We all have high hopes for the Obama administration and what it can and will accomplish in the first 100 days and beyond. Some policies seem inevitable: an economic bailout package, a plan for ending the debacle in Iraq and the disgrace of the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We are all waiting for Obama to solve the variety of problems that we view as priorities in the reshaping and rebuilding of this country after eight years of darkness, deceit, and malfeasance under the Bush Administration. The St. Petersburg Times is tracking Obama's progress in a helpful format here.
Perhaps the biggest test for the Obama administration will be to buck the trend of dirty energy subsidies and move the country to clean energy like wind, solar, geothermal, and clean biomass. This doesn't only mean signing legislation and issuing executive orders that mandate clean energy. Legislation on global warming is a guarantee. The real question is whether President Obama and Congress will continue the status quo of funding and defending dirty energy companies, their massive profits, and their role in fueling America's overconsumption of its energy supply at the planet's expense.
The first test of the Obama administration's environmental commitment looks to be a resurrection of an old specter in Obama's environmental record: liquefied coal. Coal to liquid or CTL has twice the carbon dioxide emissions of normal diesel fuel without a carbon trapping capacity, about 4.5 billion for one plant without carbon sequestration. Obama co-sponsored a 2007 Senate bill that would have given massive subsidies for research and development into liquefied coal. On the presidential campaign trail, Obama backpedaled in his support for liquefied coal and relented that he would only support such technology if the pollution from the fuel was reduced by 20%, which seemed to quiet the issue in the election, especially since John McCain was also supporting CTL.
But now the CTL issue has resurfaced, albeit quietly, as the United States Air Force is using a staggering $18 to 30 billion dollar gift from Congress to develop a liquefied coal technology that would have all fighter jets running on a highly polluting coal-diesel cocktail by 2016.
This is a real opportunity for Obama to set the clean energy agenda if he is truly serious about moving the United States to reduce our global warming pollution. Obama should move to cancel this project for the Air Force and use the billions of dollars committed to the project to create a new green economy focusing on clean, renewable energy and a sound economic future for the country.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Engineered Geothermal Systems: The Environment-Friendly Future of Electricity
___________________________________________
In his State of the Union address last month, President Bush insisted, “We must continue changing the way America generates electric power.” Bush went on to name “clean” coal and “safe” nuclear technology as his clear favorites to accomplish this task. In fairness to the President, he didn’t have to mention wind and solar energy in addition to coal and nuclear, though he did. But Bush could have had a tremendous impact on the debate over alternative electricity if he had noted in his nationally televised address a study that was commissioned by his own Department of Energy and published by MIT just one day before the State of the Union. If you've got a few spare hours, the novel-length study is published on-line here.
MIT examined an environment-friendly source of energy called Engineered Geothermal Systems (EGS).
EGS involves injecting water into the Earth’s hot crust, then drawing the heated water and steam back to the Earth’s surface and using it to drive the turbines that create electricity. The system is an engineered alternative to naturally occurring hot springs and geysers, which, though currently being used for US electricity production, are limited in their availability. Engineered geothermal systems, on the other hand, make use of the high-temperature granite that is available anywhere in the United States.
How beneficial would EGS be for the United States? According to the MIT study, the amount of extractable energy in US territory alone would be well over 2000 times the annual consumption rate of energy. MIT notes that in practice, the actual amount of energy number could increase by a factor of ten.
Economically, the cost would not be insignificant; we’re talking about up to one billion dollars in research and development over the next fifteen years. But even in this most expensive scenario, this price tag would still be less costly than building just one new “clean” coal power plant, according to MIT’s analysis.
Environmentally, EGS leaves a minimal “footprint,” creating no waste runoff and inserting a negligible amount of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases into the atmosphere. It’s even possible to inject wastewater into the earth (as opposed to clean water), offering a keen recycling alternative to industrial pollution in our rivers and oceans.
France and Australia have been at the forefront in the development of EGS in recent years. Using the advances that these countries have made, the United States could produce a functional electric grid partially based on EGS by 2025. With further investment and the privatization of these industries, EGS could generate most American electricity by 2050, based on MIT estimates. The price tag of one billion dollars should not scare us, even if every penny comes directly out of taxpayers’ wallets. After all, we’ve spent many hundreds times that amount occupying a country that exports to us a non-renewable, environmentally degrading, and economically hazardous fuel for our energy needs. It’s time to get smart with our energy dependence and invest in EGS.
In his State of the Union address last month, President Bush insisted, “We must continue changing the way America generates electric power.” Bush went on to name “clean” coal and “safe” nuclear technology as his clear favorites to accomplish this task. In fairness to the President, he didn’t have to mention wind and solar energy in addition to coal and nuclear, though he did. But Bush could have had a tremendous impact on the debate over alternative electricity if he had noted in his nationally televised address a study that was commissioned by his own Department of Energy and published by MIT just one day before the State of the Union. If you've got a few spare hours, the novel-length study is published on-line here.
MIT examined an environment-friendly source of energy called Engineered Geothermal Systems (EGS).
EGS involves injecting water into the Earth’s hot crust, then drawing the heated water and steam back to the Earth’s surface and using it to drive the turbines that create electricity. The system is an engineered alternative to naturally occurring hot springs and geysers, which, though currently being used for US electricity production, are limited in their availability. Engineered geothermal systems, on the other hand, make use of the high-temperature granite that is available anywhere in the United States.
How beneficial would EGS be for the United States? According to the MIT study, the amount of extractable energy in US territory alone would be well over 2000 times the annual consumption rate of energy. MIT notes that in practice, the actual amount of energy number could increase by a factor of ten.
Economically, the cost would not be insignificant; we’re talking about up to one billion dollars in research and development over the next fifteen years. But even in this most expensive scenario, this price tag would still be less costly than building just one new “clean” coal power plant, according to MIT’s analysis.
Environmentally, EGS leaves a minimal “footprint,” creating no waste runoff and inserting a negligible amount of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases into the atmosphere. It’s even possible to inject wastewater into the earth (as opposed to clean water), offering a keen recycling alternative to industrial pollution in our rivers and oceans.
France and Australia have been at the forefront in the development of EGS in recent years. Using the advances that these countries have made, the United States could produce a functional electric grid partially based on EGS by 2025. With further investment and the privatization of these industries, EGS could generate most American electricity by 2050, based on MIT estimates. The price tag of one billion dollars should not scare us, even if every penny comes directly out of taxpayers’ wallets. After all, we’ve spent many hundreds times that amount occupying a country that exports to us a non-renewable, environmentally degrading, and economically hazardous fuel for our energy needs. It’s time to get smart with our energy dependence and invest in EGS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)