Free speech and cap 'n trade troubles

[mheslep]

...Second, both wind and solar power are essentially nonexistent at night, so the only "green" energy that works for that purpose is nuclear power...and it is already used for our base load.

Wind power exists at night, as does some forms of heat storing concentrated solar.

 

[russ_watters]

There are several electro-plating companies and other heavy users in W. PA that operate mainly on night shift to take advantage of lower rates.

My dad is a utility cost consultant and 15 years ago he had a company that uses induction furnaces fire them up a half hour earlier to avoid hitting a peak demand during on peak hours, saving them thousands of dollars a month. Then he got them to install a demand monitor with a big display on it in their shop to show them when they are about to set a new peak demand, which helped them modify their behavior to keep their demand down, saving them additional thousands per month.

 

[russ_watters]

Wind power exists at night...

I'm having more trouble finding supporting documentation about this than I expected, but as far as I know, the wind is much stronger during the day than at night due to the fact that wind is created by solar heating.

Here's one:

Even the most casual observer knows that wind near the ground is generally stronger in the daytime than at night.

This fact is illusrated by the data analyzed for Figure 1. They show the frequency of occurrence of wind speeds less than 10.5 mph (9.1 knots) at different times of day as measured at the Lansing, MI, airport, averaged for five July months, 1949-54. During the night, from sunset to sunrise, the observed speeds averaged less than 10.5 mph about 90% of the time. After sunrise the frequencies decreased to nearly 50 % by midday, then increased back to about 90 % after sunset.

http://www.windwisdom.net/

I know the graph has an unusual way of presenting the data - it is intended for balloonists - but the message is clear enough. [edit] Oh, there's better graphs lower on the page. Figure 6 implies to me that you get perhaps 1/4 as much wind power at night as during the day.

This, though, I didn't know:

A few hundred feet above the surface the average diurnal pattern of wind speed is just the opposite of that near the ground. Lower speeds occur during the day and higher speeds during the night.

Something that just occurred to me: wind power is being touted as a large part of the solution to global warming. But isn't it illogical to base the solution to climate change on a technique that relies on the climate for its operation? Ie, if the climate changes as drastically as we are told to expect, how do we know that the locations we have chosen for our wind farms will continue to be the correct locations?

 

[Astronuc]

We used to live in a service territory of a utility that charged less for electricity used between 0000 and 0600, so we used to do laundry between midnight at 6 am. I think they charged less on weekends as well.

The wind site that Russ posted is interesting. At about 300 ft above the ground, the average wind speed is more or less constant. The other data suggest seasonal variations as well as diurnal and altitude variations.


As for Cap 'n Trade, a major, and perhaps most significant problem, is the appropriate pricing of the offsets or credits. The middlemen have a vested interest in buying at a discount and selling at a premium, and not necessarily getting the best deal for the consumer.

Obviously the utilities have a vested interest in reducing cost, e.g. replacing old plants with new more efficient plants, as Duke Energy is doing at Evansport or Cliffside:

Edwardsport Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Station http://www.duke-energy.com/about-us/igcc.asp
http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/igcc-fact-sheet.pdf
http://www.duke-energy.com/power-plants/coal-fired/edwardsport.asp (old units)
http://www.duke-energy.com/about-us/edwardsport-overview.asp

The proposed 630-megawatt IGCC facility will be one of the cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power plants in the world. It will emit less sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates than the plant it replaces – while providing more than 10 times the power of the existing plant.

Cliffside Steam Station Modernization
http://www.duke-energy.com/about-us/cliffside.asp
http://www.duke-energy.com/power-plants/coal-fired/cliffside.asp
http://www.duke-energy.com/about-us/cliffside-overview.asp

Once Cliffside Unit 6 comes on line in 2012, and units 1-4 are retired, the facility will generate more than double the electricity available for customers than the current units, with significantly lower emissions. Duke has committed to retiring 800 additional megawatts of older coal-fired generation, making Unit 6 carbon neutral by 2018.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/another-approach-to-low-carbon-coal/


Duke Generation also invests heavily in wind.
http://www.de-gs.com/projects-renewable.asp

 

[turbo]

None of that is even remotely new...

