Tom Toles on Carbon Sequestration

[eleny]

[mike_c]

1. that's an instant keeper....

Thanks!

[XemaSab]

11. If I put that on my cube at work

I'd probably be looking for a new job. :P

[kestrel91316]

2. So true!

[sandnsea]

3. You first

In order to stop using the electricity that these coal plants provide, we'll have to figure out how to cut 57% of the electricity we're using now. Light bulbs are only going to do about 5%, at most.

I really think these kinds of cartoons are irresponsible because it deludes people into believing particular solutions exist, when they just don't. We won't be off coal for a long time. Making it cleaner in the short term is doable, and will help. There's no reason not to do that, AND move to solar and wind at the same time.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Here's why they aren't irresponsible

People don't even think about where the energy comes from.

It's a funny cartoon. People will laugh at it. And they will know that we get a whole lot of our energy from coal.

The nukes/no-nukes brawls come later.

:evilgrin:

--p!

[eleny]

5. Hi sandnsea

I didn't take the message to be an all or nothing at all proposition. Cutting back in areas of our coal usage or using alternatives means that not as much coal gets used. So, I took the message as allowing for a shades of gray interpretation.

As for the 57% cutback of our electric usage, hubby and I are doing a lot to change our usage this year. That's something I *can* do something about. Being at home all the time, it's easy for us to gauge how well we're doing. I don't think we'll make 57% cutbacks but we're making one heck of a dent.

No one person can change the world but I'm determined to pay attention to what I'm doing. Toles has given me some inspiration for which I'm grateful.

[sandnsea]

7. Liberals don't want to mine

Why do you not understand the simplicty of the right and their affect on the so-called independent by now. How many times does the left have to get mad about being unfairly "framed" until they understand it's their own words that are used to create the frame.

[eleny]

24. Seems to me that Tole can be interpreted as advocating reduction

I agree with that. Meantime, I'm a liberal and I advocate clean coal technology as well as the development of alternative energy technologies. I think that's a reasonable way to express my view.

I expect that industry will try to frame my position by mangling it like a pretzel. So I just keep stating my position as simply as I can.

I have better things to do than walk on eggs and hand wring over every word I speak and how industry will interpret it. I give Tole that same latitude.

[sandnsea]

28. The opponents don't

And the really funny thing is, when the right is successful at framing various debates, the left gets mad at the Democrats when the truth is that the left helped create the distortion in the first place.

[eleny]

30. I just don't think anyone can be expected to anticipate every spin

We wouldn't be able to utter a single peep. All we can do is try and state it simply and trust ourselves. :hug:

[sandnsea]

31. I think we can anticipate this one

I'll give you a prime example of what I mean. Cindy Sheehan was just on with Tweety. She did 99% fantastic. Then Tweety asks her what Dems should do when Bush vetoes the spending bill Cindy proposed - and she has the audacity to say that Democrats didn't frame this war as Bush's war. What?!? SHE is the one who has consistently dumped this war back in the Democrats' lap, how in the world can she turn around and blame Democrats for the framing of the war!! It's stunning.

So maybe you can't anticipate what would be done with cartoons like this one, or people opposing all coal electricity - but I can. It's the kind of thing that's been used against Democrats for years. I honestly don't believe you haven't heard it, I don't know why you pretend it isn't true.

[eleny]

32. sandnsea,...

i'm not pretending anything. so, please do remember that we're on the same side.

i wasn't able to watch the first run of hardball this afternoon but plan on watching in an hour. i'll be sure not to miss it.

[NNadir]

6. I don't buy this.

We could ban coal in twenty five years if we were serious.

France more or less banned coal in 20 years, and they have the sixth largest economy in the world.

[sandnsea]

8. Twenty five years, great

In the meantime, we should support our elected officials who are demanding whatever clean coal technology that exists NOW. Instead, we have the left pretending these politicians are corrupt corporate backstabbers. It's ridiculous. I am so sick of liars, all the way around.

[Eugene]

9. The "clean coal" technology to trap CO2 isn't here yet.

The point of Toles cartoon is there is no proven way
to trap and bury CO2 emissions yet. That is true.

Proponents are asking for research funding to work out
a methods to trap and bury CO2. When they figure it out,
coal burning plants may adopt it if the economics work.
Otherwise one current backup plan is buy carbon offsets.

Even if "clean coal" can be made work, it is a solution
for the next 10-20 years with the first pilot plants
proposed for around 2010-2012. "Clean coal" will be nice
if and when it works, but until it does, coal is still the
dirtiest fuel around.

If we are going to cut greenhouse gas emissions, we have
to look at all the alternatives, conservation, renewables,
nuclear, etc. And we can use less electricity if we try.

[sandnsea]

10. Because everybody lies except the left

All of these people are not wrong.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=retrofit+coal+co2+plant&btnG=Search

We can improve coal technology while moving towards renewables. The only thing advocating banning coal is going to get you is ignored.

As I said, if you want to live on 50% less electricity, then you be the first to shut off your computer because that's what it's going to take.

It's time for people to stop being stupid about the problems facing us. For every person who wants to ban coal, there's someone else who wants to ban nuclear and hydrogen, and others who don't think solar or wind will work either. It's time for people to be responsible for the consequences of what comes out of their mouth.

[Dogmudgeon]

13. "It's time for people to be responsible for the consequences of what comes out of their mouth."

Like "Responsible Free Speech"?

Do you really want that?

--p!

