WE THE PEOPLE DO NOT BELIEVE AN OBAMA/CLINTON-LED GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE ACCORD HAD ANY INTENT TO CURB INDUSTRIALIZATION.
Obama allowed more oil drilling and fracking than any other President because Clinton global Wall Street neo-liberals have captured almost all government positions any citizens fighting environmental devastation would need as leadership. So, a US city mayor allowing export terminals in ports are a green light to CLIMATE CHANGE as in Greater Baltimore. As well, fracking industry over these few decades have been steadily advancing R AND D to allow for most effective and profit-making procedures in extraction and distribution. Obama came to office when these global oil corporations were ready to install EXPORT TERMINALS and go global with fracking industry.
WE THE PEOPLE ELECTED OBAMA BECAUSE HE CAMPAIGNED OF COURSE TO BE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY AND OF COURSE AS A FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL WALL STREET PLAYER HE SERVED THE OPPOSITE.
Obama Allows More Oil Drilling and Fracking Than any President and Then Preaches About Climate Change?!
By Sydney Robinson -
September 1, 2016
Under the watchful eye of Democratic president Barack Obama, fracking has grown substantially, a massive oil pipeline was nearly approved, trade deals have been approved without blinking an eye, and oil drilling has continued on a massive scale.
Despite his label of eco-friendly, the president we now enjoy has lifted barely a finger in the fight to reduce America’s footprint on the earth, or work toward slowing climate change.
Despite all he has done to encourage the U.S.’s abuse of the land, the president is not above a symbolic gesture used to maintain his image as a peace-loving, eco-friendly world leader.
The president is set to make an announcement on Thursday about a group of programs worth $40 million which will help island nations and communities worldwide who are slowly being devastated by the effects of climate change.
Though doing little to prevent more disaster in the future, the president is more than willing to treat the symptoms of the planet’s illness when it directly affects humanity, while doing nothing to treat the disease – and it is malignant.
Thankfully, the president plans to head to China soon to formally agree to the terms made during the global climate summit held at the beginning of this year, though it has become clear by now that even the strictest measures agreed-upon at that event will not be enough to slow the effects of global warming on vulnerable communities.
Here is our next generation of Clinton neo-liberal morphing to far-right Libertarian Marxism----Bernie Sanders---he pretended he was revolutionary for left social progressivism then dumped the election to be that global Wall Street player misleading voters into thinking BAD PUBLIC POLICY IS GOOD FOR THE 99%.
This is where GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION PARTY comes into play. THE GREEN REVOLUTION back in 1980s and 90s----REAGAN/CLINTON era-----was when BIG AG/BIG MEAT killed all our local farming and husbandry making it big industry......THEN SOON AFTER IT WENT GLOBAL BIG AG BIG MEAT. All of this was driven by global Wall Street---it was not environmental---they just co-opted the left social progressive term GREEN REVOLUTION.
The same thing is happening today only this time the GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION is co-opting our real left social progressive term ---solar and alternative energy----AND BUILDING SUPERINDUSTRIAL-SIZED ENERGY PLATFORMS that kill yet again ----the environment. Global Wall Street CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are not building these mega-solar platforms for environment---they are doing so because the MOVING FORWARD to global online technology and SMART CITY DEEP STATE requires mega-energy that gas and oil cannot alone fulfill.
HERE IS BERNIE SANDERS PRETENDING THESE SOLAR PLATFORMS ARE GOOD---JUST AS CLINTON PRETENDING BIG AG AND BIG MEAT WERE GOOD.
These floating MONSTROSITIES----are known to kill the ecosystems under and around these mega-solar platforms whether here in water or in our deserts. The entire ecosystems are destroyed while global Wall Street pols pretend all this is environmentally friendly.
Small, local solar and solar panels on our homes are a good way to cut on fossil fuels---these platforms are to allow global corporate campuses more and more energy for DEEP STATE and global online technology.
China is now getting its power from the largest floating solar farm on Earth
Posted 9 days ago by Bridie Pearson-Jones in tech
Picture: Sungrow Power Supply Co.China is one of the most polluted countries in the world, according to the World Health Organisation.
Beijing in particular is known for its 'smog' or extreme pollution.
Recently, China's been on a mission to turn this around and become a leader in renewable energy.
Picture: Getty Images
The Chinese Government has announced that they've completed the construction of the world's largest floating solar farm, and it's now producing energy.
Sungrow Power Supply have created created a 40-megawatt solar power plant, which sits atop of a flooded former coal-mining town in China's eastern Anhui province.
A local government official said,
The plant not only makes full use of this area, reducing the demand for lands – but also improves generation due to the cooling effects of the surface.
The Chinese government is committed to increasing its use of non-fossil fuels by 20% and become a green superpower.
The previous article told us that the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION noted China's lead in SOLAR PLATFORMS and said all that was good for public health cutting that nasty fossil fuel. Yet, the WHO does not tell us that China is preparing to super-size the fracking industry inside one of the largest nations in the world. This will send environmental damages caused by fracking to massive levels and as we know in the US that means harming public health with contaminated fresh and public water systems-----drying fresh water aquifers needed for the fracking process----
WHY IS WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION NOT TELLING US THIS?