First, power is already metered differently at night than during the day for commercial use (and, as noted, as the usage at night rises, the off peak rates will go away...and for residential they will simply never be implimented).
Second, both wind and solar power are essentially nonexistent at night, so the only "green" energy that works for that purpose is nuclear power...and it is already used for our base load.

The "new" part is that as electric vehicles come into widespread use, they can serve as a distributed "battery" to consume electricity produced by wind-farms during the night, and save us the expense of upgrading the transmission infrastructure to transport the power out-of-state.

I am well-aware of differential pricing for commercial users. It has never been implemented for residential users here, despite the fact that Maine is a net exporter of electrical power, and our power is overwhelmingly generated by hydro-dams. We pay 9cents/KWH for electricity currently. The creation of off-shore wind farms might change that, as the power companies look for ways to encourage off-peak usage in order to avoid the costs associated with infrastructure expansion or load-dumping.

 

[russ_watters]

The wind site that Russ posted is interesting. At about 300 ft above the ground, the average wind speed is more or less constant.

Yes, I noticed that. Perhaps we'll start seeing wind turbines on 600' tall towers?

Obviously the utilities have a vested interest in reducing cost, e.g. replacing old plants with new more efficient plants, as Duke Energy is doing at Evansport or Cliffside...

You'll notice that nowhere in any of that does it mention carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the primary waste product of good combustion and thermodynamics (ie, efficiency) hasn't changed much in decades, so none of that has anything to do global warming.

The sulfur dioxide and nitrus oxides are products of poor fuel and combustion and getting rid of them was essentially a quality control exercise. The clean air act and related measures resulted in five to fifty-fold reductions in such pollutants from cars and power plants since the 1970s. It wasn't difficult: we just decided to do it. Carbon dioxide doesn't work that way.

Some car emissions standards over time: http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/auto-emissions_chronol.htm
Coal plant emissions reductions over time: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11599

From the second link:

America’s improving air quality is an untold success story. Even before Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, air quality had been improving for decades.[1] And since 1970, the six so-called criteria pollutants have declined significantly, even though the generation of electricity from coal-fired plants has increased by over 180 percent.

[ii] (The “criteria pollutants” are carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide [SO2], nitrogen oxides [NOx], ground-level ozone, and particulate matter [PM]. They are called “criteria” pollutants because the EPA sets the criteria for permissible levels. [iii]) Total SO2 emissions from coal-fired plants were reduced by about 40 percent between 1970 and 2006, and NOx emissions were reduced by almost 50 percent between 1980 and 2006. On an output basis, the percent reduction is even greater, with SO2 emissions (in pounds per megawatt-hour) almost 80 percent lower, and NOx emissions 70 percent lower.

 

[Astronuc]

Yes, I noticed that. Perhaps we'll start seeing wind turbines on 600' tall towers?
You'll notice that nowhere in any of that does it mention carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the primary waste product of good combustion and thermodynamics (ie, efficiency) hasn't changed much in decades, so none of that has anything to do global warming.

The sulfur dioxide and nitrus oxides are products of poor combustion and getting rid of them was essentially a quality control exercise. The clean air act and related measures resulted in more than a ten-fold reduction in such pollutants from cars and power plants since the 1970s. It wasn't difficult: we just decided to do it. Carbon dioxide doesn't work that way.

In the description of the Evansport plant one will find the statement "Potential for the capture and geologic storage of carbon dioxide". The links I cited do not explicitly address Duke's program in reducing CO₂.

Like other utilities, Duke Energy has a carbon reduction/offset program. I believe the Evansport and Cliffside plants are designed to be carbon neutral, partly by producing more electrical energy while using less fuel (e.g., IGCC's can be up to ~60% efficient vs ~40% for advanced superheat coal plants). In addition, they are looking for economical ways to employ carbon sequestration.

