I have only written one other blog before the one I created for English class, and it was mostly written to communicate, while studying abroad in Ecuador, what I was experiencing to my family and friends. I may live during the technological age, and I do use Facebook, but I generally would not choose to post my information on the internet or to write for such a broad audience. In fact, much about this class has been a new experience. Many times I was not sure what to expect or what was expected of me, and so my blog posts were my best attempt to capture the essence of what I believe was both desired for me to learn as well as for me to produce.
As is true for me at the beginning of every course I take, I am more likely to put in more effort than might be necessary, at least in the beginning, to ensure success, until I know what is truly expect of me for the course and how well I will naturally do. Basically, I am an overachiever deep inside, be that a virtue or a sin. So, with this in mind, I remember getting home the night the first blog assignment was given, and spending well over an hour composing my post “Love Land,” describing the place where I go skiing in Colorado. I wasn’t sure if I would even use the content in my personal environmental ethics essay, but I wanted to describe the scene to the best of my ability, so that my classmates would be able to see into my life, my passions, my ability (or lack of ability, depending on the judge) to write, and my love of God, the Creator of all things. So from the beginning I wrote not just for the grade, but to convey something greater to all those who would read what I had written. I did not envision others, unaffiliated with OU, stumbling across my blog, although it is possible. But I did foresee that maybe other friends of mine would venture onto my “Earth Tones” blog, navigating from the only other blog I’ve ever written, and I wanted to make a good impression.
I still had no idea what to expect for the class and each piece that we read took me into a different realm of the subject of “the environment”. I had previously studied most of the topics we covered in several of my geography classes, but I continued to learn new information through the means of a variety of writing styles. These different styles often also affected how I wrote. At times I wanted to respond with my personal opinions and reactions more so than to analyze the rhetoric, and at times this inclination led to a lack of clarity in my writing. I do believe that as I grasped a better picture of what a “blog post” really consists of and what was required of me, my writing improved.
It is not necessarily that reasoning that presses me to believe that my post on “An Unspoken Hunger” was far from the greatest of my posts, even though it was one of the first chronologically. I clearly remember writing it late at night, which produced more than a couple of grammatical errors, but it is my lack of clarity in some ways that makes me deem it less than worthy of praise. I so desired to comment on the pantheistic nature of the writing and how it compares and contrasts with my own beliefs about the nature of, well, nature. And so I failed to really clarify what I was trying to write, while still putting together a semblance of a response to the tone, structure, and theme of the pieces. In contrast, by the time I wrote “Eat Meat?”, I understood the scope of what a blog post should include and was able to narrow down some ideas and discuss them with better precision, while still including some personal response. Perhaps the quality of my work in these two examples was prompted by my emotional response to the writers and whether I agreed or disagreed with their writing. This I do not know for sure.
I do know that through the various posts, I came to better recognize the elements of rhetoric in the readings, even when not directly commenting on them in my posts. Knowing that my reflection would be posted on the internet for all to read, I was careful to read through the pieces, noting points of interest and effective pathos, logos, and ethos along the way. I believe that I was fairly thoughtful in my analysis, occasionally even writing far too long of a response (as in the case of “Cradle to Cradle”). As an overachiever at heart, I attempt to own my work, taking pride in the effort I put in, but I also was genuinely interested, for the most part, in the readings. I have not had much opportunity to rhetorically analyze writing in the course of my college years, and between this class and my Spanish literature course, it’s been a pleasure.
Analyzing, however, the writing of my classmates, I did not do as great of a job. I attempted to be thoughtfully critical, both including grace and truth in my comments, but sometimes I only gave praise and sometimes I attempted to critique only to add too much fluff over my suggestions. My classmates seemed to also have trouble with this balance. Instead of analyzing my work I would generally read comments that agreed with one part of my prose and saying “good job” without questioning my opinions or adding to my thoughts. Despite this, I was able to take knowledge away from both my own posts as well as theirs, especially when these thoughts were not presented in the class discussion. I guess people are not as shy when it’s mandatory for them to write something and to have others have read it. In my case, these posts helped me to formulate ideas about the readings before coming to class. And through discussion, revision, reading, and analyzing, I have certainly formed ideas- about the world, the environment, and about words. Even in writing this essay, I’m not sure what to expect, but I know that I have taken something away from the process and have taken a step forward in my college journey.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Group Project Suggestions
I’d be interested in doing a project on energy, specifically, energy conservation, efficiency, as well as maybe even including some renewable energy sources. This could become a huge overwhelming topic so I would rather not focus too much on coal, oil, natural gas, etc. but instead inform readers of what they personally can do on an individual level. Obviously “clean coal” technology and the like are not things that individuals are really able to improve/invent (while there is possibility it is not likely that the average citizen is going to come up with something like that unless they are on a team with others, most likely with some government funding). So by informing the audience of energy conservation tips, little known facts, the importance of a reduced use in fossil fuels, as well as some renewable alternatives and how to utilize them, I think that the project would be more applicable in the lives of individuals. There is also plenty of room for creativity within this idea. This is also a really relevant topic for college students from an economical standpoint. I know it drives me crazy when my electric bill is ridiculously high and so some of my roommates and I have been trying to figure out how to cut some of our electricity use- and I know I can’t be the only one.
Here are some things I found floating around on the web:
http://wgc2005.org/energy-conservation-tips-the-elements-of-a-homemade-solar-panel/
This blog does a good job of informing their readers about some of the things I would be interested in discussing, however, its focus is not entertainment as a means of informing and it covers a much wider base of topics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0nDFGRqgbI&feature=related
This video isn’t necessarily funny, but it’s kind of catchy because I wanted to see what the words on their shirts ended up saying. It also uses all sorts of different people in different stages of life and points at the possibility for individuals to make an impact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kocZ-j-o3I
This short video is really cute and provides a little bit of info as well about energy efficient light bulbs.
Here are some things I found floating around on the web:
http://wgc2005.org/energy-conservation-tips-the-elements-of-a-homemade-solar-panel/
This blog does a good job of informing their readers about some of the things I would be interested in discussing, however, its focus is not entertainment as a means of informing and it covers a much wider base of topics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0nDFGRqgbI&feature=related
This video isn’t necessarily funny, but it’s kind of catchy because I wanted to see what the words on their shirts ended up saying. It also uses all sorts of different people in different stages of life and points at the possibility for individuals to make an impact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kocZ-j-o3I
This short video is really cute and provides a little bit of info as well about energy efficient light bulbs.
ReUse: Turning Trash into Cash
One man’s trash may be another man’s treasure, but what about one man’s trash becoming another man’s cash? Who ever thought that trash could improve an economy! This is just the idea that ReUse Industries is using. In 1994 an AmeriCorps VISTA worker with Rural Action, a local activist group, had the idea to begin a non-profit organization that would create jobs, generate income within the local economy, and reduce the amount of waste going into landfills. ReUse Industries, funded by several different grants and loans, was born at a 20-year-old abandoned farm in Albany. Volunteers came together to renovate several of the dilapidated buildings now used for storage, repair, offices, and a store. Then in 2005 ReUse continued to participate in community restoration by purchasing and renovating a 100-year-old abandoned store in Wellston, which was turned into a thrift store to sell the salvaged merchandise (Good for You). Another thrift store was later opened up in Athens, which is currently thriving.
