Progress Ohio | Joe Ziegman's Blog: Ohio's Role in Energy Alternatives

Ohio's Role in Energy Alternatives

By Joey Z - Jun 6th, 2007 at 12:39 am EDT

Also listed in: Alternative Energy in Ohio

Comments | Mail to a Friend

Categories: Environment and Conservation, Energy Policy

Can Ohio take a lead role in energy alternatives? I think yes - we are sitting on a massive amount of high sulfur coal - currently not mined because it's too dirty for normal uses - power plants, etc. High sulfur coal can be converted to very clean diesel fuel, with little more than fertilizer as a by-product. Why can't the powers get together, on a bi-partisan program, to jump start this sort of project? I've attempted to speak with my Democrat US Rep Zack Space, but we're still playing phone tag. There's so many useless reserves in south eastern Ohio, that we could re-vitalize the entire economy in that area - put those folks back to work, team up with some good companies and have the state offer tax breaks for investment into the project - this would get the buy-in from my conservative friends and all folks should buy in on the cleaner diesel fuel. All feedback is welcome - but I've studied this at some lenght - this seems to me to be a completely viable alternative energy source and a great way to get Ohio's Appalachia areas out of poverty's grasp.

Reader Comments

have you contacted your state rep & state senator?

By Doug Jun 6th 2007 at 12:54 am EDT

It seems like it's an Ohio issue that may get more traction from politicians at the state level.

What is blocking the mining industry from following through with your proposal?

CO2 emmissions

By Doug Jun 6th 2007 at 9:26 am EDT

Do you believe that CO2 emmissions contribute to global warming? Even the CEOs of the oil companies and President Bush now say that they do. I understand that the common conservative talking point now is that, yes, global warming is happening, but, living in a lush, warm climate is desirable. And, nothing can be done about it at this point anyways.

Re: CO2 emmissions

By Joey Z Jun 8th 2007 at 12:54 pm EDT

I've heard no one say they'd be fine with the climate changing so it's warm and lush in the less than tropical area of the US. CO2 is a pollutant and does effect the climate - but what we do is very minimal compared to natural forces. Mount St. Helen's spewed more into the atmosphere than all human activity since the industrial revolution. That being said, each person needs to do their part in conserving - which is mostly ingrained in most families anyway - Moms don't want to waste energy and Dads don't want to pay for it. Each planet in our solar system is warming at the same rate as our Earth - coupled with increased intensity of solar storms - leads one to surmise that it's mostly natural forces causing the bulk of our changes. Again, everyone has a duty to keep their lives as efficient as possible - it only makes sense and it's our duty to not leave this place worse than when we showed up.
On this subject, the following link is to the bible of studies on global warming - it was commissioned by every major NATO government, all top universities of the world and many big businesses - Link

What you'll read is that one of the ways they find as the most cost effective means to counter global warming is to manipulate the upper atmosphere by way of spraying dust and chemicals via aircraft. No one on either side of the isle will comment or admit that this program is completely underway today and has been since the late 90s. Just look up in the sky on most days - look for x and stripes - it's not commercial airliners - their air routes do not coincide with this operation. Most folks say this is a topic for late night radio - George Nory type stuff - but it's real and it's polluting the hell out of our sky. I would think that the environmental community would go nuts over this. Who knows what the un-intended consequenses are - but they can't be good. There are many other reasons they may be doing this program, including weather manipulation (which the US congress has codified and funded) and more onerous ideas are for military purposes. I know most will think this is crazy - but do some research on your own - remember your days as a child - there were still planes in the air, but not contrails like you see today - it's real!

We need to reduce CO2 emissions as well as reduce dependence on foreign oil

By RussC Jun 6th 2007 at 2:28 pm EDT

I just got this from MoveOn:

'Congress could vote in the next fews weeks on a bill that would double our greenhouse gas emissions from planes and cars. It sounds crazy, but this is exactly what will happen if a current plan to use "liquid coal" passes. Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels and we have a serious global warming problem.'

Re: We need to reduce CO2 emissions as well as reduce dependence on foreign oil

By Doug Jun 7th 2007 at 12:44 am EDT

Does anyone know if converting industrial hemp into bio-diesel produces much CO2? The only reason that hemp is largely illegal is that it's growth makes it hard for Law Enforcement to differentiate between hemp and wacky tabacky during interdiction efforts.

It's time to decriminalize soft drugs and utilize hemp in the many ways it can be. That would put people to work and help farmers. Willie Nelson is a big proponent in this area.

Pot was made illegal by the J. Edgar Hoover types as a way to put poor mostly African-Americans in jail and make the timber industry more profitable.

ProgressOhio