Carbon Pipelines Negative T
Environment Turn – Energy Consumption
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Plan is worse for the environment and resource consumption
- Environment Turn – Mining
- Mountaintop mining kills biodiversity—flooding and pollution
- Peer reviewed studies prove the laundry list of mining impacts
- Exacerbates environmental and economic damage
Environment Turn – Energy ConsumptionCCS wastes energy and increases resource consumptionRochon et al 08 Peer Reviewed, Greenpeace International: Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace, Authors include: Dr Erika Bjureby, Dr Paul Johnston, Robin Oakley, Dr David Santillo, Nina Schulz, Dr Gabriela von Goerne (Emily, May 2008, “False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate,” http://www.probeinternational.org/False%20Hope%20--%20Why%20carbon%20capture%20and%20storage%20won%92t%20save%20the%20climate.pdf)//DR. H Capturing and storing carbon uses lots of energy, anywhere from 10-40% of a power station’s capacity.16 An energy penalty of just 20% would require the construction of an extra power station for every four built.17 These reductions in efficiency will require more coal to be mined, transported, and burned, for a power station to produce the same amount of energy as it did without CCS. CCS will also use more precious resources. Power stations with capture technology will need 90% more freshwater than those without. This will worsen water shortages, already aggravated by climate change.18 Overall, wide-scale adoption of CCS is expected to erase the efficiency gains of the last 50 years, and increase resource consumption by one third.19 Plan is worse for the environment and resource consumptionRochon et al 08 Peer Reviewed, Greenpeace International: Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace, Authors include: Dr Erika Bjureby, Dr Paul Johnston, Robin Oakley, Dr David Santillo, Nina Schulz, Dr Gabriela von Goerne (Emily, May 2008, “False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate,” http://www.probeinternational.org/False%20Hope%20--%20Why%20carbon%20capture%20and%20storage%20won%92t%20save%20the%20climate.pdf)//DR. H Relying on CCS to mitigate CO2 emissions means accepting a 10-40% energy penalty at the power station, depending on the type of technology used.91 An energy penalty of just 20% would require the construction of an additional power station for every four of the same size built with CCS, to maintain the same net output before the CCS was fitted.92 These reductions in efficiency will require more coal to be mined, transported and burned to produce the same amount of energy as power stations without CCS. A new 500 MWe sub-critical pulverised coal (PC) unit with carbon capture will have to burn an additional 76,000 kg of coal per hour to maintain the same net output as a similar sized plant without capture. An ultra-critical PC unit would require a boost in its coal feed rate of 44,000 kg/h (see Table 2).93 CCS would not only worsen fuel security issues but intensify the major localised environmental problems associated with extraction and transport of coal, including habitat destruction, damage to rivers and waterways and air pollution. Power station efficiency losses would be most pronounced when capture systems are retrofitted to existing infrastructure. This is because technical mismatches between power stations and capture systems means components function below their design capacity levels. These mismatches are most pronounced with pulverised sub-critical coal units. A study by Alstom Power, Inc estimates that the addition of MEA flue gas scrubbing to a 500 MWe pulverised coal unit would reduce efficiency by 14.5% points (from 35% efficiency to 20.5%) and cost as much as US$1600/kWe.94 The substantial loss in efficiency, coupled with the high cost of retrofitting these types of plants, means a large proportion of existing coal power stations are unlikely ever to be retrofitted for capture. The decision on whether or not to retrofit also hinges on a power station’s proximity to a storage site; the necessary infrastructure to deliver the CO2 to it; and the availability of additional resources, such as water. The numerous coalfired power stations scheduled to be built between now and whenever CCS may be ready for commercial deployment will most likely never have their carbon captured and will continue to pollute unabated until they are closed down. CCS not only cuts energy efficiency but also increases resource consumption. A study by Rubin et al. (2005), quantified the impacts of capture systems on plant resource consumption and emission rates. For a 500MWe PC unit fitted with carbon capture, a 24% energy penalty was estimated to have resulted in an increase of approximately 25% for fuel, limestone (for the flue gas desulphurisation system) and ammonia (for nitrogen oxide control) inputs (see Table 3).95 A US DOE analysis on the freshwater requirements for carbon capture found that in 2030, deploying CCS in PC plants with scrubbers and IGCC plants would increase water consumption in all scenarios examined by 90% (anywhere from 2.2 to 4.3 billion gallons of water per day).96 In a report for the German Department for the Environment, the Fraunhofer Institute estimates that wide-scale adoption of CCS could erase the efficiency gains of the last 50 years and increase resource consumption by one third.97 Greater energy efficiency is half of the solution to tackling the climate crisis. Employing a technology that reduces the energy efficiency of coal-fired power plants will not bring about the sustainable energy future needed to protect the climate. Environment Turn – MiningCCS leads to new mining – tanks the environmentTady 7 - national political reporter Megan, “Carbon Capture: Miracle Cure for Global Warming, or Deadly Liability?,” Alternet, http://www.alternet.org/environment/68490/?page=4 Even if CCS becomes cheap, and scientists guarantee carbon dioxide will stay buried, some critics still won't be swayed. They say that although CCS addresses greenhouse gas emissions, it doesn't look at the ramifications of mining and shipping coal, and of the pollutants that are still released in the air during burning. Although industry is marketing CCS as a "clean coal" technology, Leonard says the term is a misnomer, and that nothing about coal is clean. "The idea of clean coal never addresses the impact of coal's entire lifecycle," Leonard said. "Coal mining is one of the most