I believe utilities are hoping that an alternative to carbon storage, e.g., pumping CO₂ underground, or a more economical storage technology, will be developed. An alternative might involve biofuel production.

In any event, I was trying to provide an example of what utilities are doing without the need for Cap 'n Trade. Utilities already have an economic incentive to reduce coal consumption, and where they can, they are introducing non-fuel (renewable) energy production technology, e.g. wind.


And if people feel strongly about it - write one's Senators and congresspersons - and indicate Cap 'n Trade is a bad idea, and give examples of what utilities are doing to reduce or eliminate emissions of CO₂.

 

[mgb_phys]

I don't believe any were silenced

I meant that the story of an employee being told not to talk about a report until it was cleared for publication gets turned into a "scientists silenced" story in the media.

 

[Jasongreat]

Second, both wind and solar power are essentially nonexistent at night, so the only "green" energy that works for that purpose is nuclear power...and it is already used for our base load.

I was watching a show the other night on the green channel and it showed a new design of wind foil. It was a cylinder shape and had three s-shaped channel that had a slight helix twist to them. He said the design would turn in very low winds and could never over speed due to high winds because of the design as it only captures the amount of wind it needs to operate no matter how much is available(assumes some wind). I have been unable to find other info on it though. He was making them originally for use in the city on top of skyscrapers, since they can't be seen from the ground because of their low profile, it sounds to me like it will be a major advancement in our quest for feasible alternative power. I really liked your point in a later post about the logic or lack thereof of relying on the changing climate to fix the climate. Maybe this new design might help make it a more logical choice because of the wide operating range.

Edit: It looked like http://www.aerotechture.com/products_520h.html" but if it is this one I saw I must of mis heard since the brochure states it needs winds of at least 15mph but it won't overspeed. I was under the impression that it had a constant power output regardless of wind speed, as long as there was some wind, however if the link I provided is the one I saw on the show I was very wrong.

 

[mgb_phys]

There are a few designs of vertical axis turbine. They easier to build because you can put all the works at the base, and they can run in a range of wind speeds without needing variable pitch blades. But it's difficult to support the top bearing.

Also wind power increase with height above the ground so a regular prop on a tower is more efficient.

 

[mheslep]

I'm having more trouble finding supporting documentation about this than I expected, but as far as I know, the wind is much stronger during the day than at night due to the fact that wind is created by solar heating.

Here's one:
http://www.windwisdom.net/

I know the graph has an unusual way of presenting the data - it is intended for balloonists - but the message is clear enough. [edit] Oh, there's better graphs lower on the page. Figure 6 implies to me that you get perhaps 1/4 as much wind power at night as during the day.

This, though, I didn't know:

I'd read about night time wind production in passing several times, particularly when there was a EV angle since the idea was to charge the EV's a night. Perhaps night time wind is the exception and not the rule, but there definitely are examples. Minn:

[...]Xcel currently has an aggregate wind plant within its control area of about 280 MW capacity located at Lake Benton, Minnesota. Annual capacity factor of the wind plant is about 30%, with a seasonal high value of 40% for spring and a low value of 15% for summer. Historical data of the wind energy production shows a modest diurnal pattern with slightly higher production at night.

http://www.uwig.org/opimpactspaper.pdf
Of course the damming part of the above is the low summer production, something I didn't know - that production drops to half for an entire season meaning the backup baseload has to be there.

Something that just occurred to me: wind power is being touted as a large part of the solution to global warming. But isn't it illogical to base the solution to climate change on a technique that relies on the climate for its operation? Ie, if the climate changes as drastically as we are told to expect, how do we know that the locations we have chosen for our wind farms will continue to be the correct locations?

Well the theory is to use renewables like wind before drastic changes to climate would occur. Of course if the Sun or something else turns out to be responsible wind turbines et al won't help.