This article by yet another global Wall Street media outlet ATLANTIC----is telling us fracking is good because it is taking away from COAL----what is happening in US as regards coal? Global Wall Street developed the term CLEAN COAL---which OBAMA EMBRACED----and then exported coal to developing nations where it will be burned ANYWAY. So too will China.
THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FRACKING AS REGARDS HARM TO ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND IT IS A LEADER IN CO2 EMISSIONS.
If you are exporting FRACKING as Obama and Hillary did as Secretary of State ----you are NOT INTERESTED IN CLIMATE CHANGE ACCORD.
America's Fracking Boom Comes to China
Deep inside Beijing's campaign to wean the country off coal
A statue of Chairman Mao Zedong, shrouded in the morning haze of Shenyang, China Sheng Li/Reuters
Like The Atlantic? Subscribe to The Atlantic Daily, our free weekday email newsletter.
On a hazy morning last September, 144 American and Chinese government officials and high-ranking oil executives filed into a vaulted meeting room in a cloistered campus in south Xi'an, a city famous for its terra-cotta warriors and lethal smog. The Communist Party built this compound, called the Shaanxi Guesthouse, in 1958. It was part of the lead-up to Chairman Mao's Great Leap Forward, in which, to surpass the industrial achievements of the West, the government built steelworks, coal mines, power stations, and cement factories—displacing hundreds of thousands and clear-cutting a tenth of China's forests in the process. Despite its quaint name, the guesthouse is a cluster of immense concrete structures jutting out of expansive, manicured lawns and man-made lakes dotted with stone bridges and pagodas. It also features a karaoke lounge, spa, tennis stadium, shopping center, and beauty salon.
The guests at the compound that week were gearing up for another great leap: a push to export the United States' fracking boom to China's vast shale fields—and beyond. Attendees slid into black leather chairs behind glossy rosewood tables, facing a stage flanked by large projector screens. Chinese businessmen wore high-waist slacks with belts clasped over their bellies. I watched as one thumbed through business cards bearing the logos of Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, and Halliburton. Behind closed doors, a select group of Chinese and American officials and executives held a "senior VIP meeting." Outside, a troop of People's Liberation Army guards marched in tight formation.
The U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry Forum, sponsored by the U.S. departments of Commerce and Energy, as well as China's National Energy Administration, has convened for the last 13 years. But the focus turned to shale gas in 2009, when President Obama and then-President Hu Jintao announced an agreement to develop China's immense resources. The partnership set the stage for companies in both countries to forge deals worth tens of billions of dollars.
The Atlantic's James Fallows was interviewed for the video portion of this report. To watch the full video series, click here.
Here at the 2013 conference, the first American to take the podium was Gary Locke, the U.S. ambassador to China at the time. He wore a dark suit and a striped red-and-purple tie; his slick black hair glistened in the fluorescent light. "From Sichuan to Eagle Ford, Texas, from Bohai Bay to the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and Ohio, U.S. and Chinese companies are investing and working together to increase energy production in both countries," he proclaimed. U.S. and Chinese companies were so tightly knit, Air China had recently started offering non-stop flights between Beijing and Houston, "making business trips much quicker for many of you gathered here."
The soft, static voice of a Chinese interpreter seeped from headphones as young women in red vests quietly passed through each row, pausing to pour hot tea, their strides almost synchronized. Tiny plumes of steam arose from the teacups lining each table, like miniature smokestacks. It seemed fitting, because underlying all the talk of new energy was an urgency to wean China from its decades-long addiction to coal. Locke promised that shale gas would do just that: "We can make further strides to improve energy efficiency, produce cleaner energy, increase renewables, and increase supply," he asserted. "Unconventional gas, especially shale gas, is just the start."
There are two main reasons behind China's newfound zeal for gas. As Michael Liebreich, the founder of New Energy Finance, an energy-market analytics firm now owned by Bloomberg L.P., put it, "One is to feed the growth. There has to be energy and it has to be affordable in order to continue the growth machine. But the other one is that they've got to get off this coal."
Constituting a whopping 70 percent of China's energy supply, coal has allowed the country to become the world's second-largest economy in just a few decades. But burning coal has also caused irreparable damage to the environment and the health of China's citizens. City officials have been forced to shut down roads because drivers are blinded by soot and smog. China's Civil Aviation Administration ordered pilots to learn to land planes in low-visibility conditions to avoid flight delays and cancellations. Scientists wrote in the medical journal The Lancet that ambient particulate matter, generated mostly by cars and the country's 3,000 coal-fired power plants, killed 1.2 million Chinese people in 2010. In late 2013, an eight-year-old girl in Jiangsu Province was diagnosed with lung cancer; her doctor attributed it to air pollution. And earlier this year, scientists found that up to 24 percent of sulfate air pollutants—which contribute to smog and acid rain—in the western United States originated from Chinese factories manufacturing for export.
As Obama expanded exporting of our US natural resources---from raw timber, to natural gas, to crude oil each time media told us---well we are pushing CLEAN COAL, CLEAN NATURAL GAS, CLEAN TIMBER-HARVESTING.......