[Eugene]

15. This isn't a choice between going 57% coal or going dark.

Energy choices are not all-or-nothing, use coal or ban it,
consume or conserve, either-or. Reducing CO2 emissions
means selecting a cleaner mix of energy sources for the
next generation and beyond. Coal and other fossil fuels
will be part of that mix for some time to come. How big
a part should be determined by how effectively CO2 can
be dealt with.

Coal is a fuel of choice because it is cheap (not counting
environmental costs) and abundant. The fact that coal-fired
plants produce most of our electricity today does not mean
that it has to be the case in 2020, 2030, or later.

Again, "clean coal" with CO2 capture and burial will be nice
if and when it works. Even the articles cited in your link
don't claim that it does. The common theme is retrofitting
coal-fired plants with capture technology to be determined
in the future. If CO2 burial can be made practical and
leak-proof, wonderful. Until then, nothing is guaranteed.
That is something to think about as new coal-fired power
plants are built.

Finally, conservation does not mean going without. It is
possible to use less electricity by being more efficient.

[sandnsea]

16. castor was protested too

You say you don't have evidence co2 capture works, yet you oppose putting any plants into action to prove it does. It's ridiculous. We don't know that coal won't produce our electricity in 20 years. I think we ought to be cleaning up whatever we can, in case solar and wind and waves don't work out as well as is hoped. To pretend we can just stop mining coal tomorrow is assinine. No responsible adult supports those kind of drastic measures at this point in time. We are not going to cut our electric usage in half, we're talking about adding cars to the mix. The left is not anymore reality based than the radical right.

[Eugene]

17. Where did I say I oppose proving CO2 capture?

May I suggest you re-read Reply #15 which you responded to.

Repeating from Reply #15:

Again, "clean coal" with CO2 capture and burial will be nice
if and when it works.

As for this supposed coal ban:

Coal and other fossil fuels will be part of that mix for some
time to come. How big a part should be determined by how
effectively CO2 can be dealt with.

I don't propose stopping coal mining and use tomorrow.
Even the post that started this subthread does not propose
this. One more time: If CO2 burial can be made to work,
it will be great.

To repeat the point from Reply #9, we will need all options
that work. If CO2 burial is one of them, fine, but it is not
proven yet. I'll reserve the right to be skeptical.

Framing the issue in black-or-white, left-or-right, us-or-them
absolutes is not useful. You may find that opinions out here
on the "left" are as diverse as those of the "responsible adults." :)

[sandnsea]

20. That's the position of the cartoon

So what in the hell are you doing arguing with me?

[Eugene]

21. The cartoon says that sequestration is not proven.

That point is valid as far as it goes. Your original assertion that today's
"clean coal" works deserves to be challenged. With "clean coal" and with
the "lying left" are not the only two positions on the issue. Skepticism
is not lying.

If a politician's main answer to the global warming problem is "clean coal,"
I have to wonder. The same goes for ethanol. Cleaning up CO2 emissions
will take every option that works. Easy answers to hard choices deserve
to be looked at closely.

Finally, one risk of reading between the lines, is seeing something that
may not be there. Again, there are more than two points of view in play.

[sandnsea]

22. It says don't mine

It says it will never work, it says to just forget about coal and shut all the coal plants. It's the black/white view. There's nothing about alternative views in it at all. Don't pretend there is. You defend the cartoon, you defend the black/white view. If you support considering all information out there, then you support my view.

[XemaSab]

12. Where the hell are the carbon offsets going to come from?

:shrug:

[Nihil]

18. Same place as usual ...

... straight out of some con-man's arse ...

[NNadir]

29. The main problem being, of course, that there is no such thing as "clean coal."

Other than that, it's a great idea!

[Scriptor Ignotus]

23. France has about 17 million tonnes of coal reserves

the United States has about 267 billion.

That might be a factor.

[Nihil]

19. Some of us have been doing it for a while.

> I really think these kinds of cartoons are irresponsible because
> it deludes people into believing particular solutions exist,
> when they just don't.

I feel exactly the same way about the hype about "carbon sequestration".

> We won't be off coal for a long time.

Every time someone airs an advert on "carbon sequestration" or "clean coal"
they make that "long time" even longer as it fools people into thinking that
there is a real, valid plan when there is only a shell-game out to make a
few quick (mega-)bucks from the gullible whilst continuing to trash the planet.

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. cleaner burning coal does not reduce the carbon emissions

Burning stuff releases CO2. Burning buried stuff increases the net atmospheric CO2.

Digging up coal to fuel industry which creates wealth which finances research into methods to bury the carbon that the industry creates is a pointless existence. Better to stay home reading and drinking tea heated by the woodstove.

Conservation is the only solution.

[Vincardog]

27. these kinds of cartoons are irresponsible because it deludes people into believing particular

solutions exist. On that happy note we should just all give up and die.

[philb]

14. One way to use coal with less pollution is to tap thp the coal methane(NG) often associated with

large coal deposits.
Much of the natural gas being produced now is coalbed methane.
Less pollution this way. But still some global warming effect.

Using the natural gas in more effecient and less polluting technologies such as
fuel cells reduces the pollution level further.

And utilizing the waste heat from the fuel cell or gas microturbines can provide efficiencies over 80%, while the efficiency of grid electricity is less than 40%-
often less than 30% including line losses.

[driver8]

25. Tom Toles is the man!

He has always been my favorite political cartoonist. I used to love the way he drew Reagan.