|
Coal advocates, and those trying to make the current energy systems work with minimal change, have announced that carbon sequestration is now working in Wisconsin, in a pilot project.
Really! Does anyone stop to consider the reality factors and the risk factors? I will start with an analogy in the nuclear energy industry. Despite repeated statements about the great safety and cleanness of nuclear energy, we have had nuclear materials leak into the ground water at Brookhaven National Laboratory, less than 100 miles from where I live. Leaks have also been announced in Chicago. There have been a series of leaks in the world poster child for nuclear energy, France, and leaks have been rampant in another nuclear nation, Japan. Japan also has repeated outbreaks of fire at a major nuclear complex. And all this information can be found with just a ten minute search online. Since they are taking place relatively close to me, I know that in the case of Brookhaven National Labs, radioactivity has been leaking into the local drinking water for many years without being noticed. This affects the drinking water for parts of Long Island, and the fact is that many feel Long Island has a high rate for breast cancer that is not explained. The extent of this high rate has been debated, and the exact cause has not been proven.
Why do I bring up nuclear energy when the topic here is coal and carbon-capture-and-sequestration? Because those who make big money by taking large Federal incentives, with even more money being sought to help the poor old nuclear industry (see for example this article, and this article) to build their money-losing nuclear plants, those folks always talk about the cleanness and safety of nuclear energy. And those who have been paid off to support such efforts, also repeatedly claim that nuclear energy is clean and safe. But we can see the actual track record over the last 50 years – and that is without even bringing up the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island nuclear disasters. And these observations only scratch the surface of the unclean, unsafe, and financially unsupportable nuclear industry.
That being the case, do we REALLY feel safe when we are told that CO2 will remain underground, out of the way, for 10,000 years? Has anyone demonstrated sufficient safe storage space for most of the CO2 being produced around the world in coal energy plants? And those questions can be asked without even looking into the real-world calculations on the amount of energy needed to create the liquid ammonia used in the most recent project in Wisconsin, and the amount of energy needed to properly prepare and store the CO2 underground for all such projects.
Going beyond the storage technology arguments, we have not discussed the great damage done to people's ability to live free from toxic water and air in the places coal is mined with mountain top removal, the growing trend of all new coal mining. The environmental cost of a booming coal industry has been seen quite clearly in recent years in China.
Rather than risk a leak in, say, 50 years, or 500 years, or 5,000 years, why not build on the free, truly clean energy provided in abundance by the sun (wind, photovoltaic, tidal, wave, and ocean energy differential) and by the earth (geothermal)?
Is it simply too disturbing to the average person to consider that our current way of life needs to change even a little bit? And are those who are trying to make more big money off of the loss of health and safety of the people and the other living beings on this planet, simply taking advantage of fear, greed, and carefully planted misinformation among the citizens of the world?
I believe they are. The evidence indicates that is the case. Maybe you will write and tell me what you think as well.
|
Fossil Fuel