Located in an area of rural Ohio with a poverty rate of 30%, ReUse Industries’ goals are rooted in both environmental and economic sustainability (“Community Page”). Their mission statement declares, "The purpose of the corporations shall be to promote, support, sponsor and conduct economic development activities, including research, job creation, job training and business development, utilizing waste and discarded resources” (“Funder Information”). While the Athens and Wellston thrift stores resemble other thrift stores, selling clothes, knick knacks, household goods, books, and various smaller items, the Albany store is distinct in the world of ‘thrifting’. They accept, repair, clean, and sell building materials, furniture, hardware, appliance, including refrigerators and washing machines, and really anything under the sun. The store’s walls are lined with everything from wallpaper to TVs to luggage to office desks. In this way ReUse is able to supply much needed items to those who would not otherwise be able to afford them. Originally ReUse worked with Mullen’s Appliance, a local repair shop, to repair and salvage parts and electronics; however, now they do their own minimal repairs. They require that electronics be in working condition and that the donated items fall within their conditions for acceptance listed on their website. Cathy Wilson, ReUse Industries’ executive director, said that at times “we get stuff and we don’t even know what it is!” Once a mobile home was even donated, which was quickly turned around and sold. Certainly this variety in supply is their greatest advantage over other similar operations. Since its inception ReUse has diverted over 6.5 million pounds of waste from landfills (Good for You).
In such a poverty stricken region, the demand for cheap, needed items is great. Wilson noted that their prices are usually about 25% of what the item would likely cost if it were new. Therefore, she said that last year those who bought from ReUse were able to retain a total of $78,000, which could then be spent on other necessities. This is a powerful thing in the life of someone who would not otherwise be able to provide for his or her family. While the greatest demand comes from low income individuals, Wilson says that there is also the type of shopper who just “really sees value in used stuff” as well as the environmentalist who shops at ReUse because it’s earth-friendly and reduces the demand for new ‘stuff’ to be created. The demand for reused goods has not diminished nor does it have any reason to do so in the future, and so the organization proves not only feasible but also sustainable.
On the financial end, ReUse has seen great improvements and is just about at their goal as a business, to be 100% self-sufficient. AmeriCorps VISTA workers have been assigned to the organization since its commencement; however, that program will be ending this coming summer of 2009. ReUse no longer uses grant money, but is able to maintain its budget based on sales alone. There is still some fundraising that goes on, but more than anything the simple cycle of donation, restoration, and resale is enough to keep the business afloat, making it not only logistically sustainable, but also economically sustainable. Between eight and ten jobs have been created in the process, which was one of the original goals as declared in the mission statement. There are several volunteers who help out at the three stores, but in addition ReUse Industries is a job training site and has trained almost 300 job training clients since its inception. Letting individuals train and get their foot in the door, ReUse is able to support the local job market and labor force, eventually strengthening the economy as well.
The “P.C.s to the People” program, which began in 2001, also has great implications for the communities’ development. It began as a collaborative effort with the Athens County Department of Job & Family Services and Hocking College and later became a program solely run by ReUse Industries (“PCs to the People”). They accept personal computer equipment at the Albany site and then refurbish the systems to sell at a reduced rate to low income residents. The donations are tax-deductible and allow individuals or families, based on their income level, to purchase a monitor, CPU, keyboard, and mouse with a licensed Microsoft operating system (P.C.s to the People). This is a tremendous opportunity for some who would not otherwise be able to purchase a computer and therefore lack technological knowledge in an ever-increasing technological age. “Studies have shown that individuals with computer skills are much more likely to attain gainful employment, typically at a much higher level of pay than those without these skills” (“PCs to the People”). This not only keeps these electronics out of landfills but puts them into the hands of people who will have an increased possibility of obtaining better jobs and therefore further developing the local economy.
ReUse attempts to build relationships with local organizations and businesses, as it had done in the early stages of the “P.C.s to People” program, and has a relationship with Ohio University as well. ReUse provides a pick-up service free of charge for most donations within the city limits of surrounding towns and cities including Athens, Wellston, Jackson, Albany and several others. In the case of OU, ReUse has a truck that remains parked at the campus recycling site and transports reusable materials back to the farm in Albany for resale when the truck is full. Originally OU used to donate much more than it currently gives because it now auctions off most items. ReUse still receives some wood, building materials, and other things that can’t be auctioned off.
OU’s students also have opportunities to donate used items. One of the busiest times of the year for ReUse is in conjunction with the OU calendar: student move out. Cathy Wilson said that they are a “major off campus force for picking up stuff” for those several days as students scramble to move out of dorms and apartments, discarding their unwanted items. According to Wilson they make well over 200 pickups within a couple of days. Another big event for ReUse Industries is its Community Yard Sale, started in 2006, which will be held May 9, 2009 of this year (“Community Yard Sale 2009!”). Community members are encouraged to sign up for a vendor spot to sell their own reusable items. While ReUse does not make a great profit on this day, it is good publicity for the organization and shows support for the community, raising awareness for the importance of reuse.
Even with the current economic recession, ReUse has been doing alright. They have found that building materials are not in as great of a demand, especially given the location of the farm in Albany, and so they have reduced hours at the Albany facility from six days a week to Saturdays only from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. At the two other thrift stores demand has actually increased because as individuals’ incomes decrease, there is a much greater need for inexpensive necessities. In general the Athens store has multiplied its revenue, seeing an increase in sales of $40,000 between 2007 and 2008, according to Wilson. Within that time frame another local thrift store, New to You, moved its location to Columbus Road in Athens, practically next door to the ReUse thrift store. Cathy Wilson said that they are “thrilled that they (New to You) moved.” She doesn’t view them as competitors but said that having another similar store actually brings in more customers, creating a larger market. Goodwill also arrived in Athens in 2008. While Wilson said there hasn’t necessarily been a pull away from ReUse’s customers, she said that it’s “like having a Walmart come into town” since it’s a large corporation with a bigger money pool. ReUse, a local effort, attempts to support other local businesses when they can, therefore supporting economic development within the community.
ReUse Industries’ board of directors has a development committee to set future goals for the organization, one being increased energy efficiency. Currently they are not able to switch to solar power as they would like due to a lack of grant money and an inability to take out further loans; however, that is a future hope for the business. In the meantime, Wilson mentioned that the business’ greatest need is just for the community to continue to donate and shop at ReUse. “The more donations we have the more someone else sees a purpose for it,” she said. She made note of how she sees students donating their furniture and goods at the end of the year and then other students coming and buying them at the start of the next year, explaining that “it’s kind of like a circle.” ReUse Industries truly sees the benefits of “keeping the goods within the community and reusing them,” and really does turn one man’s trash into another man’s cash, as well as another man’s treasure. It’s a win-win situation for the whole community, straight out of the waste stream.
Appendix: Interview Questions
1. Where did the idea originate? How did you acquire the land? What did ReUse Industries do in the very beginning?
2. Is there a specific mission statement?
3. How has the community responded to this initiative (in all of its stages)? Times when support was down?
4. What kind of an interest has there been in ReUse? How has it changed and grown over the years? What are some of its effects in the community?
5. What kinds of items are donated and how are they repaired/cleaned/fixed? Who generally donates them?- Relationship to businesses/contractors/OU, etc?
6. PC’s to the People program?
7. Where does most of the demand come from for your items?
8. Is there any competition between the various other thrift stores (Goodwill, New to You) in Athens?
9. How many people who work here are full time/part time/work for wares/volunteer? How are people selected to work here and what kinds of skills are needed for the different jobs?
10. What do you see in the future for ReUse- more/different programs, larger scale? What are some future goals that ReUse hopes to attain/fulfill?
