Explosive CCS Issue:Bury or really Recycle, Angels and Demons, Drugs vs Power in Afghanistan
Stafford Williamson
June 01, 2009
I hate nay-sayers! Um, that is, "I really, really, really dislike nay-sayers!" (My mother taught me not to say, "hate" and indeed never to hate anyone or anything. I may not always achieve such a Zen-like state, but at least I can use a strike-out font in my writing, when I think such a term is called for, before I remember my mother's sage advice.)
Worse, yet, I am about to elevate a nay-sayer above some rather clever and inventive folks, but then I'll explain why. First let me point out that our nay-sayer of note is one H. Herzog who wrote a report for the Department of Energy, back in 1993. It is also noted and quoted in a report entitled "A Look Back at the U.S. Department of Energy's Aquatic Species Program: Biodiesel from Algae" in what is called the "Close-Out Report" and dated 1998. Herzog says:
"Commonsense suggests that recycling of carbon would be more efficacious than deep ocean disposal. No one clearly understands the long-term effects of injecting large amounts of CO2 into our oceans. Beyond these environmental concerns, such largescale disposal schemes represent an economic sinkhole. Huge amounts of capital and operating dollars would be spent simply to dispose of carbon. While such Draconian measures may ultimately be needed, it makes more sense to first re-use stationary sources of carbon as much as possible. Algae technology is unique in its ability to produce a useful, high-volume product from waste CO2."
Herzog, H., et al (1993) The Capture, Utilization and Disposal of Carbon Dioxide from Fossil FuelPower Plants. Report to the U.S. Department of Energy DOE/ER-30194.
I would add to that assessment that no one really knows the long term effects or effectiveness of injecting large quantities of pressurized CO2 into cavities in the earth, either.
Meanwhile, New York Times reporter Kate Galbraith wrote (back in April) that a firm is proposing (and making good headway, apparently) to "build a coal-fired electric plant on the outskirts of New York City that would capture its emissions of carbon dioxide and pump the pollutant 70 miles offshore." Ms. Galbraith's article points out that the company, SCS Energy of Concord, Massachusetts, has planned well, including a site with rail access for coal delivery, (it was a duPont chemical plant), in New Jersey, adjacent to Staten Island and therefore a short throw to open ocean for the pipeline to a remote injection well. But listen to what the inventor of the technique has to say. "If this succeeds, it´s going to be very hard for utilities to say, ´Oh no no, you can´t do this,´ " said Daniel Schrag, a Harvard geochemist whose work inspired the proposal. Did you notice his conditional and cautionary choice of the word, "IF"? Even the Harvard professor isn't sure it will work.
The basic idea of "carbon capture and storage" (CCS) is a throwback to the era when we used to casually believe we could do whatever we wanted on this planet and bury the inconvenient by-products for future generations to worry about. Come on, now, people, my friends and I sat around nearly 40 years ago saying things like, "If today´s plastics are going to pollute the planet for thousands of years, there should be a law that says you cannot introduce any product that uses a new chemical formula until you have a process that includes recycling that material, or, at least, some way of breaking it down into biodegradable substances." Now I grant you that my friends were some pretty intelligent folks, but we were undergraduate drama students at the time, not post-grad fellows in biochemistry or environmental science, and we had this figured out back 4 decades ago. Don't you think that the guys who were actually in environmental science or biochemistry, or engineering or politics should have figured this out by now?
Actually this is a strategy called "cradle to cradle" which is based on the same standards my friends and I were proposing among ourselves 40 years ago. The basic idea is that products should be made of materials which are either bio-degradable (and therefore go "back" to the soil where they become nutrients for future plants) or recyclable, like aluminum, which can be melted and re-used. So for instance if you buy a new kitchen chair it should, ideally be made of an aluminum frame with a cloth covering and padding made from a foam made of starches and lignin. It is still a concept that is only now just starting to "catch on". Pitiful, but better than nothing.
There is another story appearing in the New York Times regarding a provincial governor in Afghanistan. This gentleman, appointed by President Karzai, is trying to roll back the advance of the Taliban, smugglers and government corruption that reportedly found nine tons of opium in the former governor's office. He claims that most of the local people would rather not grow poppies for the opium trade but the influence of the Taliban, drug smugglers, and ruthless landlords are forcing them into it. His plan includes upgrading roads and providing both seed and fertilizer to the local farmers, though he worries that the seeds and fertilizer may not arrive before the poppy planting season. He also points out that mass destruction of the poppy crop has engendered resentment against the NATO troops among the local population.