 

[russ_watters]

In the description of the Evansport plant one will find the statement "Potential for the capture and geologic storage of carbon dioxide".

Sorry, I guess I missed that. That technology is still on the drawing board, though...

...to bring us back to the idea of cap and trade, the lack of ability to develop technology that is still on the drawing board is one of the major flaws of the concept of cap and trade.

I believe utilities are hoping that an alternative to carbon storage, e.g., pumping CO₂ underground, or a more economical storage technology, will be developed. An alternative might involve biofuel production.

While "hope" appears to be a major qualification for President these days, it is not an implimentable technology for pollution control. And that's a huge problem and huge flaw in our current energy strategy. If people really are serious about CO2 being a problem, we should be reducing our CO2 output, not hoping we can reduce it in the future.

In any event, I was trying to provide an example of what utilities are doing without the need for Cap 'n Trade. Utilities already have an economic incentive to reduce coal consumption, and where they can, they are introducing non-fuel (renewable) energy production technology, e.g. wind.

Ok...well, while such normal economic pressures exist and matter a little, the true, vast reductions in pollution we've seen over the past few decades happened because they were mandated by law. Real, substantive CO2 reduction can only happen that way as well.

...and that's also assuming I believe what you posted there, Astronuc. I've been seeing/hearing the most rediculous commercials for propane, oil, even natural gas heat on TV and radio recently (apparently, they are all the best and getting better!). Utility companies are putting out a large amount of effort to convince people that they are trying to substantively reduce their CO2 emissions. But I am not convinced they are actually trying to substantively reduce their CO2 emissions. Until I see something real (such as cancelling a coal plant and building a nuclear plant instead), I'll continue to be skeptical of what they say they are trying to do.

And if people feel strongly about it - write one's Senators and congresspersons - and indicate Cap 'n Trade is a bad idea, and give examples of what utilities are doing to reduce or eliminate emissions of CO₂.

If I were inclined to write my congressman, it wouldn't be to tell him about what the power company hopes. That really is useless. I would instead tell him what to make the power company do.

This is a situation where Yoda was right: there is no "try" here. If one wants to reduce CO2 emissions, they should just do it.

 

[russ_watters]

Edit: It looked like http://www.aerotechture.com/products_520h.html" but if it is this one I saw I must of mis heard since the brochure states it needs winds of at least 15mph but it won't overspeed. I was under the impression that it had a constant power output regardless of wind speed, as long as there was some wind, however if the link I provided is the one I saw on the show I was very wrong.

I don't know how they work, but I know they must follow the law of conservation of energy: they can't pull more energy out of the wind than there is in the wind. And because of that, they certainly must pull more energy (9x more!) out of a 15mph wind than a 5mph wind, otherwise, they'd never be able to keep up with a conventional turbine.

 

[russ_watters]

I'd read about night time wind production in passing several times, particularly when there was a EV angle since the idea was to charge the EV's a night. Perhaps night time wind is the exception and not the rule, but there definitely are examples. Minn:


http://www.uwig.org/opimpactspaper.pdf
Of course the damming part of the above is the low summer production, something I didn't know - that production drops to half for an entire season meaning the backup baseload has to be there.

I don't know, then. Maybe varies a lot from one region to another. Another factor for that paper, though: Is "night" sunset to sunrise? Since the wind is stronger in the winter and the days are much shorter, that could tip the total production to favor the night even if the average wind speed is higher during the day.

 

[mgb_phys]

I've been seeing/hearing the most rediculous commercials for propane, oil, even natural gas heat on TV and radio recently

Natural gas domestic heating is about the best option. At least if you have natural gas fields and can pipe it direct to houses, it burns cleanly (after you've removed the sulfur) and is a lot more efficent than using it to generate electricity and then having electric heating.

Utility companies are putting out a large amount of effort to convince people that they are trying to substantively reduce their CO2 emissions.