Know who drives the deforestation of AMAZON? Global Wall Street manufacturing corporations. Know what cleans air of CO2 most effectively and efficiently? Our plant biosystem especially trees. While global Wall Street is telling us to plant trees in our US cities---not a bad thing---they are continually denuding every national forest worldwide----including now our Pacific Northwest and UPPER MICHIGAN/MINNESOTA/WISCONSIN----MIDWEST.
Killing all the natural systems to clean the air of CO2 while telling us GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION is patenting manufactured ways of cleaning CO2 from air.
Who supports Clinton/Obama global Wall Street neo-liberals every election since 1990s? The Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters---two global Wall Street captured environmental groups pretending to be environmental leaders. At one time Sierra Club was a left social progressive group but as with all our left social progressive groups it's national leadership is now Clinton neo-liberal appointing the same at state level.
Who really imports U.S. coal, and other facts about coal exports
sightline Dec. 20, 2011
By Eric de Place, Sightline.org
This post is part of the research project: Northwest Coal Exports
Arguments over Northwest coal exports have been hot and heavy in 2011. As one might expect, there’s been plenty of disagreement about values, but there’s also been quite a bit of disagreement over facts. After nearly a year of wrangling, here’s my attempt to establish a few foundational and un-contestable basics about coal export dynamics. Even if we disagree, we can at least argue from a common view of reality.
So here’s a fact: the US currently exports about 80 million tons of coal per year, including both thermal coal and metallurgical coal. That figure was sometimes higher during the 1980s and 1990s, but it’s been even lower in recent years.
In other words, plans for Northwest coal exports—moving 60 million tons from Longview, Washington plus 50 million tons from Bellingham, Washington—would more than double the existing total volume of US coal exports.
Here’s another fact: only a fraction of US coal exports go to Asia.
The biggest destination by far is Europe (orange line). Brazil is also a major importer (blue line). Yet imports to Asia are not insignificant. In addition to Japan (dark red line), exports to Asia account for some share of the ”other” category (purple line). They also account for some of the exports to Canada (green line), which transships some US coal to market in Asia. [Author's note: I was unable to find more detailed country-level export data at the EIA website. If it exists, please send it to me.]
Who are the biggest coal importers on earth? Taken together, the nations of Europe are the biggest importer by a hair. But Asian countries buy nearly two-thirds of all the world’s imported coal.
Among Asian countries, more than 90 percent of all coal imported flows to just five countries—Japan, China, South Korea, India, and Taiwan–while smaller amounts are purchased by countries like Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Hong Kong.
ALL BEING FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES OF COURSE.
By any reckoning, the 110 million tons planned for Northwest ports would represent a very sizeable contribution to internationally traded coal in Asia. It’s more coal, in fact, than is imported annually by India.
And who are the biggest global coal exporters? Australia and Indonesia by a landslide, where coal exports have shot up recently far beyond levels projected just a few years ago.
Even at current levels—roughly 80 million tons per year—the US is already a major player in global coal exports, the fourth biggest by volume. Yet the exports planned for the Northwest would launch the country into the big leagues, which means that the decisions at Northwest ports have global significance.
Here’s another fact: the United States is sitting on a lot more coal than any other country on earth.
In fact, the US owns more than one-fourth of the entire planet’s recoverable coal, far more than the next biggest coal countries: Russia, China, Australia, and India. To a very large extent then, what the US decides to do with its coal is what the world will do about coal.
Yet the biggest consumer of coal is China by far, which is burning 3.7 billion tons per year, nearly half of all the coal burned on earth. It’s energy policy decisions in China that will drive trends in global coal burning.
The world’s next biggest consumers, Europe and the United States, each combust around 1 billion tons of coal per year, though coal consumption is waning quickly in most wealthy nations. In other words, the coal exports planned for the Northwest would amount to about 10 percent of the coal consumed annually in the US.
So these are at least a few of the elemental facts that should bear on the Northwest’s evaluation of coal export proposals. If there are other baseline pieces of information that readers want, please leave ideas in comments as I’d be happy to consider posting them here. For now, I’ll leave interpretation of these facts to future blog posts and, I imagine, our eager commenters.
Once Clinton-era policies took our US public universities corporate we lost our REAL left social progressive PUBLIC INTEREST research data and facility working to protect WE THE PEOPLE. Here is yet another GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION policy making WE THE PEOPLE THINK something is being done about all this factory pollution and CO2 emissions when in fact as with everything global Wall Street touches----it does not work ---it does not work effectively----it is left to decline and become dysfunctional----as this article states all that SCRUBBING TECHNOLOGY paid for with Federal tax revenue sold as GREEN is largely ineffective if not maintained----and it needed LOTS OF MAINTENANCE. Do we really think those corporate factories have cycled their profits back into maintenance? OF COURSE NOT!!!!!!!!
CLINTON/OBAMA GLOBAL WALL STREET NEO-LIBERALS KNOW THESE TECHNOLOGIES ARE LEFT NOT DOING ANYTHING BUT THEY SOLD A PRODUCT.
'Scrubber systems require a great deal of maintenance in order to operate properly. They must be cleaned regularly, and all filters or material collection devices should be emptied or replaced. A poorly maintained scrubber is not only ineffective, but can become a breeding ground for disease-causing bacteria'.
