Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Plans for Carson `green' power plant are dropped

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 11:34 AM
Original message
Plans for Carson `green' power plant are dropped
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_12393417

Plans for Carson `green' power plant are dropped

By Gene Maddaus, Staff Writer
Posted: 05/17/2009 11:01:41 PM PDT

With much fanfare, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger came to Carson in 2006 to announce plans to build a $1 billion "green" power plant.

The project would be the "cleanest and greenest" in the United States and would be an early test of carbon-capture technology, in which carbon dioxide emissions are permanently stored underground.

But three years later, the project has been quietly abandoned. The companies involved say the local geology turned out to be inhospitable, but they also encountered resistance from local environmentalists.



"The mainstream environmental groups are supporting it, while us, the environmental justice organizations are opposing it," said Jesse Marquez, of the Wilmington Coalition for a Safe Environment. "There's a breaking in the ranks there."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. Why can't they just admit that "carbon capturing" is not feasible...?
I mean this is a joke. It's expensive and stupid to assume that carbon can be captured right out of the atmosphere. Oy...That's like buying phermones and selling it or oxygen and selling it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Re: "It's expensive and stupid to assume that carbon can be captured right out of the atmosphere."
And yet, somehow, plants manage to do it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Is an industry a plant? I missed the memo on that one. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Plants pull carbon straight out of the air
Edited on Mon May-18-09 01:12 PM by OKIsItJustMe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I adore our President but on this he's wrong!

Clean coal is to make the miners happy and that's all. O comes from a coal mining state and to keep them on his good side he was pushing this. Again, a lot states have a strong coal mining industry but the shit won't work and it's crap.

The best thing to do and the only thing I can think to do is to majorly tax Carbon emissions (if we don't outright end coal mining industries). It cuts down on taxes and invest in alternative energy and create programs that allow coal miners to switch careers. Because it is not sustainable. Plus, you do realize that if they do capture it then we need the facilities to hold it----How great, a major collapse of one of those and we've got people dieing of carbon poison. This is why I don't want nuclear plants, great energy but the wastes is a nightmare and if the unthinkable happens we have a catastrophe.

To use plants as your point is like people telling me that the gorilla lives on plants alone and so humans can, considering gorillas are so close to us. Unlike gorillas we really don't have 6 stomachs that are just made for eating leaves---we've evolved from that. The technology is absurd at best.

Here's a few of my own:


http://www.coal-is-clean.com/#

http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article5513-carbon-capture-wont-work-penny---from-terry-d-mcgee.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. "…the gorilla lives on plants alone and so humans can…"
Edited on Mon May-18-09 02:40 PM by OKIsItJustMe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Actually...
http://www.amazon.com/Syndrome-Complete-Nutritional-Program-Resistance/dp/0471398586/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242676201&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Grains-Gluten-Cereal-Hazardous/dp/1583331298/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242676263&sr=1-5

http://www.amazon.com/Paleo-Diet-Weight-Healthy-Designed/dp/0471267554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242676330&sr=1-1

I do not believe that the human body can live on plants alone. The amount of protein the body needs, or the type of proteins the body needs is not met in solely vegetarian diet. Complimenting healthy protein with vegetarian meals is actually best; with as little grains as possible. I was actually rejected from giving blood because it was lacking iron and I was informed that I need to add more organ meat in my diet----apparently even my vitamin supplements were not enough.

Not to mention, I notice that you totally switched topics. Whatever....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. (I guess you didn't follow my second link)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I saw the second link...but I don't get what I need from it.
Actually planting more trees is a great idea. Taxing the hell out of industries who cause carbon emissions is best. I'm not into this crap of "clean coal" (laughable) and that carbon cap, or cap & trade (ludicrous), from Waxman is another laughable idea. The best way is to tax---so companies are forced to change. Actually stop subsidizing farmers---because rice is actually a big carbon maker. We also need to plant more trees. There is no one clear move---there needs to be major moves.

As for health I posted my links. Considering I have a genetic condition that makes protein the best bet for me to have a healthy diet---vegetarianism or vegans or raw food is not substantial for me. Once again, read the books I listed and why it's important for humans to have animal protein. Added to that, I developed massive allergies to a few foods allowed and needed for protein intake in a vegetarian diet.

I used to be a raw foodist for a good year, just as background.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Taxing carbon emissions may decrease them
Decreasing carbon emissions is not sufficient. It's a start, but it won't get us where we need to go.

As for a vegetarian diet, you have a specific condition which may recommend against you following one. By a similar token, other people have conditions which make a vegetarian (or vegan) diet advisable.
http://www.webmd.com/rheumatoid-arthritis/news/20080321/ra-heart-tip-try-gluten-free-vegan-diet
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Actually this article is a little one-sided.
Edited on Mon May-18-09 04:16 PM by vaberella
The cause of heart disease is not through animal products (I'm not talking about milk and the like...only the meat), but the way in which animal products are cooked and a sedentary life style (doesn't help). One of the countries with high mortality rates and almost no heart disease actually eat meat---Thailand, however they also are high users of coconut oil. Coconut oil does amazing things for the human body and helps in combating urges to overeat, balance sugar levels, and the like.

http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Fat-Lose-Healthy-Alternative/dp/0452285666/ref=pd_sim_b_4

http://www.amazon.com/Know-Your-Fats-Understanding-Cholesterol/dp/0967812607/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242680673&sr=1-2

Not to mention, gluten is not found in meat. The food of hunters and gatherers and actually the major element to the evolutionary development of humans versus other primates is due to the increased importance of (animal protein) in the diet. So for people to have problems with it...is a bit weird, and I find ridiculous---medically. If it's problems ideologically, well that's different. But the human has evolved to accept and need the nutrients from animal protein.

