Comments on: Environmental project in Northern Michigan holds promise for energy future http://greatlakesecho.org/2009/03/28/environmental-project-in-northern-michigan-holds-promise-for-energy-future/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:59:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: William Funsch http://greatlakesecho.org/2009/03/28/environmental-project-in-northern-michigan-holds-promise-for-energy-future/comment-page-1/#comment-366 William Funsch Wed, 27 May 2009 20:23:09 +0000 http://greatlakeswiki.org/beta/?p=766#comment-366 To learn more about alternative energy and coal energy in Michigan check out co-opconversations.org and come to Coal Night in Traverse City, MI on June 8th. The State theatre is hosting an informative event to discuss the dangers of Cherryland Electric's proposed new Coal Plant. Listen to Dr. James Hansen, top NASA climate change expert and Bill McKibben, widely hailed global warming author. Get informed. Sustainability and alternative energy are both issues on everybody's mind, and rightly so. As it is the basis for all future generations that follow ours, its better to get all the facts and explore the possibilities before their is nothing left for our sons and daughters. Assumptions are the biggest obstacles in our search for the truth. To learn more about alternative energy and coal energy in Michigan check out co-opconversations.org and come to Coal Night in Traverse City, MI on June 8th. The State theatre is hosting an informative event to discuss the dangers of Cherryland Electric’s proposed new Coal Plant. Listen to Dr. James Hansen, top NASA climate change expert and Bill McKibben, widely hailed global warming author. Get informed.
Sustainability and alternative energy are both issues on everybody’s mind, and rightly so. As it is the basis for all future generations that follow ours, its better to get all the facts and explore the possibilities before their is nothing left for our sons and daughters. Assumptions are the biggest obstacles in our search for the truth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: molly http://greatlakesecho.org/2009/03/28/environmental-project-in-northern-michigan-holds-promise-for-energy-future/comment-page-1/#comment-27 molly Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:10:54 +0000 http://greatlakeswiki.org/beta/?p=766#comment-27 Michigan has no business continuing dependence on coal or being a guinea pig for the guesswork of carbon capture. Look at MI’s Public Service Commission website. Michigan spent a total of $37 billion on energy in 2007, with $.70 of every $1 going out of state. Enough throwing away our hard earned dollars for outdated, imported energy that pollutes our state. http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/mpsc/reports/energy/energyoverview/ For every dollar that leaves our state importing coal, we are adding to the impoverishment and contamination of coalfield communities while destroying important headwaters of our Nation. Carbon, cost, and contamination are just a few of the downsides to coal. I admire that Americans love to dream, but right now is not the time to spend our money on fantasies. We must plug in the already existing technologies that will protect our most vital resources, improve communities, and provide new job sectors guaranteed to grow. We cannot be left behind during this proud time of American innovation and prosperous localized growth. We are beginning to understand that we cannot seek wealth without also seeking health. Michigan has no business continuing dependence on coal or being a guinea pig for the guesswork of carbon capture.

Look at MI’s Public Service Commission website. Michigan spent a total of $37 billion on energy in 2007, with $.70 of every $1 going out of state. Enough throwing away our hard earned dollars for outdated, imported energy that pollutes our state.
http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/mpsc/reports/energy/energyoverview/

For every dollar that leaves our state importing coal, we are adding to the impoverishment and contamination of coalfield communities while destroying important headwaters of our Nation.

Carbon, cost, and contamination are just a few of the downsides to coal. I admire that Americans love to dream, but right now is not the time to spend our money on fantasies.

We must plug in the already existing technologies that will protect our most vital resources, improve communities, and provide new job sectors guaranteed to grow.

We cannot be left behind during this proud time of American innovation and prosperous localized growth. We are beginning to understand that we cannot seek wealth without also seeking health.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Nikki http://greatlakesecho.org/2009/03/28/environmental-project-in-northern-michigan-holds-promise-for-energy-future/comment-page-1/#comment-26 Nikki Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:41:58 +0000 http://greatlakeswiki.org/beta/?p=766#comment-26 The Great Lakes basin is THE MOST DANGEROUS place on Earth to experiment with the unproven concept of injecting CO2 beneath us. CCS is not a "technology" because it doesn't exist. It’s merely a concept that needs decades of expensive and risky experimentation to find out whether or not it might work. The uncertainties surrounding carbon capture should be kept away from the largest concentration of fresh surface water on Earth. “If large amounts of CO2 spread through groundwater or reached the surface, current regulations do not place liability on the company managing the leak.” Who would foot the bill for massive water restoration if experiments fail? We must caution against investing our sparse dollars in continued coal dependence while potentially risking international water dependence. “Beware of the water” alerts are in the news every day, whether you catch them or not. http://www.post-trib.com/news/1501279,ussbenzene.article Michigan is not in any sort of energy “crisis” - thus we should not bear the burden of these costly and dangerous experiments. - MI has declining energy needs - MI has proposed more dirty coal plants then other states despite lack of demand - None of the 8 proposed plants will be “clean” or use carbon capture - Michigan can protect waterways, provide long-term safe and modern jobs, and keep the lights on without dangerous investments in more coal - Talk of CCS is promoting the fantasy that one day coal could be good for health and habitat. From cradle to grave coal damages our water. Just for perspective – Life can survive without energy, but life cannot survive without water. Our money needs to be spent investing in proven realities that create more jobs than they do illnesses. The Great Lakes basin is THE MOST DANGEROUS place on Earth to experiment with the unproven concept of injecting CO2 beneath us.

