Coal the Biggest Cause of Global Warming

[redbeardedstranger]

Hey y'all, I'm new to this forum. I work a lot on coal issues in Texas and wanted to get a new thread going linking coal use and global warming. Seem like the right forum? I thought about posting in the fossil fuels forum, but that all seemed to be Peak Oil. I'm more interested in climate specifically.

Anyhow, here's the first of several videos I have planned. Bank of America and Citibank are funding a new coal rush that's going to cook our planet. I'll be back later to talk more about how coal is the #1 threat to our climate, but for now, enjoy.


WATCH IT NOW

[cbacba]

well, you know how it goes. all those idiots complaining about nuclear power for the last 30 years are pretty much the cause of us getting stuck with coal. So now we've got more radiation floating around that was sequestered in the coal deposits burned at the power plants than would be leaked out during a major nuclear disaster at a nuke plant.

It's enough to make one wonder if these idiots of yesteryear were just tools of a coal industry waging a proxy war against nuclear power. And, this brings to mind the question of how much involvement in promoting all this global warming hysteria might the nuke people have as a counter strike to get nuclear power operational.

BTW, do you subscribe to the notion that if we can get co2 concentrations up to between 500 and 1000 ppm, that we may be able to get out of the ice age cycle before the onset of the next glaciation?

[sparky]

At a time when the world’s top climate experts agree that carbon emissions must be rapidly reduced to hold down global warming, Italy’s major electricity producer, Enel, is converting its massive power plant here from oil to coal, generally the dirtiest fuel on earth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/wo...ll&oref=slogin

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by sparky

At a time when the world’s top climate experts agree that carbon emissions must be rapidly reduced to hold down global warming

Not true.

Q: Dr Gray, you have stated that you consider IPCC as being corrupted. What is the basis for that criticism?

It is difficult to answer this in a few words. They were corrupt from the start, as they are a political organisation set up to provide evidence for “Climate Change”, defined by the Framework Convention on Climate Change as being exclusively caused by humans. The science is selected, distorted, and occasionally fabricated to support this view, and to downplay or marginalise any other climate influences. Their reports have to approved by the politicians who set them up and the Lead Authors are all chosen because they are willing to carry out their orders.

Dr. Gray is an expert reviewer for the IPCC and has submitted more than 1,800 comments on IPCC reports.

[Karl]

"Coal is the biggest cause of global warming"

Assuming this to be the case, it is likely to be so by default. While exact figures change continuously, when looking at Global Energy Consumption the following pattern consistently emerges (descending order):

1. Oil
2. Coal
3. Natural Gas
4. Renewables (mainly hydroelectric, with wind, solar, tidal etc. making small contribution)
5. Nuclear

However, in terms of electricity generation the largest contributor is coal, since the dominance of oil in energy consumption includes its use in transportation / vehicles.

Of course, one of the main environmental issues related to coal is the other forms of pollution in its immediate vicinity, apart (and aside) from the emissions responsible for its direct meteorological impacts (on micro-climate) and secondary impacts (global).

One important issue is that, while it is true that coal is the largest contributor (by default) to the environmental impacts of energy generation and consumption, it is easier to control at the facility level, since it is a (stationary) point-source of emissions. This is in contrast to environmental impacts of transportation (ad hoc energy conversion) - the vehicles are (non-stationary) line-sources. Therefore, while the individual emissions of vehicles would be much less in comparison to a (fixed location) coal plant, they have the potential to affect a much wider (and more spatially dispersed) area than a large point source. Further to which, the fact remains that crude oil is typically transported through much larger distances for its use in energy consumption than mined coal - so in that context it would have a larger “footprint” impact.

Therefore, like all other sources of energy conversion, coal has its advantages and disadvantages from an environmental perspective (it is not inherently evil as fuelling the great banking conspiracy, as suggested in the attached video).

[Karl]

One very interesting element in this video is the bicycle in the background – this suggests (without directly making the statement) that cycling is a tangible alternative to other forms of transportation. This is only true to a limited extent, for short-range individual needs. Regardless of the positive health benefits in terms of exercise, it is obvious that human-powered transportation cannot cater for those who are required to travel any distance on a day-to-day basis.

So, there would still be the need for other forms of transportation. It is sometimes argued that one should use a bicycle for short-range needs, and some other form when longer distances become necessary – for example trains. These are seen as a desirable alternative to our individual vehicles or other modes of public transportation like buses, in that they do not use internal combustion engines (and therefore do not have the extended, spatially dispersed line-source of pollution environmental implications). For example, in European countries it is not uncommon to see special cabins or compartments for people who take their bicycles on the train – the idea being that you cycle to the train station, you commute to your destination on the train, and on arrival at the relevant train station you use your bicycle to reach wherever you were going, etc.

However, trains, for all their advantages need to be powered by something. In the video, the spokesman attempts to establish some anti-coal message by cutting his bankcard into the shape of a windmill. That direct suggestion of replacing coal-powered plants using wind farms makes even less sense than the indirect insinuation of bicycles. There is no realistic way, in the short to medium term, that wind energy could become competitive with coal powered plants.

Coal became the dominant source of global energy consumption in the 1880’s when it first surpassed wood; this in turn, changed in the 1940’s when oil became the top source of global energy. Further to this, between the 1950’s and the 1980’s natural gas temporarily surpassed coal in overall energy consumption patterns. However, as already pointed out coal remains as the main source in terms of electricity generation; the reason being that oil and gas are used in other forms of energy conversion like vehicles (not to mention their use as feedstock in energy-related industries).

So electricity use for transportation needs is a reality in the mitigation of environmental impacts of that sector. It does not even come down to nuclear trains vs coal trains. As already stated, nuclear energy is at the bottom of the pile in terms of electricity generation (ranking even lower than renewables in terms of total electricity market share). The fact remains that the only “renewable” energy source that has had any significance input to electricity generation at a global scale is hydroelectric (which of course can only be used in specific conditions in a limited number of locations). It is true that in the 1970’s nuclear energy surpassed hydroelectric in terms of global energy – but nuclear is still less significant when all “renewables” used in electricity generation are combined.

Therefore, this video does not take into account that certain “trade-offs” are necessary in deciding the pros and cons of coal-powered electricity. It is not all negative – it may have one of the highest carbon footprints, as well as the other forms of pollution and environmental degradation, but at least keeps it much more spatially restricted (and thus more controllable) and the issue is more about the allocation and distribution of electricity generated by coal plants – including its use in sustainable solutions to transportation emissions and carbon impacts. Wind energy makes a useful contribution, but is nowhere near becoming a solution to coal.

Switching banks as a protest against coal may satisfy the symbolic needs of some individuals but is not a realistic solution to climate change or anything else.