The story never reveals what crops the new seeds will grow but one of the problems with persuading people not to grow poppies is that the high profits for processing the drugs and smuggling them to market means that the buyers can afford to pay relatively high prices for the bounty of their fields. The New York Times article claims that rising local addiction is one of the reasons farmers would like to turn away from poppy growing. However, one would have to believe that Afghan farmers are high minded indeed to be willing to give up the profitable crop. Poppies, as you may know, grow wild and require very little cultivation or maintenance during the growing season. It is the harvesting that is slow and labor intensive.
It seems to me that there is a wonderful opportunity here amid the worldwide economic crisis. Would it not make a great deal of sense to persuade Afghan farmers to raise energy crops? Especially high value, high density crops like algae.
Yes, there are challenges in arid regions (and more mountains than you can shake a stick at), BUT the basic idea here is that the export of "green energy technology" can not only be transformative to troubled regions, but it can also be a tool of diplomacy as well as "trade". I am not proposing that we look upon the natural resources of the region as being high value raw materials to export to industrialized nations. I am talking about exporting our technology to enable locals to develop indigenous prosperity. Green technology exporting can be a tool of social and economic development as well as a diplomatic tool.
I am sure that a good number of you are familiar with the word antidisestablishmentarianism, because it was one of those "longest words I've ever heard of" things kids talk about and smart kids seem to need to know how to spell it to impress their friends. Well I actually learned what it meant, which made it easy for me to spell.
Indeed I have become a disestablishmentarianist myself, though not one of the historic variety who favored withdrawal of government support for the Anglican or Church of England. I favor the more "constitutional" platform of separation of church and state, though I'd go further and advocate the elimination of not only favored religions but all institutionalized superstitions. Which brings me to the movie, Angels and Demons
Dan Brown, the author of the book, weaves another tale of mystery and intrigue, not quite up to the standard of his DaVinci Code, but that was, after all, written after he wrote this one, so perhaps he needed this practice to refine his craft. This filmed version, directed by Ron Howard is well crafted too, with one of Hollywood's (and the World's) favorite stars, Tom Hanks as the world famous symbologist called on by the Vatican to solve a very pressing mystery, a bomb, made from stolen anti-matter that threatens to blow up the Vatican itself, including all the Cardinals who are gathered to elect a new Pope. The main "clue" ties the plot to an ancient group called the "Illuminati", purportedly formed in protest (and to exact revenge, this legend goes) the persecution of scientists and suppression of scientific knowledge by the Roman Catholic church. Even though (in the real world, not the world of this movie) the prior Pope did finally apologize for the unjustifiable persecution of scientist Galileo, official policy is that any form of contraception is a sin because it interferes with "God" making babies to grow up to be good little Catholics, and that even the prevention of the transmission of HIV or AIDS or other STDs does not allow a good church member to us a condom for prophylactic purposes.
Ewen McGregor plays the young Catholic priest who has been the prior Pope's assistant, a position which goes by the title of "camerlengo" and which for some strange reason of Catholic tradition and lore, becomes the interim acting pontif while the College of Cardinals decides to pick (normally from within their own ranks) who is to be the next Pope. Both actors have done fine work here. The leading lady is played by Ayelet Zurer who is, according to the two line bio on IMDB.com, "One of the most acclaimed actresses in Israel." In this instance, her publicity photos are better looking than she is in the film, and the performance adds very little to a very thin part. The only other performance of note is the usual, suitably sinister-overtoned Armin Mueller-Stahl as Cardinal Strauss. His measured speech and thick accent give just the perfect finish to yet another in a very long string of excellent performances by this veteran actor.
A happy note to end on this week is that my mother-in-law took us to dinner on my wife's birthday, and she decided that she did not like the 40" HDTV we had helped her purchase and install. We now have a brand new 40" HDTV in our bedroom. Thanks to our shrewd shopping on her behalf it cost far less than we expected and fits better than the one we'd been thinking about buying to replace the 130 pound monster that was there. The old TV was too heavy to move ourselves, so we asked the Salvation Army to come and pick it up, which, of course, they cheerfully did. So, a quick tip is that the Salvation Army will take your WORKING television, and even come and pick it up, but if it needs a replacement part (like the more valuable Sony HDTV we gave away last year) they want nothing to do with it. Oh, yes, I am sorry to report that there was a lot of "looking a gift horse in the mouth" (before it became our television, we wanted to make sure Harriet got a good one). The bad news is that the Sharp Aquos 40" LCD HDTV that purportedly has two channels of 10 watts each for stereo sounds (actually other literature claims it is 3.1 sound), its maximum volume wouldn't wake up a fussy baby from an afternoon nap, and that is NOT (according to tech support) a malfunction, just the way it is designed. Can't say I'd recommend it, although the 120 Hz picture is bright and clear.