CCS is not a “technology” because it doesn’t exist. It’s merely a concept that needs decades of expensive and risky experimentation to find out whether or not it might work. The uncertainties surrounding carbon capture should be kept away from the largest concentration of fresh surface water on Earth.

“If large amounts of CO2 spread through groundwater or reached the surface, current regulations do not place liability on the company managing the leak.”

Who would foot the bill for massive water restoration if experiments fail?

We must caution against investing our sparse dollars in continued coal dependence while potentially risking international water dependence.

“Beware of the water” alerts are in the news every day, whether you catch them or not.
http://www.post-trib.com/news/1501279,ussbenzene.article

Michigan is not in any sort of energy “crisis” – thus we should not bear the burden of these costly and dangerous experiments.
- MI has declining energy needs
- MI has proposed more dirty coal plants then other states despite lack of demand
- None of the 8 proposed plants will be “clean” or use carbon capture
- Michigan can protect waterways, provide long-term safe and modern jobs, and keep the lights on without dangerous investments in more coal
- Talk of CCS is promoting the fantasy that one day coal could be good for health and habitat.

From cradle to grave coal damages our water.
Just for perspective – Life can survive without energy, but life cannot survive without water.

Our money needs to be spent investing in proven realities that create more jobs than they do illnesses.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Dave Wolf http://greatlakesecho.org/2009/03/28/environmental-project-in-northern-michigan-holds-promise-for-energy-future/comment-page-1/#comment-25 Dave Wolf Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:18:12 +0000 http://greatlakeswiki.org/beta/?p=766#comment-25 Taking a quick look at the properties of liquid CO2 suggests that it must be compressed to a minimum of about 600psi to maintain that liquid state, as was suggested in the article. The notion that liquid CO2, under those pressures, in a natural containment would remain in place forever is tough to accept without significant empirical evidence. A claim of being able to maintain the integrity of a natural, geologic containment area, such as a saline formation, for a pressurized liquid or gas “forever” begs to be questioned critically and scientifically. The article states that “if it works” there are hopes of storing CO2 emissions underground. My question is this: When or how will it be established that “it” actually “works” and that “forever” has been reached. Additionally, will the smaller tests that are being conducted be truly reflective of real-world conditions of storage on a much-larger scale? As suggested, there are concerns about a breach of the containment area where the CO2 gas – heavier than air – could create a lethal hazard for those in the area. Additionally, what concerns are there for potential acidification and/or degradation of the geologic structure over time? And, over how long of a time? Forever isn’t just one or two generations. Could this program be setting up a much larger problem for the future? Healthy skepticism does not mean being in opposition to seeking out new or better methods for dealing with CO2. Of concern however is that those people touting the proposal seem to be those who stand to profit from it. While there will probably be financial rewards for the project’s proponents, the risks will continue be borne by the public long after the profits have all been realized. Would this still be profitable if the proponents were required to maintain adequate site monitoring forever? Would it still be profitable if the proponents were required to maintain a truly-adequate surety to cover potential injury, damage and cleanup costs forever? Those who stand to profit from a new and unproven technology probably aren't the proper ones to also certify its safety and efficacy. Historically, humans have viewed the environment as either being expendable or too vast to be negatively impacted by human activity. We mustn’t wait for evidence such as a flaming river to recognize that we have overtaxed a resource. If carbon sequestration is a viable option, it must stand on its own, under good, unbiased scientific scrutiny. Taking a quick look at the properties of liquid CO2 suggests that it must be compressed to a minimum of about 600psi to maintain that liquid state, as was suggested in the article. The notion that liquid CO2, under those pressures, in a natural containment would remain in place forever is tough to accept without significant empirical evidence. A claim of being able to maintain the integrity of a natural, geologic containment area, such as a saline formation, for a pressurized liquid or gas “forever” begs to be questioned critically and scientifically.

The article states that “if it works” there are hopes of storing CO2 emissions underground. My question is this: When or how will it be established that “it” actually “works” and that “forever” has been reached. Additionally, will the smaller tests that are being conducted be truly reflective of real-world conditions of storage on a much-larger scale?

As suggested, there are concerns about a breach of the containment area where the CO2 gas – heavier than air – could create a lethal hazard for those in the area. Additionally, what concerns are there for potential acidification and/or degradation of the geologic structure over time? And, over how long of a time? Forever isn’t just one or two generations. Could this program be setting up a much larger problem for the future?

