Unfortunately, the hydroelectric generating capacity actually declined from 1997 from 10.2 percent to 6.0 percent in 2007. Yet renewable energy sources less hydroelectric power rendered only 2.5 percent of the total.

Actually, the net generation of the renewables has increased, but nothing close enough to solve demonized nuclear, global warming fossil fuels or fish killing hydroelectric dams. So what does all this mean anyway? Three words: Higher-Energy-Prices.

During the ten year period from 1997 to 2007 coal natural gas and nuclear energy accounted for 84.6 to 89.5 percent of the total net generation during that period. Petroleum played a minor part with only 1.6 percent in the net generation of that period.

In the mean time, advanced coal liquefaction utilizing borane catalysts, where boron-hydrogen compounds react with coal hydrating it with the hydrogen. Following this; liquefaction uses conventional hydrocraking is used for ultra clean coal.

However, the environmental movement is deathly afraid that clean coal technology will be taken seriously. In their view, coal liquefaction is a waste of time. To them, energy independence is a nation where solar and wind power ultimately takes the place of oil coal natural gas and nuclear.

I don’t know exactly where natural gas fits into their game plan, but by now, the uninformed believe that nuclear power is demon possessed. That leaves hydroelectric power but tree huggers put the kibosh to that too. They fret and stew about dams killing fish. Yet none of them will ever openly admit that energy independence is really a nation on bicycles.

Meanwhile, around the globe, China is building coal plants using various clean technologies, including Coal Gasification, and Fluidized Bed Combustion. So what is Fluidized Bed Combustion? It’s ultra clean combustion. Briefly, jets of hot air tumble the coal dust like bubbling fluid while it’s burned.

Predictable levels of CO2 are well known and technology has taken steps, e.g. Waste to Watts to reduce such concentrations. Efforts have thus far been successful. In short, we have the technology to produce clean burning coal, but CO2 exists.

The raises an interesting question: is CO2 bad stuff or good stiff. It's a given, there’s a natural balance in nature. One such system is the complex means plants use CO2 to produce sugar for growth and how they slough off the oxygen as waste. By the way, don’t we breathe that stuff?

And as far as green house gases go, I always got a kick the way the sun evaporates sea water drawing it up into clouds. Doesn’t that make H2O a green house gas too? Anyway, what do I know. Maybe I should learn cum-by-ahh.

Custom Search