Funniest one so far was one claiming that, since methane has a much higher greenhouse gas effect than CO2, by burning the natural gas in their power station they are doing their part to reduce global warming!

 

[mheslep]

...Until I see something real (such as cancelling a coal plant and building a nuclear plant instead), I'll continue to be skeptical of what they say they are trying to do. ...

I believe that is happening, slowly, in a different sense, i.e. no nuclear so far: as I recall, e.g. Texas had a half dozen coal plants planned for the past several years, and none of them got built. Instead they a) built some gas turbine plants, b) wind farms (helluva lot in Tx), c) made the load more efficient.

 

[russ_watters]

Natural gas domestic heating is about the best option. At least if you have natural gas fields and can pipe it direct to houses, it burns cleanly (after you've removed the sulfur) and is a lot more efficent than using it to generate electricity and then having electric heating.

I know, but oddly enough they still feel the need to use overblown claims regarding energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions to promote it.

Funniest one so far was one claiming that, since methane has a much higher greenhouse gas effect than CO2, by burning the natural gas in their power station they are doing their part to reduce global warming!

I didn't hear that one. I'll try to take more specific note of the claims and repeat some here.

 

[Al68]

But since nuclear plants aren't being built yet and take at least a decade to come on line and wind and solar (etc) can't provide anywhere near the capacity needed...

I just can't believe people could actually want to destroy the Earth by taking energy out of mother nature's wind and sunshine. What unforeseen effects will this cause? Global warming? Cooling? Rising sea levels? Lowering sea levels? More hurricanes? More ice cream headaches?

Butterfly effect in overdrive, I say. Stop wind and solar now before we destroy ourselves with our greed and ignorance!

Anyone who says I shouldn't post such wild speculation is just part of the greedy conspiracy!

The debate is over, no more wind and solar!

(Any resemblance of this post to anything said by Al Gore is purely coincidental)

 

[russ_watters]

I suppose that's sarcasm, but I can't imagine what your point is.

 

[tmyer2107]

I just spent some time reading through this thread and I am glad to see that most PF users see cap and trade for what it really is, a scam. I am currently working as an engineer in the oil refining industry so there has been a lot of talk around here about cap and trade. If this scam was ever put into effect it would force US refiners to cut even more jobs and raise gas prices to be able to pay the taxes involved. Valero would have to pay 7 billion a year in taxes if cap and trade was passed. That would devastate the company, which is America's biggest refiner, and cause gas prices to raise around 77 cents a gallon. And trust me, American refiners would not be able to take the hit if cap and trade was passed. They are already shutting down multiple refineries causing thousands to lose their jobs. The most recent refinery that was shut down was netting a loss of over $1 million a day for every day it remained in operation because oil margins are so slim. I just had to move from Philladelphia to Texas to keep my job, but I like country music so it’s all good.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1130/companies-oil-energy-how-carbon-bill-would-hit-valero.html"

 

[mheslep]

I just spent some time reading through this thread and I am glad to see that most PF users see cap and trade for what it really is, a scam. I am currently working as an engineer in the oil refining industry so there has been a lot of talk around here about cap and trade. If this scam was ever put into effect it would force US refiners to cut even more jobs and raise gas prices to be able to pay the taxes involved. Valero would have to pay 7 billion a year in taxes if cap and trade was passed. That would devastate the company, which is America's biggest refiner, and cause gas prices to raise around 77 cents a gallon. And trust me, American refiners would not be able to take the hit if cap and trade was passed. ...

Seems to me Valero is only devastated if demand drops dramatically, otherwise it simply passes on taxes in the form of price increases. What demand drop does Valero expect?

 

[mgb_phys]

Valero would have to pay 7 billion a year in taxes if cap and trade was passed. That would devastate the company, which is America's biggest refiner, and cause gas prices to raise around 77 cents a gallon.

And the same excuse and the same made up numbers have been used for every worker's, safety and environmental legislation for the last 200 years.