Love and best wishes,
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
http://daochienergy.com
Worse, yet, I am about to elevate a nay-sayer above some rather clever and inventive folks, but then I'll explain why. First let me point out that our nay-sayer of note is one H. Herzog who wrote a report for the Department of Energy, back in 1993. It is also noted and quoted in a report entitled "A Look Back at the U.S. Department of Energy's Aquatic Species Program: Biodiesel from Algae" in what is called the "Close-Out Report" and dated 1998. Herzog says:
"Commonsense suggests that recycling of carbon would be more efficacious than deep ocean disposal. No one clearly understands the long-term effects of injecting large amounts of CO2 into our oceans. Beyond these environmental concerns, such largescale disposal schemes represent an economic sinkhole. Huge amounts of capital and operating dollars would be spent simply to dispose of carbon. While such Draconian measures may ultimately be needed, it makes more sense to first re-use stationary sources of carbon as much as possible. Algae technology is unique in its ability to produce a useful, high-volume product from waste CO2."
Herzog, H., et al (1993) The Capture, Utilization and Disposal of Carbon Dioxide from Fossil FuelPower Plants. Report to the U.S. Department of Energy DOE/ER-30194.
I would add to that assessment that no one really knows the long term effects or effectiveness of injecting large quantities of pressurized CO2 into cavities in the earth, either.
Meanwhile, New York Times reporter Kate Galbraith wrote (back in April) that a firm is proposing (and making good headway, apparently) to "build a coal-fired electric plant on the outskirts of New York City that would capture its emissions of carbon dioxide and pump the pollutant 70 miles offshore." Ms. Galbraith's article points out that the company, SCS Energy of Concord, Massachusetts, has planned well, including a site with rail access for coal delivery, (it was a duPont chemical plant), in New Jersey, adjacent to Staten Island and therefore a short throw to open ocean for the pipeline to a remote injection well. But listen to what the inventor of the technique has to say. "If this succeeds, it´s going to be very hard for utilities to say, ´Oh no no, you can´t do this,´ " said Daniel Schrag, a Harvard geochemist whose work inspired the proposal. Did you notice his conditional and cautionary choice of the word, "IF"? Even the Harvard professor isn't sure it will work.
The basic idea of "carbon capture and storage" (CCS) is a throwback to the era when we used to casually believe we could do whatever we wanted on this planet and bury the inconvenient by-products for future generations to worry about. Come on, now, people, my friends and I sat around nearly 40 years ago saying things like, "If today´s plastics are going to pollute the planet for thousands of years, there should be a law that says you cannot introduce any product that uses a new chemical formula until you have a process that includes recycling that material, or, at least, some way of breaking it down into biodegradable substances." Now I grant you that my friends were some pretty intelligent folks, but we were undergraduate drama students at the time, not post-grad fellows in biochemistry or environmental science, and we had this figured out back 4 decades ago. Don't you think that the guys who were actually in environmental science or biochemistry, or engineering or politics should have figured this out by now?
Actually this is a strategy called "cradle to cradle" which is based on the same standards my friends and I were proposing among ourselves 40 years ago. The basic idea is that products should be made of materials which are either bio-degradable (and therefore go "back" to the soil where they become nutrients for future plants) or recyclable, like aluminum, which can be melted and re-used. So for instance if you buy a new kitchen chair it should, ideally be made of an aluminum frame with a cloth covering and padding made from a foam made of starches and lignin. It is still a concept that is only now just starting to "catch on". Pitiful, but better than nothing.
There is another story appearing in the New York Times regarding a provincial governor in Afghanistan. This gentleman, appointed by President Karzai, is trying to roll back the advance of the Taliban, smugglers and government corruption that reportedly found nine tons of opium in the former governor's office. He claims that most of the local people would rather not grow poppies for the opium trade but the influence of the Taliban, drug smugglers, and ruthless landlords are forcing them into it. His plan includes upgrading roads and providing both seed and fertilizer to the local farmers, though he worries that the seeds and fertilizer may not arrive before the poppy planting season. He also points out that mass destruction of the poppy crop has engendered resentment against the NATO troops among the local population.
The story never reveals what crops the new seeds will grow but one of the problems with persuading people not to grow poppies is that the high profits for processing the drugs and smuggling them to market means that the buyers can afford to pay relatively high prices for the bounty of their fields. The New York Times article claims that rising local addiction is one of the reasons farmers would like to turn away from poppy growing. However, one would have to believe that Afghan farmers are high minded indeed to be willing to give up the profitable crop. Poppies, as you may know, grow wild and require very little cultivation or maintenance during the growing season. It is the harvesting that is slow and labor intensive.
