And now for something completely different

Well, this just makes me laugh.

Apparently, scientists have discovered that adding fish oils to cow diets reduces... flatulence.

What does this have to do with anything? Well, apparently cow gas is one of the major sources of methane, a greenhouse gas. And unlike, say, methane from a landfill, you can't really collect and use that methane for fuel (if nothing else, I imagine that animal rights groups would have something to say about it).

In addition to the well-documented health effects of omega-3 fatty acids, they apparently have some effect on the natural bacteria in the cow's gut, reducing the amount of methane generated. This is good news for the cow and the atmosphere.

In related news, it would seem that alfalfa and clover are also great for reducing methane production. This is great news for opponents of factory farms, where by definition the cows don't exactly have access to fields of clover. So non-vegetarians of the world, hold your heads high the next time you buy free-range, grass-fed beef. You're helping animal rights AND saving the planet.

About time!

U.S. cuts red tape on offshore renewable energy

Maybe now Bluewater and similar projects will actually be able to see progress.

If I'm recalling correctly, one of the hardest parts for these projects was the fact that there was simply no legislation in place detailing how to get a permit for, say, an offshore wind farm. Now, finally, that problem is being addressed.

The article also mentions Cape Wind, although it suggest that the controversial project's future is still in doubt. Tourism in the area is still a powerful force, as well as other ecological considerations, and may override the call for more renewable energy. Still, just because Cape Wind is struggling doesn't mean that there's no hope for less... vigorously defended seascapes, shall we say? Personally, I have my doubts that Cape Wind will ever make it, but I've been wrong before, many times. And certainly, if all we've been learning about Bluewater is any indication, wind power has some serious potential even in our area.

I just have one reservation about this: one of the unexpected advantages of the slowness of developing wind farms is that project members have had to work hard to justify themselves, ecologically speaking. They've put a lot of effort into making sure the wind farm will do as little harm as possible. I'm not saying that federal standards for permits will be lax -- and certainly, reducing arbitrary red tape is good for everyone, including the environment -- but expediting the process means less time spent deliberating. With offshore wind still untested in U.S. waters, I find myself wondering if maybe, just for a little while, it's better to go slow.

Clean coal -- fact or fiction?

As we move into the fossil fuel unit, I want to take a few minutes to address a phrase that's been thrown around a lot lately: "clean coal." The idea inspires a lot of controversy: some say it's not only possible but necessary, others say it's a fallacy.

But what's it actually mean? The big advantage of coal is that it is abundant and cheap. We have our own coal, so we don't have to import large quantities. However, coal also has a reputation for being the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. According to the US Department of Energy, clean coal is "a new generation of energy processes that sharply reduce air emissions and other pollutants from coal-burning power plants." Major problems with coal emissions include mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. The effects of mercury poisoning are well-documented; sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are lung irritants that can harm people with asthma and other breathing problems, and also contribute to acid rain. Technology exists to reduce these emissions, but with climate change a major concern, the big issue is what to do with carbon dioxide. The only real option with carbon dioxide emissions, with current technology at least, is to capture them and store them somewhere.

FactCheck.org examines the pros and cons, and this point in particular stood out: coal is cheap, clean coal is not. The expenses associated with carbon dioxide capturing technology are huge, running from $1 billion to $2.5 billion for a 300 megawatt plant. FactCheck points out that the Reality Coalition, one of the main opponents of clean coal, doesn't have a lot of facts backing up its ads. Then again, this may be because there are no commercial "clean coal" plants in the US at this time. Makes it hard to get data on something that doesn't exist. A German plant exists, providing power to about 1000 homes, but that's far from extensive testing.

Of the possible carbon capture methods outlined by FactCheck, I was aware of IGCC -- integrated gasification combined cycle. Coal gasification shows a lot of promise, if coal companies can be convinced to actually do it, and do it cleanly. However, the article's mention of oxyfuel was new to me. I also wasn't aware of the dangers of storing carbon dioxide underground: obviously, there is a risk that the carbon will simply leak back into the air, but I had always figured it was a toss-up -- the carbon would have gone into the air anyway if it wasn't stored underground, so no harm except wasted energy. The story of a Cameroon village suffocated by massive carbon dioxide release, therefore, was a shock to me. True, this was from natural rather than artificial sources... But if we're artificially creating carbon dioxide pockets underground, this could spell trouble for anyone unfortunate enough to live in the area later down the road.

One last observation: a Washington Post writer points out that for our coal to truly be clean, we have to clean up our methods of mining it first. As long as the Appalachians are still in danger from mountaintop removal, as long as waterways are being contaminated by mercury and strip-mining waste, and as long as coal miners are dying in alarming numbers... Coal isn't clean.