NET Power’s zero-emission generators will save the planet and silence the alarmists
Mark Whittington
Video Embed
Having proven the effectiveness of its carbon-emission-free generator technology at a prototype plant in La Porte, Texas, NET Power has taken the next step of developing commercial-size natural gas-powered generators in the United States and Europe. According to Forbes, one of those plants, to be located in Odessa, Texas, will have two beneficial side effects besides generating electricity.
The NET Power technology uses Allam Cycle technology that, instead of belching carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, uses it to turn the generator before sequestering it underground. The technology provides the promise of emission-free fossil fuels.
The Odessa plant will run on cheap natural gas extracted from the nearby Permian Basin oil fields. It will then inject the carbon dioxide it creates back into the same oil fields to coax out oil and gas. The carbon dioxide will remain permanently locked away underground, which will garner another revenue stream, thanks to subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act.
CALIFORNIA CONTINUES TO SACRIFICE PEOPLE’S LIVELIHOODS ON THE ALTAR OF CLIMATE ALARMISM
The power plant will run machinery designed to extract carbon dioxide from the air.
On the whole, the NET Power solution to human-caused climate change seems entirely more sensible than other proposed approaches. It uses sound engineering principles, builds on rather than replaces an energy economy built on fossil fuels, and avoids the economic dislocation involved in going full-tilt to renewables.
Recycling rather than expending carbon dioxide also avoids some of the policy prescriptions advanced by some governments that range from annoying to costly. A proposal banning gas stoves, for example, has sparked a revolt from chefs who believe that cooking with gas makes food taste better. The ban makes no sense since electric stoves are still likely to be powered by natural gas or coal-fired power plants.
Then, one has to consider the grandiose (and quite mad) proposal made by a group of scientists from the University of Utah and Harvard to mine the moon for dust and shoot it into orbit around the Earth to block the sun, thus impeding or even reversing global warming. The scientists have not run a cost-benefit analysis for their proposal or an examination of the risks involved. For example, too much moon dust could throw the Earth into a runaway ice age. The proposal would also ruin Earth-based astronomy.
The climate change problem has caused a lot of off-putting behavior, from former Vice President Al Gore ranting about the seas boiling at Davos to the antics of Greta Thunberg. Some people, such as former Secretary of State John Kerry, on the “end fossil fuels now” side fly about on private jets to lecture the rest of us about our carbon footprint. Others throw food at great works of art or recline on freeways to block traffic. Proponents of the matter have not done enough to elicit thoughtful and intelligent reflection.
Judith Curry, a climate scientist who does not subscribe to the “end fossil fuels or we’re all doomed” point of view, has noted that the varied output of the sun and volcanic eruptions affect Earth’s temperature as much as or more than greenhouse gas emissions. She even suggests that the Earth may not warm as much as the doomsayers claim or may even cool because of these natural factors. Other climate scientists have attacked her as a climate change “denier” for her views on the phenomenon.
Even so, Curry’s analysis carries the ring of truth to the layperson. Of course, the world’s climate is affected by both human-caused and natural phenomena. Which factor is the most significant should be a matter of sober debate without hysteria, not witch hunts and blacklists.
In the meantime, the world should eschew sudden, wrenching, and often counterproductive solutions to the problem of climate change being proposed by various governments such as the Biden administration. Sober, achievable technologies such as carbon capture and nuclear power, with fusion in the long term, are already available to address climate change without impoverishing human civilization.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Mark Whittington, who frequently writes about space and energy policy, has published a political study of space exploration titled Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? as well as The Moon, Mars and Beyond, and, most recently, Why is America Going Back to the Moon? He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.