11. How it is primarily funded? What makes it economically feasible? How has the current state of the economy affected the business?
12. What is the biggest challenge that this organization faces?
13. I read on your blog that the VISTA program will be ending this summer. Why was it not renewed, if I might ask, and how is this going to affect the business? What are the specific volunteer needs?
Works Cited
“Community Page.” ReUse Industries. 27 Feb. 2009 <http://www.reuseindustries.org/community.htm>.
"Community Yard Sale 2009!" Weblog Entry. ReUse Industries. 26 Feb. 2009. 1 Mar. 2009 <http://www.reuseindustries.org/blog/>.
“Funder Information.” ReUse Industries. 1 Mar. 2009 <http://www.reuseindustries.org/funders.htm>.
Good for You, Good for the Community! ReUse Industries.
P.C.s to the People. ReUse Industries.
“PC s to the People.” ReUse Industries. 1 Mar. 2009 <http://www.reuseindustries.org/pcs.htm>.
Wilson, Cathy. Personal Interview. 21 Feb. 2009.
Located in an area of rural Ohio with a poverty rate of 30%, ReUse Industries’ goals are rooted in both environmental and economic sustainability (“Community Page”). Their mission statement declares, "The purpose of the corporations shall be to promote, support, sponsor and conduct economic development activities, including research, job creation, job training and business development, utilizing waste and discarded resources” (“Funder Information”). While the Athens and Wellston thrift stores resemble other thrift stores, selling clothes, knick knacks, household goods, books, and various smaller items, the Albany store is distinct in the world of ‘thrifting’. They accept, repair, clean, and sell building materials, furniture, hardware, appliance, including refrigerators and washing machines, and really anything under the sun. The store’s walls are lined with everything from wallpaper to TVs to luggage to office desks. In this way ReUse is able to supply much needed items to those who would not otherwise be able to afford them. Originally ReUse worked with Mullen’s Appliance, a local repair shop, to repair and salvage parts and electronics; however, now they do their own minimal repairs. They require that electronics be in working condition and that the donated items fall within their conditions for acceptance listed on their website. Cathy Wilson, ReUse Industries’ executive director, said that at times “we get stuff and we don’t even know what it is!” Once a mobile home was even donated, which was quickly turned around and sold. Certainly this variety in supply is their greatest advantage over other similar operations. Since its inception ReUse has diverted over 6.5 million pounds of waste from landfills (Good for You).
In such a poverty stricken region, the demand for cheap, needed items is great. Wilson noted that their prices are usually about 25% of what the item would likely cost if it were new. Therefore, she said that last year those who bought from ReUse were able to retain a total of $78,000, which could then be spent on other necessities. This is a powerful thing in the life of someone who would not otherwise be able to provide for his or her family. While the greatest demand comes from low income individuals, Wilson says that there is also the type of shopper who just “really sees value in used stuff” as well as the environmentalist who shops at ReUse because it’s earth-friendly and reduces the demand for new ‘stuff’ to be created. The demand for reused goods has not diminished nor does it have any reason to do so in the future, and so the organization proves not only feasible but also sustainable.
On the financial end, ReUse has seen great improvements and is just about at their goal as a business, to be 100% self-sufficient. AmeriCorps VISTA workers have been assigned to the organization since its commencement; however, that program will be ending this coming summer of 2009. ReUse no longer uses grant money, but is able to maintain its budget based on sales alone. There is still some fundraising that goes on, but more than anything the simple cycle of donation, restoration, and resale is enough to keep the business afloat, making it not only logistically sustainable, but also economically sustainable. Between eight and ten jobs have been created in the process, which was one of the original goals as declared in the mission statement. There are several volunteers who help out at the three stores, but in addition ReUse Industries is a job training site and has trained almost 300 job training clients since its inception. Letting individuals train and get their foot in the door, ReUse is able to support the local job market and labor force, eventually strengthening the economy as well.
The “P.C.s to the People” program, which began in 2001, also has great implications for the communities’ development. It began as a collaborative effort with the Athens County Department of Job & Family Services and Hocking College and later became a program solely run by ReUse Industries (“PCs to the People”). They accept personal computer equipment at the Albany site and then refurbish the systems to sell at a reduced rate to low income residents. The donations are tax-deductible and allow individuals or families, based on their income level, to purchase a monitor, CPU, keyboard, and mouse with a licensed Microsoft operating system (P.C.s to the People). This is a tremendous opportunity for some who would not otherwise be able to purchase a computer and therefore lack technological knowledge in an ever-increasing technological age. “Studies have shown that individuals with computer skills are much more likely to attain gainful employment, typically at a much higher level of pay than those without these skills” (“PCs to the People”). This not only keeps these electronics out of landfills but puts them into the hands of people who will have an increased possibility of obtaining better jobs and therefore further developing the local economy.
ReUse attempts to build relationships with local organizations and businesses, as it had done in the early stages of the “P.C.s to People” program, and has a relationship with Ohio University as well. ReUse provides a pick-up service free of charge for most donations within the city limits of surrounding towns and cities including Athens, Wellston, Jackson, Albany and several others. In the case of OU, ReUse has a truck that remains parked at the campus recycling site and transports reusable materials back to the farm in Albany for resale when the truck is full. Originally OU used to donate much more than it currently gives because it now auctions off most items. ReUse still receives some wood, building materials, and other things that can’t be auctioned off.
OU’s students also have opportunities to donate used items. One of the busiest times of the year for ReUse is in conjunction with the OU calendar: student move out. Cathy Wilson said that they are a “major off campus force for picking up stuff” for those several days as students scramble to move out of dorms and apartments, discarding their unwanted items. According to Wilson they make well over 200 pickups within a couple of days. Another big event for ReUse Industries is its Community Yard Sale, started in 2006, which will be held May 9, 2009 of this year (“Community Yard Sale 2009!”). Community members are encouraged to sign up for a vendor spot to sell their own reusable items. While ReUse does not make a great profit on this day, it is good publicity for the organization and shows support for the community, raising awareness for the importance of reuse.
Even with the current economic recession, ReUse has been doing alright. They have found that building materials are not in as great of a demand, especially given the location of the farm in Albany, and so they have reduced hours at the Albany facility from six days a week to Saturdays only from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. At the two other thrift stores demand has actually increased because as individuals’ incomes decrease, there is a much greater need for inexpensive necessities. In general the Athens store has multiplied its revenue, seeing an increase in sales of $40,000 between 2007 and 2008, according to Wilson. Within that time frame another local thrift store, New to You, moved its location to Columbus Road in Athens, practically next door to the ReUse thrift store. Cathy Wilson said that they are “thrilled that they (New to You) moved.” She doesn’t view them as competitors but said that having another similar store actually brings in more customers, creating a larger market. Goodwill also arrived in Athens in 2008. While Wilson said there hasn’t necessarily been a pull away from ReUse’s customers, she said that it’s “like having a Walmart come into town” since it’s a large corporation with a bigger money pool. ReUse, a local effort, attempts to support other local businesses when they can, therefore supporting economic development within the community.
ReUse Industries’ board of directors has a development committee to set future goals for the organization, one being increased energy efficiency. Currently they are not able to switch to solar power as they would like due to a lack of grant money and an inability to take out further loans; however, that is a future hope for the business. In the meantime, Wilson mentioned that the business’ greatest need is just for the community to continue to donate and shop at ReUse. “The more donations we have the more someone else sees a purpose for it,” she said. She made note of how she sees students donating their furniture and goods at the end of the year and then other students coming and buying them at the start of the next year, explaining that “it’s kind of like a circle.” ReUse Industries truly sees the benefits of “keeping the goods within the community and reusing them,” and really does turn one man’s trash into another man’s cash, as well as another man’s treasure. It’s a win-win situation for the whole community, straight out of the waste stream.