destructive environmental atrocities in this country or globally. They only address clean coal at its final stage of combustion at the power plant." One destructive coal mining technique is mountaintop removal, a process where forests are clear-cut and the tops of mountains are blasted away with explosives to expose underlying layers of coal. The method has decimated the mountains and environment of Appalachia and produced devastating impacts on the health of communities. Both Leonard and Kill fear that CCS will only spur more coal mining, not curb it. Mountaintop mining kills biodiversity—flooding and pollutionPalmer et al. 10 – Director National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center Professor Department of Entomology University of Maryland Professor Chesapeake Biological Laboratory University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (Margaret, “Mountaintop Mining Consequences” Science Journal, January 8 2010, http://www.filonverde.org/images/Mountaintop_Mining_Consequences_Science1%5B1%5D.pdf) MLR Ecological Losses, Downstream Impacts The extensive tracts of deciduous forests destroyed by MTM/VF support some of the highest biodiversity in North America, including several endangered species. Burial of headwater streams by valley fills causes permanent loss of ecosystems that play critical roles in ecological processes such as nutrient cycling and production of organic matter for downstream food webs; these small Appalachian streams also support abundant aquatic organisms, including many endemic species (5). Many studies show that when more than 5 to 10% of a watershed’s area is affected by anthropogenic activities, stream biodiversity and water quality suffer ( 6, 7). Multiple watersheds in WV already have more than 10% of their total area disturbed by surface mining (table S1). Hydrologic flow paths in Appalachian forests are predominantly through permeable soil layers. However, in mined sites, removal of vegetation, alterations in topography, loss of topsoil, and soil compaction from use of heavy machinery reduce infiltration capacity and promote runoff by overland flow ( 8). This leads to greater storm runoff and increased frequency and magnitude of downstream flooding ( 9, 10). Water emerges from the base of valley fills containing a variety of solutes toxic or damaging to biota ( 11). Declines in stream biodiversity have been linked to the level of mining disturbance in WV watersheds ( 12). Below valley fills in the central Appalachians, streams are characterized by increases in pH, electrical conductivity, and total dissolved solids due to elevated concentrations of sulfate (SO4), calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate ions ( 13). The ions are released as coal-generated sulfuric acid weathers carbonate rocks. Stream water SO4 concentrations are closely linked to the extent of mining in these watersheds ( 11, 14). We found that significant linear increases in the concentrations of metals, as well as decreases in multiple measures of biological health, were associated with increases in stream water SO4 in streams below mined sites (see the chart on page 149). Recovery of biodiversity in mining waste-impacted streams has not been documented, and SO4 pollution is known to persist long after mining ceases ( 14). Peer reviewed studies prove the laundry list of mining impactsKTFC.org 11 (“Health Impacts of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining” KTFC.org, 2011 http://www.kftc.org/our-work/canary-project/campaigns/mtr/health/MTRHealthImpacts.pdf) MLR Volumes of scientific evidence and data illustrate the harm to human health from exposure to dust and numerous toxins released into the air and water by surface mining. In the last two years alone, peer-reviewed studies by Dr. Michael Hendryx and others have demonstrated that: • people living near mountaintop mining have cancer rates of 14.4% compared to 9.4% for people elsewhere in Appalachia; • the rate of children born with birth defects is 42% higher in mountaintop removal mining areas; • the public health costs of pollution from coal operations in Appalachia amount to a staggering $75 billion a year. These findings are consistent with an earlier account of health impacts related to mountaintop mining, “Mountaintop Mining Consequences,” published in the journal Science in January 2010. According to that study: [G]roundwater samples from domestic supply wells have higher levels of mine-derived chemical constituents than well water from unmined areas. Human health impacts may come from contact with streams or exposure to airborne toxins and dust. State advisories are in effect for excessive human consumption of [Selenium] in fish from MTM/VF affected waters. Elevated levels of airborne, hazardous dust have been documented around surface mining operations. Adult hospitalizations for chronic pulmonary disorders and hypertension are elevated as a function of county-level coal production, as are rates of mortality; lung cancer; and chronic heart, lung, and kidney disease. Health problems are for women and men, so effects are not simply a result of direct occupational exposure of predominantly male coal miners. Exacerbates environmental and economic damageKTFC.org 11 – cites Dr. Paul Epstein, physician and associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School (“Health Impacts of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining” KTFC.org, 2011 http://www.kftc.org/our-work/canary-project/campaigns/mtr/health/MTRHealthImpacts.pdf) MLR A February 2011 study by Dr. Paul Epstein details the economic, health and environmental costs associated with each stage in the life cycle of coal. In terms of human health, the report estimates $74.6 billion a year in public health burdens in Appalachian communities, with a majority of the impact resulting from increased healthcare costs, injury and death. The yearly and cumulative costs from the mining, processing, transport, and combustion of coal affect individuals, families, communities, ecological integrity, and the global climate. Dr. Epstein says: “The public is unfairly paying for the impacts of coal use. Accounting for these ‘hidden costs’ doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh, making wind, solar, and other renewable[s] very economically competitive. Policymakers need to evaluate current energy options with these types of impacts in mind.” Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.92 Mb. Share with your friends:
|