People said exactly the same thing about disabled access to their offices that coal mines were saying 200years ago when the minimum age was raised to 9years old.
And pretty much the same thing was said in America about the end of slavery - it would cause food and cotton prices to rise so much that everyone would starve.

 

[Nebula815]

That being said, global warming is not near enough an exact science nor is cap-and-trade proven to be effective at all in doing what it is supposed to do.

It would be burdening the economy with a completely un-necessary new tax and regulations to try to solve a problem that may not even exist, and to try to do so in a way that will likely not work in the first place.

 

[tmyer2107]

Seems to me Valero is only devastated if demand drops dramatically, otherwise it simply passes on taxes in the form of price increases. What demand drop does Valero expect?

If cap and trade was passed then Valero would have to increase their price of gasoline more than any other refiner just to stay in the green. Other refiners lke Exxon own oil fields and have multiple foreign refineries which make up for some of the loss when their US refineries are losing money. Valero doesn't have this luxury. Other refiners will be able to price their gasoline cheaper than Valero, pushing consumers in their direction.

And the same excuse and the same made up numbers have been used for every worker's, safety and environmental legislation for the last 200 years.

People said exactly the same thing about disabled access to their offices that coal mines were saying 200years ago when the minimum age was raised to 9years old.
And pretty much the same thing was said in America about the end of slavery - it would cause food and cotton prices to rise so much that everyone would starve.

I don't see how you say the numbers are made up. The emissions each refinery puts out is easily quantified. The amount of tax applied to these emissions is spelled out in the bill. This gives you the $7 billion tax. Now if Valero had to make up for these taxes by adjusting their price of gasoline they would have to increase it by roughly 77 cents. What is made up?

The original idea of cap and trade may have been just but in todays economy it just isn't a beneficial solution.

 

[mgb_phys]

I don't see how you say the numbers are made up. The emissions each refinery puts out is easily quantified.

When emission controls on power plants were proposed every plant claimed it would cost $Bns to filter flue gasses and any legislation would destroy the power industries.
So emissions trading was introduced, a power plant received permits for a certain amount of pollutants and could either buy credits from others or reduce their emissions - when this free market was applied it turned out that fitting flue gas scruibbers was so cheap a whole bunch of permit trading companies went bust.

 

[tmyer2107]

When emission controls on power plants were proposed every plant claimed it would cost $Bns to filter flue gasses and any legislation would destroy the power industries.
So emissions trading was introduced, a power plant received permits for a certain amount of pollutants and could either buy credits from others or reduce their emissions - when this free market was applied it turned out that fitting flue gas scruibbers was so cheap a whole bunch of permit trading companies went bust.

I see what you are saying buy I am not here to debate the claims of some power plant. All of the numbers I am referring to are tangible and true. Whatever the power plants were claiming may very well have been false, I don't know.

 

[Nebula815]

When emission controls on power plants were proposed every plant claimed it would cost $Bns to filter flue gasses and any legislation would destroy the power industries.
So emissions trading was introduced, a power plant received permits for a certain amount of pollutants and could either buy credits from others or reduce their emissions - when this free market was applied it turned out that fitting flue gas scruibbers was so cheap a whole bunch of permit trading companies went bust.

The problem here is twofold though:

1) The technology to do this was in existence

2) They were dealing with pollutants

CO2 emissions are not a pollutant, even if Congress wants to say they are. If you have a coal-fired powerplant that is burning completely clean, it will have 100% pure CO2 emissions. The pollutants are the various other stuff that is in the coal that also comes out with the CO2, and that stuff is in much smaller quantities and you can filter it out.

The CO2 itself is released in massive quantities. We do not have the technology to capture and store it right now, as it isn't technically a pollutant.

Reducing pollution didn't mean reducing energy output because it was just a matter of filtering out the pollutants, but to reduce carbon output will mean reducing energy usage, which means higher prices for energy, and hence less economic growth.