Appendix: Interview Questions
1. Where did the idea originate? How did you acquire the land? What did ReUse Industries do in the very beginning?
2. Is there a specific mission statement?
3. How has the community responded to this initiative (in all of its stages)? Times when support was down?
4. What kind of an interest has there been in ReUse? How has it changed and grown over the years? What are some of its effects in the community?
5. What kinds of items are donated and how are they repaired/cleaned/fixed? Who generally donates them?- Relationship to businesses/contractors/OU, etc?
6. PC’s to the People program?
7. Where does most of the demand come from for your items?
8. Is there any competition between the various other thrift stores (Goodwill, New to You) in Athens?
9. How many people who work here are full time/part time/work for wares/volunteer? How are people selected to work here and what kinds of skills are needed for the different jobs?
10. What do you see in the future for ReUse- more/different programs, larger scale? What are some future goals that ReUse hopes to attain/fulfill?
11. How it is primarily funded? What makes it economically feasible? How has the current state of the economy affected the business?
12. What is the biggest challenge that this organization faces?
13. I read on your blog that the VISTA program will be ending this summer. Why was it not renewed, if I might ask, and how is this going to affect the business? What are the specific volunteer needs?
Works Cited
“Community Page.” ReUse Industries. 27 Feb. 2009 <http://www.reuseindustries.org/community.htm>.
"Community Yard Sale 2009!" Weblog Entry. ReUse Industries. 26 Feb. 2009. 1 Mar. 2009 <http://www.reuseindustries.org/blog/>.
“Funder Information.” ReUse Industries. 1 Mar. 2009 <http://www.reuseindustries.org/funders.htm>.
Good for You, Good for the Community! ReUse Industries.
P.C.s to the People. ReUse Industries.
“PC s to the People.” ReUse Industries. 1 Mar. 2009 <http://www.reuseindustries.org/pcs.htm>.
Wilson, Cathy. Personal Interview. 21 Feb. 2009.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Eat Meat?
The fact that Michael Pollan is not a vegetarian, but became a vegetarian while seeking answers to questions about eating meat, gives him some credibility in my book, or at least allows me to show him respect. The way that he poses retorts to Peter Singer’s philosophical views throughout the chapter shows the complexities within the greater question of eating meat and animal rights, and allows the reader to see into his thought process, his initial responses, his justification, and the process of coming to his current beliefs. As meat eater I found myself justifying my own actions and responding in similar ways to Singer’s extreme statements, but while I have not had the opportunity (or rather have not sought it out) to peer into the life of a feedlot steer or an egg-producing chicken, Pollan was able to convey some of that information, helping me as a reader to begin my own process of assessing my omnivorous beliefs. This chapter is not just about eating meat, but is wrapped up in the idea of animal rights, which is wrapped up in worldviews and societal norms.
I found it particularly interesting the way that he felt when he became a vegetarian. He does not mention how much he misses the taste of meat, but addresses other issues that I would not have thought of. He says that it “alienates [him]… from a whole dimension of human experience,” and that there is something lost in traditions, culture, and even identity. He does not say that this is bad or regrettable but just points this out as something he feels within- a reaction I wouldn’t have expected. Throughout the chapter these philosophical tendencies come up, back and forth between one view and another, as Pollan visibly wrestles with his own opinions.
While he does end the article discussing his belief that eating meat is acceptable, as long as the animal lived and died respectfully, he does not give this as a blanket statement about moral code. “We certainly won’t philosophize our way to a single answer,” he makes clear. The biggest thing he calls for is transparency, and that people would not just look away and act out of indifference, that we would be informed eaters, and that our decisions would be based on such consideration and reason. This is a compelling argument, for vegetarians and omnivores alike. This is essentially what was illustrated in the King Corn video. American consumers know so little about the food that we eat. It’s depersonalized, but in reality it does matter and our decisions affect the environment, other people, the economy, market supply and demand, and so many other things that seem bigger than us. Pollan points to the choice between either looking away or becoming vegetarians, but he himself proves that there is a third option, and he presents evidence that Singer thinks as much too. The omnivore’s dilemma, is something that each person must confront on his or her own, but that should be based on a good look, even a look into the eyes of the animals we eat.
I found it particularly interesting the way that he felt when he became a vegetarian. He does not mention how much he misses the taste of meat, but addresses other issues that I would not have thought of. He says that it “alienates [him]… from a whole dimension of human experience,” and that there is something lost in traditions, culture, and even identity. He does not say that this is bad or regrettable but just points this out as something he feels within- a reaction I wouldn’t have expected. Throughout the chapter these philosophical tendencies come up, back and forth between one view and another, as Pollan visibly wrestles with his own opinions.
While he does end the article discussing his belief that eating meat is acceptable, as long as the animal lived and died respectfully, he does not give this as a blanket statement about moral code. “We certainly won’t philosophize our way to a single answer,” he makes clear. The biggest thing he calls for is transparency, and that people would not just look away and act out of indifference, that we would be informed eaters, and that our decisions would be based on such consideration and reason. This is a compelling argument, for vegetarians and omnivores alike. This is essentially what was illustrated in the King Corn video. American consumers know so little about the food that we eat. It’s depersonalized, but in reality it does matter and our decisions affect the environment, other people, the economy, market supply and demand, and so many other things that seem bigger than us. Pollan points to the choice between either looking away or becoming vegetarians, but he himself proves that there is a third option, and he presents evidence that Singer thinks as much too. The omnivore’s dilemma, is something that each person must confront on his or her own, but that should be based on a good look, even a look into the eyes of the animals we eat.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Unveiling the Oxymoron: Clean Coal (Revision)
Kaiti Sparks
Dr. A. Rouzie
English 308J
9 February 2009
Unveiling the Oxymoron: Clean Coal
An oxymoron is a contradictory statement, a combination of incongruous words that strike a discord. Examples? “Act naturally,” “jumbo shrimp,” “deafening silence,” “clearly misunderstood.” A new phrase might fit this category. Clean coal. It sounds fresh, resourceful, creative, and vaguely possible. That hope of possibility is what has gotten the government, the media, and even some of the public so hooked on this sound-bite. Clean coal. It seems like it can’t be possible, yet there are so many saying it is. Well is it? Or is it just another oxymoron. The thing about oymorons is that they generally have some truth behind them; they are a team of words using contrast and comparison to define something, and it’s that ambiguous concept behind the words that is most important. Is a deafening silence really deafening? Is clean coal really clean? The more important question is: Is this “clean coal” technology really worth all the hype that those who support it make it out to be? This is significant, and an answer should be weighed carefully. It should be formed by reason, by logic, by evidence, and then after those things, clean coal will prove itself worthy of our faith or not.
So what is all the hype about? The world is a continually changing place, it cannot be denied, what with globalization, economic booms and busts, and innovation and invention. But one thing that most humans agree should not be changing so rapidly is the climate. The world can no longer deny the fact that increased greenhouse gas emissions are speeding up a natural process at an unnatural rate, and one of the biggest offenders is carbon dioxide.