Healthy skepticism does not mean being in opposition to seeking out new or better methods for dealing with CO2. Of concern however is that those people touting the proposal seem to be those who stand to profit from it. While there will probably be financial rewards for the project’s proponents, the risks will continue be borne by the public long after the profits have all been realized. Would this still be profitable if the proponents were required to maintain adequate site monitoring forever? Would it still be profitable if the proponents were required to maintain a truly-adequate surety to cover potential injury, damage and cleanup costs forever? Those who stand to profit from a new and unproven technology probably aren’t the proper ones to also certify its safety and efficacy.

Historically, humans have viewed the environment as either being expendable or too vast to be negatively impacted by human activity. We mustn’t wait for evidence such as a flaming river to recognize that we have overtaxed a resource. If carbon sequestration is a viable option, it must stand on its own, under good, unbiased scientific scrutiny.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Anne Woiwode http://greatlakesecho.org/2009/03/28/environmental-project-in-northern-michigan-holds-promise-for-energy-future/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Anne Woiwode Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:05:44 +0000 http://greatlakeswiki.org/beta/?p=766#comment-24 Critical pieces of the puzzle are missing in this article, which relies far too heavily on the input of people trying to make a buck on carbon capture and storage (CCS). Among the information missing: - NONE of the coal plants in consideration in Michigan have sought environmental permits to use CCS -- there are no provisions in any air permits for these, and there are no other environmental permits applied for (groundwater, deepwell injection, etc) for any CCS. - The Holland BPW submitted a grant proposal to DOE in January that is competing with much better funded project proposal, and that even if it were funded would only provide 3 years of funding for CCS -- after which HBPW has given no indication of whether they would intend to continue to run the project. - the plants in permitting in Michigan have all declined to pursue IGCC, the coal plant technology that is thought to be most suited to CCS, if it is even possible. - none of the coal plants in Michigan are talking about the real cost of carbon control, much less the extraordinarily expensive pricetag of CCS if it is viable. Part of the unidentified cost is the enormous amount of energy needed to conduct CCS -- reductions in electricity output is expected to run at least 40% from these facilities. - the enhanced recovery of oil and gas is not thought to be able to happen at the same time as CCS because the gas would be blasting residuals out of caverns, not being subject to permanent storage. - The commitment of storage capacity to CO2 for ever means better uses of this storage capacity will be forever foregone, while like nuclear wastes someone will have to assure these CO2 tombs are tended forever. I hope future reporting on this topic and others gets the full story. Critical pieces of the puzzle are missing in this article, which relies far too heavily on the input of people trying to make a buck on carbon capture and storage (CCS). Among the information missing:
- NONE of the coal plants in consideration in Michigan have sought environmental permits to use CCS — there are no provisions in any air permits for these, and there are no other environmental permits applied for (groundwater, deepwell injection, etc) for any CCS.
- The Holland BPW submitted a grant proposal to DOE in January that is competing with much better funded project proposal, and that even if it were funded would only provide 3 years of funding for CCS — after which HBPW has given no indication of whether they would intend to continue to run the project.
- the plants in permitting in Michigan have all declined to pursue IGCC, the coal plant technology that is thought to be most suited to CCS, if it is even possible.
- none of the coal plants in Michigan are talking about the real cost of carbon control, much less the extraordinarily expensive pricetag of CCS if it is viable. Part of the unidentified cost is the enormous amount of energy needed to conduct CCS — reductions in electricity output is expected to run at least 40% from these facilities.
- the enhanced recovery of oil and gas is not thought to be able to happen at the same time as CCS because the gas would be blasting residuals out of caverns, not being subject to permanent storage.
- The commitment of storage capacity to CO2 for ever means better uses of this storage capacity will be forever foregone, while like nuclear wastes someone will have to assure these CO2 tombs are tended forever.
I hope future reporting on this topic and others gets the full story.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Don Brown http://greatlakesecho.org/2009/03/28/environmental-project-in-northern-michigan-holds-promise-for-energy-future/comment-page-1/#comment-23 Don Brown Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:00:42 +0000 http://greatlakeswiki.org/beta/?p=766#comment-23 It is ironic, at best, that Consumers Energy's notice to rate payers of a 10% increase in charges due this summer is caused in part by "decreased usage". Given the State's renewable energy goals and the potential for increased efficiency, the only "new" generating capacity should be replacement of a few old, inefficient, polluting coal fired plants. It is ironic, at best, that Consumers Energy’s notice to rate payers of a 10% increase in charges due this summer is caused in part by “decreased usage”. Given the State’s renewable energy goals and the potential for increased efficiency, the only “new” generating capacity should be replacement of a few old, inefficient, polluting coal fired plants.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: The Geology News Blog · Geology Links for March 28th, 2009 http://greatlakesecho.org/2009/03/28/environmental-project-in-northern-michigan-holds-promise-for-energy-future/comment-page-1/#comment-22 The Geology News Blog · Geology Links for March 28th, 2009 Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:00:50 +0000 http://greatlakeswiki.org/beta/?p=766#comment-22 [...] Environmental project in Northern Michigan holds promise for energy future [...] [...] Environmental project in Northern Michigan holds promise for energy future [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>