If The Pop-environmental Movement Is So Worried About Greenhouse Gasses Why Don't They Talk About Commercial Aviation?

So, Al Gore and his ilk fly all over the world telling us lesser beings we must do more to reduce greenhouse gasses.  A Kennedy flies in to preach environmentalism to us all.  Climate change activists fly all over the world to rant and rave, predicting the end of life a we know it because each of us maintains a too large carbon footprint.  President Obama helicopters out of the White House to board Air Force One to fly one place or another so he can speechify regarding greenhouse gas reductions.

The Advent Of Commercial Aviation Changed Long Distance Travel Forever

Meanwhile, in the real world, consider:

"Aircraft produce up to 4 percent of the annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels near the Earth's surface as well as at higher altitudes (25,000 to 50,000 feet). Scientists are still studying the effects of increased amounts of CO2 near the Earth's surface and in the upper atmosphere. 

In 1993, a study of toxic emissions at Chicago's Midway Airport revealed that arriving and departing planes released more pollutants than the industrial pollution sources in the surrounding 16-square-mile area. A more recent study at London's Heathrow airport showed that aircraft contributed between 16 and 35 percent of ground level NOx concentrations."

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs10grc.html 

or:

"The simple answer is that driving in a relatively fuel-efficient car (25-30 miles per gallon) usually generates fewer greenhouse-gas emissions than flying. In assessing the global warming impact of a trip from Philadelphia to Boston (about 300 miles), the environmental news website Grist.org calculates that driving would generate about 104 kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO2)—a leading greenhouse gas—per typical medium-sized car, regardless of the number of passengers, while flying on a commercial jet would produce some 184 kilograms of CO2 per passenger. "  

http://environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesign/a/fly_vs_drive.htm 

or:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/aeprimer.pdf

Interesting that emissions per passenger mile are better for autos than for aviation…

At any rate, the question could be asked, “Why is the pop-environmental movement so passionate about a variety of greenhouse reduction approaches but, almost nothing is ever heard about the impacts of commercial aviation on the environment?

No!  Are you trying to tell me junkets to environmental conferences, usually held in fun places to visit, are too much fun to risk?  Say it ain’t so!

Coal As An Environmental Enhancement?

A commenter on this blog recently asked, albeit indirectly, if I thought coal had a future as an energy source.

That is a good question. 

Coal, at present, has a pretty bad reputation.  How much of that is deserved and how much is manufactured is a matter of speculation. 

I think the answer to the question is probably “Yes.”

Despite all the angst about shipping and burning coal the fact remains coal is one of the most abundant energy sources on earth and, in some ways, if we learn to use it properly, one of the least impactive in an environmental sense.  In many of the largest economies coal also has the advantage of being abundant within the borders of the nation, therefore providing at least the possibility of energy independence.

Coal hasn’t always had the reputation it has today.  A 1946 advertisement for Pope and Talbot Lines brags up my hometown’s port in part because the city contains, “…the largest coal mine in the state.” 

Just as coal’s reputation has slipped, coal’s reputation can rebound.

As just one example, consider Germany, projected to be one of the United State’s leading customers for coal in coming years.  Germany is decommissioning nuclear power plants and building dozens of new coal plants to serve the energy needs lost to that decommissioning. 

The key to the future of coal is probably in a process called “gasification.”

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “Coal gasification offers one of the most versatile and clean ways to convert coal into electricity, hydrogen, and other valuable energy products.”

 (http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/  

Addressing the environmental aspects of gasification, the department reports, “The environmental benefits of gasification stem from the capability to achieve extremely low SOx, NOx and particulate emissions from burning coal-derived gases. Sulfur in coal, for example, is converted to hydrogen sulfide and can be captured by processes presently used in the chemical industry. In some methods, the sulfur can be extracted in either a liquid or solid form that can be sold commercially.  In an Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) plant, the syngas produced is virtually free of fuel-bound nitrogen.  NOx from the gas turbine is limited to thermal NOx. Diluting the syngas allows for NOx emissions as low as 15 parts per million. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) can be used to reach levels comparable to firing with natural gas if required to meet more stringent emission levels. Other advanced emission control processes are being developed that could reduce NOx from hydrogen fired turbines to as low as 2 parts per million.

The Office of Fossil Energy is also exploring advanced syngas cleaning and conditioning processes that are even more effective in eliminating emissions from coal gasifiers. Multi-contaminant control processes are being developed that reduce pollutants to parts-per-billion levels and will be effective in cleaning mercury and other trace metals in addition to other impurities.

Coal gasification may offer a further environmental advantage in addressing concerns over the atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. If oxygen is used in a coal gasifier instead of air, carbon dioxide is emitted as a concentrated gas stream in syngas at high pressure. In this form, it can be captured and sequestered more easily and at lower costs. By contrast, when coal burns or is reacted in air, 79 percent of which is nitrogen, the resulting carbon dioxide is diluted and more costly to separate.”

A coal gasification plant in Tampa, Florida

As study by the United Kingdom’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology speculates future emissions from the use of coal (with carbon capture technologies employed) will be about 1/7^th what they are today but there is an additional factor needing to be considered.

The Department of Energy discussion regarding coal gasification points out, “Gasification, in fact, may be one of the most flexible technologies to produce clean-burning hydrogen for tomorrow's automobiles and power-generating fuel cells. Hydrogen and other coal gases can also be used to fuel power-generating turbines, or as the chemical "building blocks" for a wide range of commercial products.”

For decades, hydrogen has been considered to be the premier fuel of the future in the nation’s automobiles.  When hydrogen combusts the major product of combustion is water but, hydrogen is difficult to produce in a cost and energy effective manner.

If coal provides the means to shift to a hydrogen economy in lieu of a fossil fuel based economy as the result of gasification, enormous benefits in terms of green house and other gas emissions might be realized.  The carbon footprint of coal might be negative in that use of the hydrogen produced in the gasification process replaces the use of petroleum products.

Does coal have a future?

Almost certainly it does.  In fact, the future of coal might just be bright.