Almost half of the United States’ energy needs are met by burning coal, and around a third of global carbon emissions come from those coal-burning power plants (Golomb 2). The U.S. prides itself on this resource, with a quarter of the world’s coal reserves located mainly in Appalachia, out west, and in several interior states (“Coal”). China, the country with the second largest total carbon emissions, has been installing coal power plants at rapid speed. Coal plants that create “about three times the total electricity capacity of Britain” were built just from 2004 to 2007 in China (Yang). While China is also utilizing solar and wind power, coal power supplies about 70 percent of the country’s total energy needs (Yang). Obviously a solution is needed, and some have hyped up clean coal as just that solution.
The idea of “clean coal” is centered on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon, by something called carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), making the process of burning coal essentially emissions free (Golomb 1). There are several gasification processes, including pre-combustion capture, which separates the various molecules and allow carbon dioxide (CO2) to be concentrated and captured and the remaining hydrogen molecules to make energy (IEA 3). Then the carbon is transported and sequestered, or injected, either underground into abandoned coal seams, or oil and gas reservoirs, or deep underwater in the oceanic reservoirs (Herzog 3).
This sounds like a great idea in theory, but many questions arise at the thought. Does it really work? How much does it cost? How effective is it? Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facilities are based on this concept, but none are yet to utilize the idea of carbon capture and sequestration. The Polk Power Plant in Tampa, FL, one of General Electric’s showcase sites, uses IGCC technology to capture gases such as nitrous oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) in high percentages, but carbon capture has yet to be implemented (“Cleaner Coal Technology”). One reason is the cost. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the cost of carbon capture alone could raise the cost of energy anywhere from 2.5 cents to 4 cents per kilowatt hour, which, in this time of economic hardship, is a difficult proposition to make (“Carbon Capture Research”). Additional costs would be added for the storage, transportation and sequestration of carbon. The Sierra Club estimates that the cost of coal power would increase between 40 and 90 percent by capturing and storing carbon (Snell). Even if it were possible, companies would have a hard time implementing such technology when there would be no economic gain.
In countries like Norway and Sweden this problem is solved by charging a carbon tax. Many, including, it appears, the Sierra Club, support this idea of a tax on carbon-polluting energy sources (Snell). In 1996 in Norway, the Sleipner Project was started as a commercial example of carbon capture and sequestration technology, and was made economically feasible because of their carbon tax (Herzog 4). So at least one real example exists in actuality, but it isn’t the miracle that it appears. While this commercial application is a breakthrough and should be regarded as such, it has only dealt with about 3% of Norway’s annual carbon emissions (Herzog 4). Reducing carbon emissions is imminently important, and any progress is better than no progress; however, an expensive technology used to “clean” a dirty, fossil fuel-based energy source doesn’t seem worth the hype.
Another vital question that arises relates to this idea of sequestration. How safe is it to sequester consolidated carbon into reservoirs, be they geologic or oceanic? The honest answer is that no one really knows; no one knows the long term effects of such storage. Scientists have a good idea of how to safely inject the carbon, but potential effects from leakage, shifting, or accrual in the earth remain undefined (Golomb 6). It is inevitable that if carbon were to be dissolved in the ocean, the waters’ pH level would decrease, potentially affecting deep sea creatures and plants. According to one study the oceanic pH would only be lowered by .15 units if all of the human-created carbon were injected into the ocean, but even these numbers are just estimations (Golomb 6). Although the effects of such a decrease in the ocean’s pH are also unknown, a lower pH level increases the difficulty of creatures like corals, plankton, and snails to make their shells and skeletons, which they need to live (Eilperin). So while this part of the process is feasible, it raises doubt about whether sequestration is environmentally ethical, or whether it would create further problems in the future.
Another possibility for carbon sequestration, which holds more hope, is the use of biomass. While this technology is new and undergoing research, students and faculty from the Ohio University engineering department are currently working on the use of the photosynthetic process to have algae capture and dissolve carbon dioxide from power plants, producing oxygen and nitrogen (“Possible Fix”). A downside is that the algae needed to capture the carbon emitted by one power plant would “fill a building the size of Walmart,” but it could be used for biodiesel and animal feed, offsetting the associated costs (“Possible Fix”). This ingenuity has promise and deserves some further research to see if it can be actually be demonstrated in a functioning power plant.
Many believe that it is this sort of innovation and research that will develop the idea of clean coal and make it possible. Even President Obama supports clean coal technology under his energy plan and through its development and implementation he hopes to create more green jobs (“The Agenda”). This goal is laudable and would certainly create jobs, however, as has been examined, “clean coal” would first have to prove itself worthy of attention. The technology deserves applause and continues to answer more of its own questions as research ensues, but some fundamental facts about the downsides of coal itself remain to be addressed.
While coal may be seemingly abundant in the U.S., it will never have an image of being clean. The black, sooty appearance points to the obvious oxymoron perceived when thinking about clean coal. Coal ash, a byproduct of coal combustion, can be spilled or leaked from its storage, presenting serious problems as Tennessee experienced in 2008 when “enough [ash] to flood more than 3,000 acres one foot deep” spilled into nearby water sources, as reported the New York Times (Dewan). In addition, the mining that retrieves coal from its ancient beds will never be a clean process. While safety has increased in past years, 364 people were either injured or killed from mining in West Virginia alone between 1950 and 2006 (“WV Mine Disasters”). Not to mention the environmental degradation caused by surface mining. Also known as mountain top removal, the tops of mountains in Appalachia are literally removed to get at coal that is close to the surface; this altered the landscape of the area forever.
As mentioned, the U.S. has an abundance of coal. Or does it? One obvious issue remains: coal is a fossil fuel, a nonrenewable resource. Even if clean coal technologies were able to reduce carbon emissions to zero percent, it would not be the solution to the world’s energy problems, because it will eventually run out. Eighty five percent of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuel resources, and clean coal technology will simply perpetuate that use (Golomb 1). Unfortunately, this lack of a solution does not eradicate the problem.
In the short term, pending further research proving the technology to be a safe option, clean coal might be a band-aid to help reduce current carbon emissions in heavy CO2 polluting countries such as the US and China, while continuing to develop new renewable, sustainable energy sources that could meet the world’s energy needs. Yet it doesn’t seem worth the millions or even billions of dollars necessary to develop, clean up, and implement a dirty fuel. A better option may be, as in Norway and Sweden, to institute a carbon tax to help alleviate the situation. In theory, by charging corporations a tax for their carbon emissions, companies would try to avert the tax by encouraging innovation and creating cleaner, renewable technology. Also, the money taxed on companies that don’t lower emissions would go into a fund to help develop new energy sources. This idea receives a lot of backlash from citizens, but there are some, including Rex Tillerson, chief executive of Exxon Mobile Corp., who say that a tax would be a “’more direct, a more transparent and a more effective approach’ to curtailing greenhouse gases” (Gold).
Still, while a carbon tax may create the funds necessary to develop and answer to the problem of the carbon dioxide emissions, clean coal is not and will never be the answer. The lack of demonstration of the technology, the need for evidence of its environmentally ethical practicability, and the facts of the dirty nature of coal and it’s nonrenewable state, are reason enough to dismiss the idea that coal could ever be clean. The term is clearly misunderstood and leaves us lacking faith in its hype.
Works Cited
“Carbon Capture Research.” U.S. Department of Energy. 6 Sept. 2007. 30 Jan. 2009 <http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/capture/index.html>.
“Cleaner Coal Technology.” Ecomagination. 2 Feb. 2009 <ge.ecomagination.com>.
“Coal.” U.S. Department of Energy. 19 Oct. 2007. 2 Feb. 2009 <http://www.energy.gov/energysources/coal.htm>.
Dewan, Shaila. “Tennessee Ash Flood Larger Than Initial Estimate.” The New York Times. 26 Dec. 2008. 2 Feb. 2009 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html2>.
Eilperin, Juliet. “Growing Acidity of Oceans May Kill Corals.” Washington Post 5 July 2006: A01. 9 Feb. 2009. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400772.html>.
Gold, Russell and Ian Talley. "Exxon CEO Advocates Emissions Tax." Wall Street Journal –Eastern Edition 253.7 (2009): B3.
Golomb, Dan and Howard Herzog. “Carbon Capture and Storage from Fossil Use.” Encyclopedia of Energy. NRGY: 00422. 1 Feb. 2009 <http://web.mit.edu/coal/working_folder/pdfs/encyclopedia_of_energy.pdf>.
Herzog, Howard J. "What Future for Carbon Capture and Sequestration?" Environmental Science and Technology 35.7 (2001): 148-153. 29 Jan. 2009 <http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/EST_web_article.pdf>.
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. "Capturing CO2." May 2007. 1 Feb. 2009 <http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/glossies/co2capture.pdf>.
“Possible Fix for Global Warming?: Environmental Engineers Use Algae To Capture Carbon Dioxide.” Science Daily. 1 April 2007. 2 Feb. 2009 <http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0407-possible_fix_for_global_warming.htm>.
Snell, Marylin B. “Can Coal Be Clean?” Sierra Club. Jan./Feb. 2007. 28 Jan. 2009 <http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200701/coal.asp>.
“The Agenda: Energy and the Environment.” The White House. 2 Feb. 2009 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment>.
“WV Mine Disasters 1984 to Present.” 2 Feb. 2009 <http://www.wvminesafety.org/disaster.htm>.
Yang, Ailun. “Breaking China’s Coal Addiction.” New Internationalist no. 415 (2008), p. 26-26.
Dr. A. Rouzie
English 308J
9 February 2009
Unveiling the Oxymoron: Clean Coal
An oxymoron is a contradictory statement, a combination of incongruous words that strike a discord. Examples? “Act naturally,” “jumbo shrimp,” “deafening silence,” “clearly misunderstood.” A new phrase might fit this category. Clean coal. It sounds fresh, resourceful, creative, and vaguely possible. That hope of possibility is what has gotten the government, the media, and even some of the public so hooked on this sound-bite. Clean coal. It seems like it can’t be possible, yet there are so many saying it is. Well is it? Or is it just another oxymoron. The thing about oymorons is that they generally have some truth behind them; they are a team of words using contrast and comparison to define something, and it’s that ambiguous concept behind the words that is most important. Is a deafening silence really deafening? Is clean coal really clean? The more important question is: Is this “clean coal” technology really worth all the hype that those who support it make it out to be? This is significant, and an answer should be weighed carefully. It should be formed by reason, by logic, by evidence, and then after those things, clean coal will prove itself worthy of our faith or not.
So what is all the hype about? The world is a continually changing place, it cannot be denied, what with globalization, economic booms and busts, and innovation and invention. But one thing that most humans agree should not be changing so rapidly is the climate. The world can no longer deny the fact that increased greenhouse gas emissions are speeding up a natural process at an unnatural rate, and one of the biggest offenders is carbon dioxide.
Almost half of the United States’ energy needs are met by burning coal, and around a third of global carbon emissions come from those coal-burning power plants (Golomb 2). The U.S. prides itself on this resource, with a quarter of the world’s coal reserves located mainly in Appalachia, out west, and in several interior states (“Coal”). China, the country with the second largest total carbon emissions, has been installing coal power plants at rapid speed. Coal plants that create “about three times the total electricity capacity of Britain” were built just from 2004 to 2007 in China (Yang). While China is also utilizing solar and wind power, coal power supplies about 70 percent of the country’s total energy needs (Yang). Obviously a solution is needed, and some have hyped up clean coal as just that solution.
The idea of “clean coal” is centered on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon, by something called carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), making the process of burning coal essentially emissions free (Golomb 1). There are several gasification processes, including pre-combustion capture, which separates the various molecules and allow carbon dioxide (CO2) to be concentrated and captured and the remaining hydrogen molecules to make energy (IEA 3). Then the carbon is transported and sequestered, or injected, either underground into abandoned coal seams, or oil and gas reservoirs, or deep underwater in the oceanic reservoirs (Herzog 3).
This sounds like a great idea in theory, but many questions arise at the thought. Does it really work? How much does it cost? How effective is it? Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facilities are based on this concept, but none are yet to utilize the idea of carbon capture and sequestration. The Polk Power Plant in Tampa, FL, one of General Electric’s showcase sites, uses IGCC technology to capture gases such as nitrous oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) in high percentages, but carbon capture has yet to be implemented (“Cleaner Coal Technology”). One reason is the cost. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the cost of carbon capture alone could raise the cost of energy anywhere from 2.5 cents to 4 cents per kilowatt hour, which, in this time of economic hardship, is a difficult proposition to make (“Carbon Capture Research”). Additional costs would be added for the storage, transportation and sequestration of carbon. The Sierra Club estimates that the cost of coal power would increase between 40 and 90 percent by capturing and storing carbon (Snell). Even if it were possible, companies would have a hard time implementing such technology when there would be no economic gain.
In countries like Norway and Sweden this problem is solved by charging a carbon tax. Many, including, it appears, the Sierra Club, support this idea of a tax on carbon-polluting energy sources (Snell). In 1996 in Norway, the Sleipner Project was started as a commercial example of carbon capture and sequestration technology, and was made economically feasible because of their carbon tax (Herzog 4). So at least one real example exists in actuality, but it isn’t the miracle that it appears. While this commercial application is a breakthrough and should be regarded as such, it has only dealt with about 3% of Norway’s annual carbon emissions (Herzog 4). Reducing carbon emissions is imminently important, and any progress is better than no progress; however, an expensive technology used to “clean” a dirty, fossil fuel-based energy source doesn’t seem worth the hype.
Another vital question that arises relates to this idea of sequestration. How safe is it to sequester consolidated carbon into reservoirs, be they geologic or oceanic? The honest answer is that no one really knows; no one knows the long term effects of such storage. Scientists have a good idea of how to safely inject the carbon, but potential effects from leakage, shifting, or accrual in the earth remain undefined (Golomb 6). It is inevitable that if carbon were to be dissolved in the ocean, the waters’ pH level would decrease, potentially affecting deep sea creatures and plants. According to one study the oceanic pH would only be lowered by .15 units if all of the human-created carbon were injected into the ocean, but even these numbers are just estimations (Golomb 6). Although the effects of such a decrease in the ocean’s pH are also unknown, a lower pH level increases the difficulty of creatures like corals, plankton, and snails to make their shells and skeletons, which they need to live (Eilperin). So while this part of the process is feasible, it raises doubt about whether sequestration is environmentally ethical, or whether it would create further problems in the future.
Another possibility for carbon sequestration, which holds more hope, is the use of biomass. While this technology is new and undergoing research, students and faculty from the Ohio University engineering department are currently working on the use of the photosynthetic process to have algae capture and dissolve carbon dioxide from power plants, producing oxygen and nitrogen (“Possible Fix”). A downside is that the algae needed to capture the carbon emitted by one power plant would “fill a building the size of Walmart,” but it could be used for biodiesel and animal feed, offsetting the associated costs (“Possible Fix”). This ingenuity has promise and deserves some further research to see if it can be actually be demonstrated in a functioning power plant.