Not many things are efficient....and as I mentioned there are a variety of factors that are needed in order to lessen the problem. But this whole "carbon suckers" idea is unfounded as of yet...and when this is in the atmosphere, it's there. I don't know how storage of carbon emissions from these machines is any more efficient. It seems to be even more inefficient than lessening to the point of elimination of carbon emissions through alternative energy plans and basically shutting down ALL coal mines. That is efficient, as long as there is a condition in which those coal miners are subsidized with other incentives (which can be done) or we give them other job options.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. If Hansen (et al.) are right, stabilizing CO2 levels would not be sufficient
(Emphasis added by me.)

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=217TOASCJ.pdf


Humanity’s task of moderating human-caused global climate change is urgent. Ocean and ice sheet inertias provide a buffer delaying full response by centuries, but there is a danger that human-made forcings could drive the climate system beyond tipping points such that change proceeds out of our control. The time available to reduce the human-made forcing is uncertain, because models of the global system and critical components such as ice sheets are inadequate. However, climate response time is surely less than the atmospheric lifetime of the human-caused perturbation of CO₂. Thus remaining fossil fuel reserves should not be exploited without a plan for retrieval and disposal of resulting atmospheric CO₂.

Paleoclimate evidence and ongoing global changes imply that today’s CO₂, about 385 ppm, is already too high to maintain the climate to which humanity, wildlife, and the rest of the biosphere are adapted. Realization that we must reduce the current CO₂ amount has a bright side: effects that had begun to seem inevitable, including impacts of ocean acidification, loss of fresh water supplies, and shifting of climatic zones, may be averted by the necessity of finding an energy course beyond fossil fuels sooner than would otherwise have occurred.

We suggest an initial objective of reducing atmospheric CO₂ to 350 ppm, with the target to be adjusted as scientific understanding and empirical evidence of climate effects accumulate. Although a case already could be made that the eventual target probably needs to be lower, the 350 ppm target is sufficient to qualitatively change the discussion and drive fundamental changes in energy policy. Limited opportunities for reduction of non-CO₂ human-caused forcings are important to pursue but do not alter the initial 350 ppm CO₂ target. This target must be pursued on a timescale of decades, as paleoclimate and ongoing changes, and the ocean response time, suggest that it would be foolhardy to allow CO₂ to stay in the dangerous zone for centuries.

A practical global strategy almost surely requires a rising global price on CO₂ emissions and phase-out of coal use except for cases where the CO₂ is captured and sequestered. The carbon price should eliminate use of unconventional fossil fuels, unless, as is unlikely, the CO₂ can be captured. A reward system for improved agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon could remove the current CO₂ overshoot. With simultaneous policies to reduce non-CO₂ greenhouse gases, it appears still feasible to avert catastrophic climate change.

Present policies, with continued construction of coal-fired power plants without CO₂ capture, suggest that decision-makers do not appreciate the gravity of the situation. We must begin to move now toward the era beyond fossil fuels. Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions, for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects.

The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO₂, is Herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. You would need to know something about science to explain it.
Edited on Mon May-18-09 05:44 PM by NNadir
Carbon dioxide removal from the air involves energy.

One can make almost any substance that is stable pure, but that is not the point.

The conception is involved with something called the "Gibbs Free Energy of Mixing."

It's just hand-waving to not understand this very simple and obtrusive concept.

About 40% of the photosynthesis now taking place on earth is involved with human use. How about we just come right out and declare it should be 100%.

The Carson plant was never serious. No carbon capture scheme is, and the reason is energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. Here are some important quotes from the idiots who derailed the project:
Geiger said the project was not abandoned because of local opposition. But Marquez said that his group was preparing to wage a broad-based campaign against it, out of fears that the carbon dioxide might seep out of the ground or that the project might pose other hazards.

"We were the primary opponent, and we were able to cause its early demise," Marquez said. "We stop 90 percent of all projects."

BP and Occidental have since announced plans to develop a similar project in Kern County, which would generate about half as much electricity as the initial proposal in Carson.

The area around the Elk Hills oil field is much more rural than the Carson-Long Beach area, but Marquez said he and his allies would fight the project there as well.

"There's no place for it here in California," he said. "Allowing carbon sequestration lets the polluter continue polluting as normal. It keeps us dependent on fossil fuels when we're trying to develop a sustainable society with renewable energy resources."


No brains required.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #2
15. Certainly no brains required to criticise them ...
... as you proved by failing to quote anything that suggests
that they are the "idiots" that you claim.

:eyes:

In addition, you managed to grab a very valid quote that suggests
that their critics are the ones with little intelligence:
> "Allowing carbon sequestration lets the polluter continue polluting
> as normal. It keeps us dependent on fossil fuels when we're trying
> to develop a sustainable society with renewable energy resources."

Only a numbskull (or someone who has sold out to the coal lobby)
would consider "carbon capture & sequestration" to be a sensible
option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC