divest from fossil fuels

Google adds fossil-free fund to its 401(k) plan

cbecker — Fri, 15 Nov 2024 15:39:07 +0000

Coal: Carbon Capture and Storage Is NOT the Solution

greenamerica March 30, 2017

Carbon capture and storage uses existing technology on new power plants or retrofits old power plants in order to capture up to 90% of carbon dioxide produced in the combustion of fossil fuels. The CO2 is then transported by pipeline or ship where it can be injected into underground geological formations for long term storage (1).

Carbon capture and storage is not a viable option for both environmental and economic reasons.

Building and retrofitting plants with carbon capture technology, and constructing the transport infrastructure, like ships and pipelines, represents a huge cost investment that could be better spent on clean energy.

Carbon capture technology exacts an “energy penalty” of 25-40% on power plants, meaning that more coal must be burned to keep up the same rate of energy production (2).

Since the demand for coal from each plant will be higher, more coal will have to be mined and shipped, increasing the public health and environmental costs associated with coal mining.

Storing CO2 underground can acidify aquifers, which can cause leaching of heavy metals into groundwater (3).

Injection of CO2 into geologic formations can cause fracturing, which could cause earthquakes or release large quantities of stored CO2 into the atmosphere (4).

(1) "What Is CCS?" – The Carbon Capture & Storage Association (CCSA). Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

(2) Supekar, Sarang D., and Steven J. Skerlos. "Reassessing the Efficiency Penalty from Carbon Capture in Coal-Fired Power Plants." Environmental Science & Technology Environ. Sci. Technol. 49.20 (2015): 12576-2584. Web.

(3) "IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage." Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2005. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

(4) Renard, F., E. Gundersen, R. Hellmann, M. Collombet, and Y. Le Guen. "Numerical Modeling of the Effect of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration on the Rate of Pressure Solution Creep in Limestone: Preliminary Results." Oil & Gas Science and Technology - Rev. IFP Oil & Gas Science and Technology 60.2 (2005): 381-99. Web.

Climate Smart Insurance: New 50-state search tool locates home, auto policies from providers that don’t invest billions in fossil fuels

cbecker — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 01:02:00 +0000

Coal: Carbon Capture and Storage Is NOT the Solution

greenamerica March 30, 2017

Carbon capture and storage is not a viable option for both environmental and economic reasons.

Building and retrofitting plants with carbon capture technology, and constructing the transport infrastructure, like ships and pipelines, represents a huge cost investment that could be better spent on clean energy.

Carbon capture technology exacts an “energy penalty” of 25-40% on power plants, meaning that more coal must be burned to keep up the same rate of energy production (2).

Since the demand for coal from each plant will be higher, more coal will have to be mined and shipped, increasing the public health and environmental costs associated with coal mining.

Storing CO2 underground can acidify aquifers, which can cause leaching of heavy metals into groundwater (3).

Injection of CO2 into geologic formations can cause fracturing, which could cause earthquakes or release large quantities of stored CO2 into the atmosphere (4).

(1) "What Is CCS?" – The Carbon Capture & Storage Association (CCSA). Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

(3) "IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage." Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2005. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

Megabanks have committed $6.9 trillion to fossil fuels since 2016 – with almost half to new oil, gas, and coal

cbecker — Fri, 05 Jul 2024 18:42:52 +0000

Coal: Carbon Capture and Storage Is NOT the Solution

greenamerica March 30, 2017

Carbon capture and storage is not a viable option for both environmental and economic reasons.

Building and retrofitting plants with carbon capture technology, and constructing the transport infrastructure, like ships and pipelines, represents a huge cost investment that could be better spent on clean energy.

Carbon capture technology exacts an “energy penalty” of 25-40% on power plants, meaning that more coal must be burned to keep up the same rate of energy production (2).

Since the demand for coal from each plant will be higher, more coal will have to be mined and shipped, increasing the public health and environmental costs associated with coal mining.

Storing CO2 underground can acidify aquifers, which can cause leaching of heavy metals into groundwater (3).

Injection of CO2 into geologic formations can cause fracturing, which could cause earthquakes or release large quantities of stored CO2 into the atmosphere (4).

(1) "What Is CCS?" – The Carbon Capture & Storage Association (CCSA). Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

(3) "IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage." Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2005. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

Green America: Americans Should Be Free to Consider All Information When Making Critical Investment Decisions

cbecker — Wed, 10 May 2023 17:33:13 +0000

Coal: Carbon Capture and Storage Is NOT the Solution

greenamerica March 30, 2017

Carbon capture and storage is not a viable option for both environmental and economic reasons.

Building and retrofitting plants with carbon capture technology, and constructing the transport infrastructure, like ships and pipelines, represents a huge cost investment that could be better spent on clean energy.

Carbon capture technology exacts an “energy penalty” of 25-40% on power plants, meaning that more coal must be burned to keep up the same rate of energy production (2).

Since the demand for coal from each plant will be higher, more coal will have to be mined and shipped, increasing the public health and environmental costs associated with coal mining.

Storing CO2 underground can acidify aquifers, which can cause leaching of heavy metals into groundwater (3).

Injection of CO2 into geologic formations can cause fracturing, which could cause earthquakes or release large quantities of stored CO2 into the atmosphere (4).

(1) "What Is CCS?" – The Carbon Capture & Storage Association (CCSA). Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

(3) "IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage." Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2005. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

Green America: Americans Should Be Free to Consider All Information When Making Critical Investment Decisions

cbecker — Wed, 10 May 2023 00:44:58 +0000

Coal: Carbon Capture and Storage Is NOT the Solution

greenamerica March 30, 2017

Carbon capture and storage is not a viable option for both environmental and economic reasons.

Building and retrofitting plants with carbon capture technology, and constructing the transport infrastructure, like ships and pipelines, represents a huge cost investment that could be better spent on clean energy.

Carbon capture technology exacts an “energy penalty” of 25-40% on power plants, meaning that more coal must be burned to keep up the same rate of energy production (2).

Since the demand for coal from each plant will be higher, more coal will have to be mined and shipped, increasing the public health and environmental costs associated with coal mining.

Storing CO2 underground can acidify aquifers, which can cause leaching of heavy metals into groundwater (3).

Injection of CO2 into geologic formations can cause fracturing, which could cause earthquakes or release large quantities of stored CO2 into the atmosphere (4).

(1) "What Is CCS?" – The Carbon Capture & Storage Association (CCSA). Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

(3) "IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage." Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2005. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

Steps to Divest & Reinvest: From Fossil Fuels to Clean Energy

abadalov — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 18:50:44 +0000

Coal: Carbon Capture and Storage Is NOT the Solution

greenamerica March 30, 2017

Carbon capture and storage is not a viable option for both environmental and economic reasons.

Building and retrofitting plants with carbon capture technology, and constructing the transport infrastructure, like ships and pipelines, represents a huge cost investment that could be better spent on clean energy.

Carbon capture technology exacts an “energy penalty” of 25-40% on power plants, meaning that more coal must be burned to keep up the same rate of energy production (2).

Since the demand for coal from each plant will be higher, more coal will have to be mined and shipped, increasing the public health and environmental costs associated with coal mining.

Storing CO2 underground can acidify aquifers, which can cause leaching of heavy metals into groundwater (3).

Injection of CO2 into geologic formations can cause fracturing, which could cause earthquakes or release large quantities of stored CO2 into the atmosphere (4).

(1) "What Is CCS?" – The Carbon Capture & Storage Association (CCSA). Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

(3) "IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage." Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2005. Web. 20 Sept. 2016.