Many believe that it is this sort of innovation and research that will develop the idea of clean coal and make it possible. Even President Obama supports clean coal technology under his energy plan and through its development and implementation he hopes to create more green jobs (“The Agenda”). This goal is laudable and would certainly create jobs, however, as has been examined, “clean coal” would first have to prove itself worthy of attention. The technology deserves applause and continues to answer more of its own questions as research ensues, but some fundamental facts about the downsides of coal itself remain to be addressed.
While coal may be seemingly abundant in the U.S., it will never have an image of being clean. The black, sooty appearance points to the obvious oxymoron perceived when thinking about clean coal. Coal ash, a byproduct of coal combustion, can be spilled or leaked from its storage, presenting serious problems as Tennessee experienced in 2008 when “enough [ash] to flood more than 3,000 acres one foot deep” spilled into nearby water sources, as reported the New York Times (Dewan). In addition, the mining that retrieves coal from its ancient beds will never be a clean process. While safety has increased in past years, 364 people were either injured or killed from mining in West Virginia alone between 1950 and 2006 (“WV Mine Disasters”). Not to mention the environmental degradation caused by surface mining. Also known as mountain top removal, the tops of mountains in Appalachia are literally removed to get at coal that is close to the surface; this altered the landscape of the area forever.
As mentioned, the U.S. has an abundance of coal. Or does it? One obvious issue remains: coal is a fossil fuel, a nonrenewable resource. Even if clean coal technologies were able to reduce carbon emissions to zero percent, it would not be the solution to the world’s energy problems, because it will eventually run out. Eighty five percent of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuel resources, and clean coal technology will simply perpetuate that use (Golomb 1). Unfortunately, this lack of a solution does not eradicate the problem.
In the short term, pending further research proving the technology to be a safe option, clean coal might be a band-aid to help reduce current carbon emissions in heavy CO2 polluting countries such as the US and China, while continuing to develop new renewable, sustainable energy sources that could meet the world’s energy needs. Yet it doesn’t seem worth the millions or even billions of dollars necessary to develop, clean up, and implement a dirty fuel. A better option may be, as in Norway and Sweden, to institute a carbon tax to help alleviate the situation. In theory, by charging corporations a tax for their carbon emissions, companies would try to avert the tax by encouraging innovation and creating cleaner, renewable technology. Also, the money taxed on companies that don’t lower emissions would go into a fund to help develop new energy sources. This idea receives a lot of backlash from citizens, but there are some, including Rex Tillerson, chief executive of Exxon Mobile Corp., who say that a tax would be a “’more direct, a more transparent and a more effective approach’ to curtailing greenhouse gases” (Gold).
Still, while a carbon tax may create the funds necessary to develop and answer to the problem of the carbon dioxide emissions, clean coal is not and will never be the answer. The lack of demonstration of the technology, the need for evidence of its environmentally ethical practicability, and the facts of the dirty nature of coal and it’s nonrenewable state, are reason enough to dismiss the idea that coal could ever be clean. The term is clearly misunderstood and leaves us lacking faith in its hype.
Works Cited
“Carbon Capture Research.” U.S. Department of Energy. 6 Sept. 2007. 30 Jan. 2009 <http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/capture/index.html>.
“Cleaner Coal Technology.” Ecomagination. 2 Feb. 2009 <ge.ecomagination.com>.
“Coal.” U.S. Department of Energy. 19 Oct. 2007. 2 Feb. 2009 <http://www.energy.gov/energysources/coal.htm>.
Dewan, Shaila. “Tennessee Ash Flood Larger Than Initial Estimate.” The New York Times. 26 Dec. 2008. 2 Feb. 2009 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html2>.
Eilperin, Juliet. “Growing Acidity of Oceans May Kill Corals.” Washington Post 5 July 2006: A01. 9 Feb. 2009. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400772.html>.
Gold, Russell and Ian Talley. "Exxon CEO Advocates Emissions Tax." Wall Street Journal –Eastern Edition 253.7 (2009): B3.
Golomb, Dan and Howard Herzog. “Carbon Capture and Storage from Fossil Use.” Encyclopedia of Energy. NRGY: 00422. 1 Feb. 2009 <http://web.mit.edu/coal/working_folder/pdfs/encyclopedia_of_energy.pdf>.
Herzog, Howard J. "What Future for Carbon Capture and Sequestration?" Environmental Science and Technology 35.7 (2001): 148-153. 29 Jan. 2009 <http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/EST_web_article.pdf>.
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. "Capturing CO2." May 2007. 1 Feb. 2009 <http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/glossies/co2capture.pdf>.
“Possible Fix for Global Warming?: Environmental Engineers Use Algae To Capture Carbon Dioxide.” Science Daily. 1 April 2007. 2 Feb. 2009 <http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0407-possible_fix_for_global_warming.htm>.
Snell, Marylin B. “Can Coal Be Clean?” Sierra Club. Jan./Feb. 2007. 28 Jan. 2009 <http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200701/coal.asp>.
“The Agenda: Energy and the Environment.” The White House. 2 Feb. 2009 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment>.
“WV Mine Disasters 1984 to Present.” 2 Feb. 2009 <http://www.wvminesafety.org/disaster.htm>.
Yang, Ailun. “Breaking China’s Coal Addiction.” New Internationalist no. 415 (2008), p. 26-26.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Paraphrasing
Paraphrase: The Sierra Club estimates that the cost of coal power would increase between 40 and 90 percent by capturing and storing carbon (Snell).
Quotation: “Economics is the big hurdle. Carbon capture and storage would raise the cost of coal power by 40 to 90 percent.”
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200701/coal.asp
In 1996 in Norway, the Sleipner Project began as a commercial example of carbon capture and sequestration technology, and was made economically feasible because of their carbon tax (Herzog 4).
“Perhaps the most significant development has been the Sleipner Project, which started up in 1996. It is the first commercial application of emissions avoidance through the use of carbon capture and sequestration technologies. The Sleipner oil and gas field, operated by Statoil, is located in the North Sea about 240 km off the coast of Norway… Solely on the basis of carbon tax savings, the investment was paid back in about one-and-a-half years.”
http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/EST_web_article.pdf
Scientists have a good idea of how to safely inject the carbon, but potential effects from leakage, shifting, or buildup in the earth remain undefined (Golomb 6).
“Years of technological innovation and experience have given us the tools and expertise to handle and control CO2 in the operational subsystem with adequate certainty and safety; however, that same level of expertise and understanding is largely absent once the CO2 enters the storage reservoir… As such, researchers are now conducting studies to evaluate the likelihood and potential impacts associated with leaks, slow migration and accumulation, and induced seismicity.”
http://web.mit.edu/coal/working_folder/pdfs/encyclopedia_of_energy.pdf
According to one study the oceanic pH would only be lowered by 0.15 units if all of the human-created carbon were injected into the ocean, but even these numbers are just estimations (Golomb 6).