What is an Industrial Scrubber?
- Written By: B. Turner
- Edited By: W. Everett
- Last Modified Date: 22 May 2017
- Copyright Protected:
2003-2017 Conjecture Corporation
An industrial scrubber is a device used to remove pollution from smokestacks and exhaust systems. The scrubber system keeps harmful chemicals and fumes from entering the atmosphere, and many are designed to capture both gases and solid particles. Adequate air pollution control helps to reduce carbon and other emissions, which can in term reduce the effects of ozone depletion and global warming.
Any industrial plant or manufacturing facility may install an industrial scrubber to reduce air pollution from smokestacks. These scrubber systems are particularly relevant to factories that use harmful chemicals or dangerous gases during production. An industrial scrubber can also reduce emissions from furnace flues or other exhaust systems, even those that are not associated with toxic fumes or chemicals.
Once exhaust air leaves a furnace or piece of manufacturing equipment, it passes through the building's duct network before entering the scrubber. An industrial scrubber collects any potentially harmful materials from the air, then releases the clean air out through a smokestack or exhaust vent. Some systems also contain a heat recovery coil that collects any heat energy from the air so it can be transferred back to the building's heating unit for reuse.
The hazardous materials collected by an industrial scrubber can be handled using one of three basic techniques. Many are sent to a recycling facility for safe handling and reuse, while others are neutralized and disposed of through regular waste channels. Still others are recirculated through the plant and reused in internal manufacturing processes.
There are two basic types of industrial scrubbers systems, categorized as "wet" or "dry." Wet systems use water or liquid chemicals to collect polluting substances from exhaust air. These systems work with both gaseous and solid material, and can even handle corrosive materials. Dry scrubber systems use chemicals to absorb or dissolve hazardous materials in the air, and work better with gaseous materials than they do with solid waste particles.
Industrial scrubbers provide numerous benefits to the environment. They help prevent global warming and acid rain while keeping air quality levels high. By lowering hazardous emissions, they protect nearby residents from potential health problems caused by these materials. Scrubbers also reduce odors and prevent dangerous materials from polluting local land or waterways.
Scrubber systems require a great deal of maintenance in order to operate properly. They must be cleaned regularly, and all filters or material collection devices should be emptied or replaced. A poorly maintained scrubber is not only ineffective, but can become a breeding ground for disease-causing bacteria.
Two decades ago one could do a Google search and find tons of articles written by REAL environmental research groups shouting FACTORY SCRUBBERS----THEN WE HAD CLEAN COAL does not work. Yet, these few decades have seen every variety of factory scubber maximizing claims---that even came down to scubbers for our homes. THIS IS GREEN CORPORATION REVOLUTION---it is the opposite of real green activism.
To allow for coal exports from US, Obama's Commerce stated it was OK because they would make sure China's coal factories had SCRUBBERS and used CLEAN COAL technology. There goes GREEN CORPORATION TO GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION----now they just needed that GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION PARTY-----that is Nader and Jill Stein et al.
'The reason we have CO2 emissions is because we use a lot of energy. Controlling CO2 by burning a lot of energy doesn't make a lot of sense," Herzog said'.
For those following the RIDICULOUS CHEM TRAILS applications we see below the same thing---only this time global Wall Street is pretending it will extract CO2 directly from air. Chem Trails is a technology researchers thought could address lack of rainfall as weather conditions are creating more drought. Scientists back then were saying just as these scientists are saying below----CHEM TRAILS technology was too expensive and results too unworthy of any more investment. What did global Wall Street corporate universities do? Expanded research and provided data pretending some benefit exists. Today Chem Trails is only thought to be a MILITARY TOOL with goals of effecting local climates for population control.
REAL environmental scientist KNOW these 'innovative' technologies are not working----today's corporate scientists are paid to create patents----and that is what all this PRETEND EXCEPTIONALISM is -----all with a goal to make global citizens think something is being done about Climate Change even as they expand Foreign Economic Zone global factories coming soon as US 4TH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
Scrubbing Carbon Dioxide from Air May Prove Too Costly
Efforts to remove CO2 directly from the air are likely to prove too expensive to be practical
One of the seemingly ideal and direct solutions to climate change is to efficiently vacuum up greenhouse gases straight from the atmosphere. But a new study finds that such a proposal is very far-fetched and tremendously expensive.
The president's science adviser, John Holdren, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu have expressed support in the past for capturing and storing pollution from the air as a measure to mitigate global temperature increases. However, in a paper published earlier this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers found that trying to scrub the air is much more expensive than keeping it from getting dirty in the first place.
For the scientists conducting the study, air capture was shown to be largely wishful thinking that distracts from more effective strategies for combating pollution and climate change. "We thought it was important to set the record straight because [air capture] has policy implications," said Howard Herzog, a senior research engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Energy Initiative and one of the report's authors. He said that air capture is appealing because it allows people to get away with not changing anything about their energy use.
Air capture involves using filters, chemical reactions or special materials to collect greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Many of these technologies already exist for industrial use to keep carbon dioxide out of critical processes and to purify the air on spacecraft and submarines. The problem with using these tools to fight climate change is that pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is resource-intensive. "[Air capture] takes a lot of energy. The reason we have CO2 emissions is because we use a lot of energy. Controlling CO2 by burning a lot of energy doesn't make a lot of sense," Herzog said.
Another challenge for air capture is that the atmosphere blanketing the Earth's surface is very big, and carbon dioxide is a relatively small part of it. The scientists studied some of the existing air capture strategies on the market and calculated how efficient and how costly they would be in cleaning the air at large. "I suggested looking into what the efficiencies should be as a function of the dilution of the target materials," said Kurt Zenz House, president of C12 Energy, a carbon dioxide management firm, and one of the paper's co-authors.
Small needles, big haystack
He explained that the team examined how much energy it takes for carbon extraction systems to clean the air outdoors when the gas is spread out, unlike the richer concentrations in smokestacks for factories and coal power plants where carbon scrubbing systems are commonly advised. Collecting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would require combing through 300 times as much air as you would need in a power plant. "It's harder to find a needle in large haystack than a small haystack," said House.
The researchers found that previous cost and efficiency estimates for air capture from entrepreneurs and scientists were far too optimistic. Extracting carbon dioxide from the air would likely cost more than $1,000 per ton, compared to $50 to $100 per ton from a system installed in a chimney. "We're not saying it's infeasible to take CO2 out of the air; we're asking if this is an economic way to mitigate climate change, and here we're very clear it's not," said Herzog.
House also noted that the energy needed to pull a given quantity of carbon dioxide from the air is greater than the energy you get from burning the coal that produced it. In other words, running an air capture system with coal power would produce more pollution than it cleans up. "If you power it with natural gas, you break even, which is pointless," said House.
The only way air capture would be effective in fighting climate change is if it were powered by renewable energy like solar or wind power, in which case, it is better to feed the energy back into the grid to displace fossil fuel generation, according to House. "For air capture to work, people would basically have to substantially improve on what we've achieved so far in commercial separation systems," he said.
However, there are other ways of capturing carbon. "Probably the most practical one is biological, like trees and vegetation. That's driven by solar energy. That's not inexpensive, but it's a lot more feasible [than air capture]," said Herzog, noting that using plants to control carbon emissions would require a significant amount of land.
Another approach is to stop carbon at the source, using existing technologies to capture carbon dioxide from industrial sites and either storing it underground or reusing it for manufacturing. There are already fossil fuel energy plants using these systems, but cost is still an issue. "It's in the same ballpark as large-scale renewables and nuclear power," said Herzog. "None of them are cheap compared to base systems."
More frequent wildfires and insect infestations—themselves influenced by climate change -- can help speed that transition, said Pieter Beck, an ecologist at the Woods Hole Research Center.
Beck's work, which combines satellite observations of vegetation growth with tree-ring data, shows that while the northern reaches of the boreal forest are thriving, the growth of trees south of Alaska's Brooks Range is slowing due to drought stress.
"We're seeing the ideal envelope for boreal forests move north," said Beck. "I don't have an answer at what time scale the tipping canoe and widespread changes in regime would occur, but I think we're at a stage now where the question is whether they could occur on the time scale of the 21st century."
I like this comment below from a scientist:
'In short, CO2 capture is a ridiculous idea even for power plants, and is completely unworkable in cars'.
We just posted a scientific article from Scientific American telling us the process below is NOT PRACTICAL ----yet here are the articles selling WE THE PEOPLE as to this great new technology---NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY is that global Wall Street neo-liberal corporate university making THE 4TH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION in the US sound as though it will protect our US environment when it will not. Even if scientists could develop just the right technology----get prices down-----industry working in laissez faire global neo-liberal economies will not PAY TO USE THESE TECHNOLOGIES---after all they have to compete with other global Foreign Economic Zones not using these technologies.
a co2-cleaning machine may change the means of going green
climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2015/02/06/a-co2-cleaning-machine-may-change-the-means-of-going-green/ Feb 6, 2015 ... The reason has to do with carbon dioxide concentrations in the air. ... “It's a very interesting idea, it's a new idea, and it's a hard idea,” Socolow said ... said, by offering lower prices since the scrubber could be located near CO2 ...
I know Delaware would be proud of this statement----Delaware is ground zero for OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% and University of Delaware would indeed be that source of NON-SCIENTIFIC DATA. Not because they are not intelligent----because they have goals for data tied to global Wall Street profit and not public interest. So too has our once very strong left social progressive NIST-----under Clinton/Bush/Obama ended enforcement of Federal environmental laws and works for corporations.
NIST Provides Octagonal Window of Opportunity for Carbon Capture
February 07, 201212ncnr002_hudson_sketch_lr.jpg
The roughly octagonal pores in zeolite SSZ-13 are like stop signs for carbon dioxide, capturing molecules of the greenhouse gas while apparently letting other substances through. The material could prove to be an economical smokestack filter.
Filtering carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, from factory smokestacks is a necessary, but expensive part of many manufacturing processes. However, a collaborative research team from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the University of Delaware has gathered new insight into the performance of a material called a zeolite that may stop carbon dioxide in its tracks far more efficiently than current scrubbers do.*
Zeolites are highly porous rocks—think of a sponge made of stone—and while they occur in nature, they can be manufactured as well. Their toughness, high surface area (a gram of zeolite can have hundreds of square meters of surface in its myriad internal chambers) and ability to be reused hundreds of times makes them ideal candidates for filtering gas mixtures. If an unwanted molecule in the gas mixture is found to stick to a zeolite, passing the mixture through it can scrub the gas of many impurities, so zeolites are widely used in industrial chemistry as catalysts and filters.
The team explored a zeolite created decades ago in an industrial lab and known by its technical name, SSZ-13. This zeolite, which has octagonal "windows" between its interior pore spaces, is special because it seems highly capable of filtering out carbon dioxide (CO2) from a gas mixture. "That makes SSZ-13 a promising candidate for scrubbing this greenhouse gas out of such things as factory smokestacks," says Craig Brown, a researcher at the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR). "So we explored, on an atomic level, how it does this so well."
Using neutron diffraction, the team determined that SSZ-13's eight-sided pore windows are particularly good at attracting the long, skinny carbon dioxide molecules and holding onto their "positively-charged" central carbon atoms, all the while allowing other molecules with different shapes and electronic properties to pass by unaffected. Like a stop sign, each pore halts one CO2 molecule—and each cubic centimeter of the zeolite has enough pores to stop 0.31 grams of CO2, a quantity that makes SSZ-13 highly competitive when compared to other adsorbent materials.
Brown says a zeolite like SSZ-13 probably will become a prime candidate for carbon scrubbing because it also could prove more economical than other scrubbers currently used in industry. SSZ-13's ability to attract only CO2 could mean its use would reduce the energy demands of scrubbing, which can require up to 25 percent of the power generated in a coal or natural gas power plant.
"Many industrial zeolites attract water and carbon dioxide, which are both present in flue exhaust—meaning both molecules are, in a sense, competing for space inside the zeolite," Brown explains. "We suspect that this novel CO2 adsorption mechanism means that water is no longer competing for the same site. A zeolite that adsorbs CO2 and little else could create significant cost savings, and that's what this one appears to do."
Brown says his team is still collecting data to confirm this theory, and that their future efforts will concentrate on exploring whether SSZ-13 is equally good at separating CO2 from methane—the primary component of natural gas. CO2 is also released in significant quantities during gas extraction, and the team is hopeful SSZ-13 can address this problem as well.
GLOBAL JOHNS HOPKINS here in Baltimore does the same thing in protecting corporations guilty of harming public health---
'In a secret negotiation revealed by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Student Association of California University signed over mineral rights on 67 acres. The lease includes a confidentiality clause.
The Marcellus Institute at Mansfield University is "an academic/shale gas partnership," designed to educate the people about the issues of natural gas production. The university holds summer classes for teachers and week-long camps for high school students to allow them to "Learn about the development of shale gas resources in our region and the career and educational opportunities available to you after high school!"'
These same K-career corporate schools educate our children in corporate interest making sure WE THE PEOPLE do not know the real outcomes.
Friday, 09 May 2014 07:30 The Other Scandal at Penn State: Fracking
WALTER BRASCH FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
(Photo: George Chriss)
Two of the reasons Pennsylvania has no severance tax and one of the lowest taxes upon shale gas drilling are because of an overtly corporate-friendly legislature and a research report from Penn State, a private state-related university that receives about $300 million a year in public funds.
Opponents of the tax cited a Penn State study that claimed a 30 percent decline in drilling if the fees were assessed, while also touting the economic benefits of drilling in the Marcellus Shale. What wasn't widely known is that the lead author of the study, Dr. Timothy Considine, "had a history of producing industry-friendly research on economic and energy issues," according to reporting by Jim Efsathioi Jr. of Bloomberg News. The Penn State study was sponsored by a $100,000 grant from the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an oil and gas lobbying group that represents more than 300 energy companies. Dr. William Easterling, dean of Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, said the study may have "crossed the line between policy analysis and policy advocacy."
The Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research (MCOR), a part of Penn State, announced that with funding provided by General Electric and ExxonMobil, it would offer a "Shale Gas Regulators Training Program." The Center had previously said it wasn't taking funding from private industry. However, the Center's objectivity may have already been influenced by two people. Gov. Tom Corbett, who accepted more than $2.6 million in campaign funds from oil and gas company personnel, sits on the university's board of trustees; billionaire Terrence (Terry) Pegula, owner of the Buffalo Sabres hockey team, was CEO of East Resources, which he had sold to Royal Dutch Shell for $4.7 billion in July 2010.
Pegula and his wife had also contributed about $380,000 to Corbett's political campaign. On the day Pegula donated $88 million to Penn State to fund a world-class ice hockey arena and support the men's and women's intercollegiate ice hockey team, he said, "[T]his contribution could be just the tip of the iceberg, the first of many such gifts, if the development of the Marcellus Shale is allowed to proceed." At the groundbreaking in April 2012, Pegula announced he increased the donation to $102 million.
The Shale Technology and Education Center (ShaleTEC) program at the Pennsylvania College of Technology, a branch of Penn State, was established "to serve as the central resource for workforce development and education needs of the community and the oil and natural gas industry," according to its website.
With an initial $15,000 grant from the Marcellus Shale Coalition, the Community College of Philadelphia (CCP) planned to establish certificate and academic programs for workers either already employed by or intending to enter jobs that provide services to Marcellus Shale companies. In a news release loaded with pro-Corbett and pro-industry appeal, college president Stephen M. Curtis announced in November 2012, "The goal is to support the supply chain now serving energy companies and offer specialized career training that connects residents to the high-pay, high-demand career paths." John Braxton, assistant professor of biology and an ecologist, said CCP "must not be used as a PR puppet for shale gas fracking companies," accurately noting that the fracking industry "got a free publicity ride" by the administration's hasty decisions. Within two weeks of CCP's announcement, the faculty union (AFT Local 2026), which represents the college's 1,050 faculty and 200 staff, condemned the decision to establish the Center "without the consideration or approval of the faculty, and with total disregard for established College procedures for instituting new academic curricula." In a unanimous vote by the Representative Council, the faculty declared, "the natural gas drilling . . . industry and peripheral and related industries present unacceptable dangers and risks to public health, worker safety, the natural environment, and quality of life." Curtis left CCP in June 2013; the proposed program was never developed, and remains unfunded.
In April 2011, Gov. Corbett had suggested that the 14 universities of the State System of Higher Education (SSHE) could allow natural gas drilling on the campuses that sit on top of the Marcellus Shale. The ensuing Act, passed by the Republican-controlled legislature, includes clauses to compromise the universities' academic integrity. In exchange for supporting fracking, the new act allows the university where the gas is extracted to retain one-half of all royalties; 35 percent would go to the other state universities; 15 percent would be used for tuition assistance at the 14 state universities. California and Mansfield universities have already begun to profit from fracking.
In a secret negotiation revealed by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Student Association of California University signed over mineral rights on 67 acres. The lease includes a confidentiality clause.
The Marcellus Institute at Mansfield University is "an academic/shale gas partnership," designed to educate the people about the issues of natural gas production. The university holds summer classes for teachers and week-long camps for high school students to allow them to "Learn about the development of shale gas resources in our region and the career and educational opportunities available to you after high school!"
The university's associate in applied sciences (A.A.S.) degree in natural gas production and services, begun in Fall semester 2012, was fast-tracked, submitted and approved in less than six months rather than the 12–18 months normally required for approval. The university "will take as many students as we can," said Lindsey Sikorski, the Institute's director, although only one new faculty position was approved. The SSHE administration encourages larger class sizes and fewer permanent professors. The program, Sikorski says, "is not one of advocacy for the industry, and all sides will be considered." The program has not received any grants from the industry; Sikorski said she "doesn't want there to be any conflicts of interest" that would "compromise the integrity of the program." However, the reality is that energy companies and their lobbying groups may eventually fill a financial hole created by Corbett cutting higher education funding and the system's chancellor refusing to protect academic integrity in the state-owned universities. (Neither Chancellor John Cavanaugh nor his successor, Frank Brogan, responded to repeated calls.)
The union that represents the state system's 6,000 faculty passed a resolution in September 2013 opposing drilling on campuses, stating that the campuses "are not appropriate locations for [fracking] given the environmental and health hazards of the fracking process."
Here is an article that speaks to the concerns we do-----Greenpeace International has shown signs of being a captured environmental group as well----but it does provide good research data.
This article is too long to post please Google to see why this DOG AND PONY SHOW OF CO2 CAPTURE is unrealistic. The only way to stop Climate Change from advancing is to STOP BUILDING FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES WITH MORE GLOBAL FACTORIES.
Baby boomers will remember back before Clinton we had scientific procedures for cleaning up and storing nuclear waste that was then simply ignored and defunded----all that know-how in cleaning up nuclear waste and CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA just let that nuclear waste SIT.
Why carbon capture
and storage won't
save the climate
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) aims to reduce the climate
impact of burning fossil fuels by capturing carbon dioxide (CO
from power station smokestacks and disposing of it underground.
Its future development has been widely promoted by the coal
industry as a justification for the construction of new coal-fired
power plants. However, the technology is largely unproven and will
not be ready in time to save the climate
This report, based on peer-reviewed independent
scientific research shows that:
CCS cannot deliver in time to avoid dangerous
The earliest possibility for deployment
of CCS at utility scale is not expected before 2030.
avoid the worst impacts of climate change, global
greenhouse gas emissions have to start falling after 2015,
just seven years away.
CCS wastes energy.
The technology uses between 10
and 40% of the energy produced by a power station.
Wide scale adoption of CCS is expected to erase the
efficiency gains of the last 50 years, and increase
resource consumption by one third.
Storing carbon underground is risky.
permanent storage of CO
cannot be guaranteed. Even
very low leakage rates could undermine any climate
CCS is expensive.
It could lead to a doubling of plant
costs, and an electricity price increase of 21-91%.
Money spent on CCS will divert investments away from
sustainable solutions to climate change.
CCS carries significant liability risks.
It poses a threat
to health, ecosystems and the climate.
It is unclear how
severe these risks will be.
