me like we need to be putting filters in smokestacks, but I guess I can see why that's no real help on the larger issue.

[iNow]

With regard to CO2 and other emissions from coal fired plants, I do believe the two issues should be separated. Technology for removing traditional polutants and particulate from stack emissions exist. Waste solids can be processed and buried. (Disposing of these waste solids is a significant problem and should not be trivialized.) CO2 emissions are not a pollutant in the traditional sense and should not be treated as such.

Well, the Supreme Court disagrees. While I would not normally cite the SCOTUS in a science discussion regarding the harmful and disasterous effects of CO2, this is a politics thread, and I am rebutting a political/policy point you made, so find it extremely relevant.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03scotus.html

In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.

Following its discussion of standing, the majority made short work of the agency’s threshold argument that the Clean Air Act simply did not authorize it to regulate heat-trapping gases because carbon dioxide and the other gases were not “air pollutants” within the meaning of the law.

 

“The statutory text forecloses E.P.A.’s reading,” Justice Stevens said, adding that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant.”

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency

The petitioners were found to have standing, the Clean Air Act does give the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases, and the EPA is required to review its contention that it has discretion in regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions—specifically, its current rationale for not regulating was found to be inadequate, and the agency must articulate a reasonable basis in order to avoid regulation.

 

In addition, the majority report commented that "greenhouse gases

fit well within

the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant."

[waitforufo]

Well, the Supreme Court disagrees. While I would not normally cite the SCOTUS in a science discussion regarding the harmful and disasterous effects of CO2, this is a politics thread, and I am rebutting a political/policy point you made, so find it extremely relevant.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03scotus.html

In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.

Following its discussion of standing, the majority made short work of the agency’s threshold argument that the Clean Air Act simply did not authorize it to regulate heat-trapping gases because carbon dioxide and the other gases were not “air pollutants” within the meaning of the law.

 

“The statutory text forecloses E.P.A.’s reading,” Justice Stevens said, adding that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant.”

 

Your point is well made and certainly appropriate in the politics section of science forums.

 

My argument was that CO2 should be treated separately from other pollutants. I see no reason why it could not be regulated separately under the Clean Air Act. Furthermore laws like the clean air act exist at the pleasure of the people. Draconian regulation would likely lead to a quick repeal or significant modification of the act. If the currently elected set of politicians were unwilling to make such a change, new ones would be elected. Most politicians are pragmatists and understand this. They also understand that the people will not tolerate a significant impact to their standard of living. This is particularly true when such draconian measures are not necessary.

 

I know that we differ significantly on the urgency of increasing global CO2 concentration. My guess however, is that an incremental approach less to your liking will be implemented.

[iNow]

Furthermore laws like the clean air act exist at the pleasure of the people. Draconian regulation would likely lead to a quick repeal or significant modification of the act. If the currently elected set of politicians were unwilling to make such a change, new ones would be elected. Most politicians are pragmatists and understand this.

 

Boy, ain't that the truth. You're right, I think we agree on much of this, only disagreeing on our sense of the urgency required to mitigate the risk caused by CO2. Cheers.

[Reaper]

I thought you might be interested in this little video here. While it doesn't talk about coal, it does go over the problems with our energy grid in general:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taDlgxlXON8&feature=related

[bascule]

And the CO2? Is that not a pollutant in your approach?

 

To be fair, clean coal technologies like IGCC can theoretically be used in conjunction with carbon capture and sequestration, however at present this is not practical at a commercial level and probably won't be for awhile.

 

--

 

Getting back to the OP...

 

Wikipedia has a nice section on the cost and reliability of IGCC. In short: it's expensive and not very reliable. That's not to say it doesn't deserve further research, but for the time being there's little reason to attempt a wide scale deployment until some pretty fundamental problems can be worked out.

[iNow]

Thanks for the info.

 

Speaking of coal being close to god (cleanliness is godliness, after all), check this out:

 

 

 

When power plants burn coal to produce energy, the coal doesn't just vanish into the atmosphere to cause global warming. No, there's a substantial amount of left-over sludge called coal ash, a nasty mess that is enriched for toxic heavy metals. It is seriously nasty stuff. This glop has to be stored, somewhere, usually piled up and walled-off, because it's not healthy for anything.

 

Behold what happens when the containment walls fail.

 

 

This is happening right now, here in the United States. Yesterday, a retaining wall failed, and 500 million gallons of coal ash — the vile grey slime in the video — poured down into the tributaries of the Tennessee River, the water supply for Chattannooga and environs.

 

We're looking at a major environmental catastrophe, bigger than any oil spill, and most of the news media are silent about it. I checked CNN, MS-NBC, even Fox News…not a word. The local newspapers have a few articles, and the regional blogs are trying to follow it, but otherwise, I guess we're going to pretend it didn't happen.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/lets_talk_about_clean_coal.php

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that the thread's title is a bit off. I think that current energy sources (such as solar, wind, geothermal, biodiesel) need to be further developed. As for the technologies that we are planning on phasing out (fossil fuels), they only need developing as much as makes sense. If we're going to get rid of them soon, it makes no sense to develop them that much. Unless the improvements can pay for themselves before fossil fuels are phased out, it would make no sense to pay for them. On the other hand, if we're going to keep them around for a while, it makes sense economically and ecologically to improve that technology.

 

However, any improvements to fossil technologies also provides competition to greener technologies, so would result in a decrease in green technology, and a longer time before they replace the fossil technologies -- so I can see why there would be strong opposition to it. Honestly, I don't think there is much room for improvement for fossil technologies, and I would rather see green technology developed.