“It is estimated that if all the anthropogenic CO2 that would double the atmospheric concentration were injected into the deep ocean, it would change the ocean carbon concentration by less than 2%, and lower its pH by less than 0.15 units.”
http://web.mit.edu/coal/working_folder/pdfs/encyclopedia_of_energy.pdf
Monday, February 2, 2009
Unveiling the Oxymoron: Clean Coal (rough draft)
An oxymoron is a contradictory statement, a combination of incongruous words that strike a discord. Examples? “Act naturally,” “jumbo shrimp,” “deafening silence,” “clearly misunderstood.” A new phrase might fit this category. Clean coal. It sounds fresh, resourceful, creative, and vaguely possible. That hope of possibility is what has gotten the government, the media, and even some of the public so hooked on this sound-bite. Clean coal. It seems like it can’t be possible, yet there are so many saying it is. Well is it? Or is it just another oxymoron. The thing about oymorons is that they generally have some truth behind them; they are a team of words using contrast and comparison to define something, and it’s that ambiguous concept behind the words that is most important. Is a deafening silence really deafening? Is clean coal really clean? The more important question is: Is this “clean coal” technology really worth all the hype that those who support it make it out to be? This is significant, and an answer should be weighed carefully. It should be formed by reason, by logic, by evidence, and then after those things, clean coal will prove itself worthy of our faith or not.
So what is all the hype about? The world is a continually changing place, it cannot be denied, what with globalization, economic booms and busts, innovation and invention, and migration. But one thing that most humans agree should not be changing so rapidly is the climate. The world can no longer deny the fact that increased greenhouse gas emissions are speeding up a natural process at an unnatural rate, and one of the biggest offenders is carbon dioxide.
Almost half of the United States’ energy needs are met by burning coal, and around a third of global carbon emissions come from power plants (Golomb 2). The U.S. prides itself on this resource, with a quarter of the world’s coal reserves located mainly in Appalachia, out west, and in several interior states (Coal). The idea of “clean coal” is centered on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon, by something called carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), making the process of burning coal essentially emissions free (Golomb 1). There are several gasification processes, including pre-combustion capture, which separates the various molecules and allow carbon dioxide (CO2) to be concentrated and captured and the remaining hydrogen molecules to make energy (IEA 3). Then the carbon is transported and sequestered, or injected, either underground into abandoned coal seams, or oil and gas reservoirs, or deep underwater in the oceanic reservoirs (Herzog 3).
This sounds like a great idea in theory, but many questions arise at the thought. Does it really work? How much does it cost? How effective is it? Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facilities are based on this concept, but none are yet to utilize the idea of carbon capture and sequestration. The Polk Power Plant in Tampa, FL, one of General Electric’s showcase sites, uses IGCC technology to capture gases such as nitrous oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) in high percentages, but carbon capture has yet to be implemented (Cleaner Coal Technology). One reason is the cost. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the cost of carbon capture alone could increase the cost of energy anywhere from 2.5 cents to 4 cents/kWh, which, in this time of economic hardship, is a difficult proposition to make (Carbon Capture Research). And the cost of capturing carbon is only three fourths the total additional costs including capture, storage, transportation and sequestration. The Sierra Club estimates that the cost of coal power would be raised between 40 and 90 percent by capturing and storing carbon (Snell). Even if it were possible, companies would have a hard time implementing such technology when there would be not economic gain.
In countries like Norway and Sweden this problem is solved by charging a carbon tax. Many, including, it appears, the Sierra Club, support this idea of a tax on carbon-polluting energy sources (Snell). In 1996 in Norway, the Sleipner Project was started as a commercial example of carbon capture and sequestration technology, and was made economically feasible because of their carbon tax (Herzog 4). So at least one real example exists in actuality, but it isn’t the miracle that it appears. While this commercial application is a breakthrough and should be regarded as such, it has only dealt with about 3% of Norway’s annual carbon emissions (Herzog 4). The statement that any progress is better than no progress might be true; however, an expensive technology used to “clean” a dirty, fossil fuel-based energy source doesn’t seem worth the hype. Not, at least, at this point.
Another vital question that arises relates to this idea of sequestration. How safe is it to sequester consolidated carbon into reservoirs, be they geologic or oceanic? The honest answer is that no one really knows; no one knows the long term effects of such storage. Scientists have a good idea of how to safely inject the carbon, but potential effects from leakage, shifting, or accrual in the earth remain undefined (Golomb 6). It is inevitable that if carbon were to be dissolved in the ocean, the waters’ pH level would decrease, affecting deep sea creatures and plants. According to one study the oceanic pH would only be lowered by .15 units if all of the human-created carbon were injected into the ocean, but even these numbers are just estimations (Golomb 6). So while this part of the process is feasible, it raises doubt about whether it is environmentally ethical, or whether it would create further problems in the future.
President Obama supports clean coal technology under his energy plan and through its development and implementation he hopes to create green jobs (The Agenda). This goal is laudable and would certainly create jobs, however, as has been examined, “clean coal” would first have to prove itself worthy of attention. The technology deserves applause and continues to answer more of its own questions as research continues, but some fundamental facts are not addressed, including the downsides of coal itself.
While coal may be abundant in the U.S., it will never have an image of being clean. The black, sooty appearance points to the obvious oxymoron perceived when thinking about clean coal. Coal ash, a byproduct of coal combustion, can be spilled or leaked from its storage, presenting serious problems as Tennessee experienced in 2008 when “enough [ash] to flood more than 3,000 acres one foot deep” spilled into nearby water sources, reported the New York Times (Dewan). In addition, the mining that retrieves coal from its ancient beds will never be a clean process. While safety has increased in past years, 364 people were either injured or killed from mining in West Virginia alone between 1950 and 2006 (WV Mine Disasters). Not to mention surface mining, also known as mountain top removal, where the tops of mountains in Appalachia are literally removed to get at coal that is close to the surface, has altered the landscape of the area forever.
Still an obvious issue remains. Coal is a fossil fuel, a nonrenewable resource. Even if clean coal technologies were able to reduce carbon emissions to zero percent, it would not be the solution to the world’s energy problems. Eight five percent of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuel resources, and clean coal technology will simply perpetuate that use. If clean coal technology were to be invested in on a short term scale, and developed implemented as a temporary solution to cut back on carbon emissions, while continuing to develop new renewable, sustainable energy sources that could meet the world’s energy needs—that would be a hopeful proposition. But to implement the technology good deal of research is still necessary, placing the realization of such “clean coal” years off into the future. Right now, clean coal doesn’t exist, and it probably never will. The term is clearly misunderstood and leaves us lacking faith in its hype.
Works Cited
“Carbon Capture Research.” U.S. Department of Energy. 6 Sept. 2007. 30 Jan. 2009 http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/capture/index.html.
“Cleaner Coal Technology.” Ecomagination. 2 Feb. 2009 ge.ecomagination.com.
“Coal.” U.S. Department of Energy. 19 Oct. 2007. 2 Feb. 2009 http://www.energy.gov/energysources/coal.htm.
Dewan, Shaila. “Tennessee Ash Flood Larger Than Initial Estimate.” The New York Times. 26 Dec. 2008. 2 Feb. 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html2.
Golomb, Dan and Howard Herzog. “Carbon Capture and Storage from Fossil Use.” Encyclopedia of Energy. NRGY: 00422. 1 Feb. 2009 http://web.mit.edu/coal/working_folder/pdfs/encyclopedia_of_energy.pdf.
Herzog, Howard J. "What Future for Carbon Capture and Sequestration?" Environmental Science and Technology 35.7 (2001): 148-153. 29 Jan. 2009 http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/EST_web_article.pdf.
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. Capturing CO2. May 2007. 1 Feb. 2009 http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/glossies/co2capture.pdf.
Snell, Marylin B. “Can Coal Be Clean?” Sierra Club. Jan./Feb. 2007. 28 Jan. 2009 http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200701/coal.asp.
“The Agenda: Energy and the Environment.” The White House. 2 Feb. 2009 http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment.
“WV Mine Disasters 1984 to Present.” 2 Feb. 2009 http://www.wvminesafety.org/disaster.htm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)