It seems to me that there is a wonderful opportunity here amid the worldwide economic crisis. Would it not make a great deal of sense to persuade Afghan farmers to raise energy crops? Especially high value, high density crops like algae.
Yes, there are challenges in arid regions (and more mountains than you can shake a stick at), BUT the basic idea here is that the export of "green energy technology" can not only be transformative to troubled regions, but it can also be a tool of diplomacy as well as "trade". I am not proposing that we look upon the natural resources of the region as being high value raw materials to export to industrialized nations. I am talking about exporting our technology to enable locals to develop indigenous prosperity. Green technology exporting can be a tool of social and economic development as well as a diplomatic tool.
I am sure that a good number of you are familiar with the word antidisestablishmentarianism, because it was one of those "longest words I've ever heard of" things kids talk about and smart kids seem to need to know how to spell it to impress their friends. Well I actually learned what it meant, which made it easy for me to spell.
Indeed I have become a disestablishmentarianist myself, though not one of the historic variety who favored withdrawal of government support for the Anglican or Church of England. I favor the more "constitutional" platform of separation of church and state, though I'd go further and advocate the elimination of not only favored religions but all institutionalized superstitions. Which brings me to the movie, Angels and Demons
Dan Brown, the author of the book, weaves another tale of mystery and intrigue, not quite up to the standard of his DaVinci Code, but that was, after all, written after he wrote this one, so perhaps he needed this practice to refine his craft. This filmed version, directed by Ron Howard is well crafted too, with one of Hollywood's (and the World's) favorite stars, Tom Hanks as the world famous symbologist called on by the Vatican to solve a very pressing mystery, a bomb, made from stolen anti-matter that threatens to blow up the Vatican itself, including all the Cardinals who are gathered to elect a new Pope. The main "clue" ties the plot to an ancient group called the "Illuminati", purportedly formed in protest (and to exact revenge, this legend goes) the persecution of scientists and suppression of scientific knowledge by the Roman Catholic church. Even though (in the real world, not the world of this movie) the prior Pope did finally apologize for the unjustifiable persecution of scientist Galileo, official policy is that any form of contraception is a sin because it interferes with "God" making babies to grow up to be good little Catholics, and that even the prevention of the transmission of HIV or AIDS or other STDs does not allow a good church member to us a condom for prophylactic purposes.
Ewen McGregor plays the young Catholic priest who has been the prior Pope's assistant, a position which goes by the title of "camerlengo" and which for some strange reason of Catholic tradition and lore, becomes the interim acting pontif while the College of Cardinals decides to pick (normally from within their own ranks) who is to be the next Pope. Both actors have done fine work here. The leading lady is played by Ayelet Zurer who is, according to the two line bio on IMDB.com, "One of the most acclaimed actresses in Israel." In this instance, her publicity photos are better looking than she is in the film, and the performance adds very little to a very thin part. The only other performance of note is the usual, suitably sinister-overtoned Armin Mueller-Stahl as Cardinal Strauss. His measured speech and thick accent give just the perfect finish to yet another in a very long string of excellent performances by this veteran actor.
A happy note to end on this week is that my mother-in-law took us to dinner on my wife's birthday, and she decided that she did not like the 40" HDTV we had helped her purchase and install. We now have a brand new 40" HDTV in our bedroom. Thanks to our shrewd shopping on her behalf it cost far less than we expected and fits better than the one we'd been thinking about buying to replace the 130 pound monster that was there. The old TV was too heavy to move ourselves, so we asked the Salvation Army to come and pick it up, which, of course, they cheerfully did. So, a quick tip is that the Salvation Army will take your WORKING television, and even come and pick it up, but if it needs a replacement part (like the more valuable Sony HDTV we gave away last year) they want nothing to do with it. Oh, yes, I am sorry to report that there was a lot of "looking a gift horse in the mouth" (before it became our television, we wanted to make sure Harriet got a good one). The bad news is that the Sharp Aquos 40" LCD HDTV that purportedly has two channels of 10 watts each for stereo sounds (actually other literature claims it is 3.1 sound), its maximum volume wouldn't wake up a fussy baby from an afternoon nap, and that is NOT (according to tech support) a malfunction, just the way it is designed. Can't say I'd recommend it, although the 120 Hz picture is bright and clear.
Love and best wishes,
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
http://daochienergy.com
Print
Email