The climate crisis requires urgent action. Climate scientists
warn that to avoid the worst effects, global greenhouse
gas emissions must peak by 2015 and then start falling by
at least 50% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. Coal is
the most polluting of all fossil fuels, and the single greatest
threat to the climate. If current plans to invest hundreds of
billions of dollars in coal plants are realised, CO
from coal could increase 60% by 2030.
Concerns about the feasibility, costs, safety, and liability of
CCS make it a dangerous gamble.
A survey of 1000
“climate decision-makers and influencers” around the
world reveals substantial doubt in the ability of CCS to
deliver. Just 34% were confident that retrofitting ‘clean
coal technology’ to existing power plants could reduce
emissions over the next 25 years without
unacceptable side effects, and only 36% were confident
in its ability to deliver low-carbon energy from new power
The real solutions to stopping dangerous climate change
lie in renewable energy and energy efficiency that can start
protecting the climate today. Huge reductions in energy
demand are possible with efficiency measures that save
more money than they cost to implement. Technically
accessible renewable energy sources – such as wind,
wave and solar- are capable of providing six times more
energy than the world currently consumes – forever
'Professor Dietmar Müller from the School of Geosciences at the University of Sydney and Scott Dyksterhuis from ExxonMobil'
This smiling face doesn't hide his employer-----EXXON MOBILE. Again, WE THE PEOPLE were given all this same scientific data and procedures to protect our environment from nuclear waste after nuclear power plants did their damage. All the same studies as to the best geological sites for burying that nuclear waste were determined----Clinton comes along and all environmentalism was scrapped as too funding---and we are going to think today's hyper global Wall Street neo-liberals are really MOVING FORWARD to protect WE THE PEOPLE from the same Asian Foreign Economic Zone global factory environmental devastation? OH, REALLY???
Sadly, a once leader in left social progressivism ---Australia is now captured by global banking neo-liberals just as is UK------especially their universities.
Mitigating global warming by CO2 storage? Check for continental stress
March 24, 2017
Professor Dietmar MüllerIf proposed CO2 sites are not properly assessed for long-term stability, future civilisations could still suffer the consequences of global warming.
Professor Dietmar Müller from the School of Geosciences at the University of Sydney and Scott Dyksterhuis from ExxonMobil have created a computer model that predicts how the Australian continent will be progressively stressed in the future – this is important for gauging the structural stability of proposed CO2 storage sites in any consideration of the technology as a response to climate change.
"Being a crystal ball gazer for the future is usually a difficult enterprise and so far nobody had ventured into the field of modelling Australia's, or any other continent's, future stress," Professor Müller said.
Instead it was generally assumed that carbon storage sites in the interior of continents are stable and would not suffer from enhanced "stressitis" in the future.
Based on their long-term collaboration on modelling past stresses of the Australian continent, the researchers realised that Australia is particularly prone to future changes in its stress field.
While Australia is not a continent disposed to large, destructive earthquakes, small quakes are widespread. This reflects the largely compressive tectonic stress in Australia, imparted on the continent by three collisions along the periphery of the Indo-Australian Plate, along the Himalayas, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand.
The present vs future intraplate stress field. Credit: University of SydneySmall earthquakes are caused by successive movement along minor crustal faults. When active faults intersect reservoirs that hold fluids or gas, the latter may be gradually released.
This is where carbon capture and storage comes in. A 19% carbon storage contribution to CO2 reduction by 2050, as envisaged by the International Energy Agency, could require the construction of thousands of carbon storage sites.
CO2 storage would need to last for tens of thousands of years to avoid future CO2 leakage into the groundwater and atmosphere. Knowing the likelihood of future escape of stored CO2 due to fault reactivation would be a critical selection criterion for sites that have been proposed for carbon storage across Australia – 61 so far.
To assess the likelihood of future leakage of CO2 storage sites, the outlook for changes in crustal stress patterns would need to be known.
Australia, the continental margin has already been shortened by about 40 km over the last 2 million years, causing crustal uplift of Timor by nearly 3 km." Professor Müller said.
He added: "The severity of collision and mountain belt elevation will grow significantly in the future, while the Australian Plate continues to move northward at about 70 km over a million years, and the Timor Trench will gradually become a major collision zone."
The Timor collision. Credit: University of SydneyThe team adapted its previous models for paleo-stress to simulate the stress field one million years into the future, based on the projected growth in the intensity of plate tectonic collision along Timor.
Counter-intuitively, the largest changes are predicted for some parts of western, central and southeast Australia, all regions far away from plate edges. This reflects how growing collisional forces are deflected into a geologically heterogeneous continent.
Much of the northwestern portion of Australia, much more proximal to the collision zone that is driving future stress field changes, is predicted to experience only minor stress field changes. However, the intensity of stress is predicted to increase severely along the Northwest Shelf of Australia.
The researchers found that at least ten suggested carbon storage sites are located in regions where significant changes of in the stress regime can be expected, over a time period of 100,000 years, a period relevant for estimating the stability of storage sites.
The new computer model highlights the importance of considering future intraplate stress field changes for selecting carbon storage sites, especially within regions affected by ongoing mountain building processes as is the case for Australia, India, South America, Asia and southern Europe.
The digital stress models are freely available to allow end-users in industry, government and academia to evaluate the future fault reactivation risk for any location in Australia.