It's like automobiles. You can put in all sorts of filtering technology to filter out the pollutants, but a pollution-free car will still put out pure CO2. There is no technology to capture that CO2 on vehicles right now.

 

[Astronuc]

Here is a relevant discussion.

Businesses in U.S. Brace for New Rules on Emissions
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/business/energy-environment/26emissions.html

To reduce emissions, Congress has been looking at a mechanism called cap and trade, in which legislators would set a limit on the nation’s emissions and it would decline each year. They would also assign pollution permits that companies could then buy and sell depending on their needs.

Much of the legislative horse-trading in recent months centered on which sectors of the economy would receive these carbon allowances free, as a subsidy to switch to low-carbon fuels or to invest in carbon-abating technologies, and which industries must pay for them.

Corporate America is by no means unanimous in embracing the idea of emission limits. Larger corporations, especially those operating in both the United States and Europe, have gone furthest in tackling their emissions. By contrast, many small businesses and domestic manufacturers have made little headway, and they are worried about the higher energy costs that an attack on global warming would require.

Oil producers have opposed the current climate legislation being debated in Congress. Refiners and producers claim the bill would result in higher gasoline bills, lower domestic output and an increase in fuel imports.

. . . .

One unintended consequence of poorly crafted Cap n' Trade legislation would be to eliminate small and/or independent businesses and leaving larger organization (i.e., eliminating competition in the market) and thus ultimately raising prices. And then there is also the question - "Will Cap n' Trade actually reduce CO2 emissions?" Certainly not if it's crafted to benefit a few at the expense of many.

Australia has one of the highest per capita carbon emissions - 80% of electricity produced by coal burning plants.

As for technology, various research groups are looking at carbon capture and sequestration. The technology exists, but it's rather expensive and inefficient. For example, one process requires about 25% of the plant generation. A 40% efficient coal plant becomes 30% efficient using a process which captures the CO2 output, captures and compresses it, and pumps it back into a geological repository.

Statoil is testing a process - Carbon Capture And Storage To Combat Global Warming Examined
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070611153957.htm

Carbon capture projects around the world
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091110/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_carbon_dioxide_town_glance

Environmental Engineers Use Algae To Capture Carbon Dioxide
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0407-possible_fix_for_global_warming.htm

Biogeochemists Map Out Carbon Dioxide Emissions In The U.S.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/1209-tracking_co2.htm


Rather than creating a financial market for Cap n' Trade, the investment should be made in effective technologies that reduce consumption of fossil fuels and as much as possible create a closed cycle of capture CO2 produced and converting back into a usable fuel (as is the case with biofuel using plants, algae, or extremophile bacteria).

We don't need financial middlepersons extracting their 5, 10 or 20% commissions for simply making financial transactions in Cap n' Trade. The motivation of profit is already there for those to develop and use technology to restructure energy production and utilization toward a sustainable and economic system.

 

[russ_watters]

It's like automobiles. You can put in all sorts of filtering technology to filter out the pollutants, but a pollution-free car will still put out pure CO2. There is no technology to capture that CO2 on vehicles right now.

Just about everything you said there was correct, but just to correc this one - a car doesn't put out pure CO2, it puts out a mixture of CO2 and water. Coal is almost all carbon, but oil is a hydrocarbon and contains something like two or three times as many hydrogen atoms as carbon atoms.

This is why methane is so good. Aside from hydrogen being both lighter and giving more energy from combustion than carbon, burning a molecule of CH4 yields 1 molecule of CO2 and 2 of H2O.

 

[russ_watters]

As for technology, various research groups are looking at carbon capture and sequestration. The technology exists, but it's rather expensive and inefficient. For example, one process requires about 25% of the plant generation. A 40% efficient coal plant becomes 30% efficient using a process which captures the CO2 output, captures and compresses it, and pumps it back into a geological repository.

You may consider this a minor quibble, but in my opinion, unless it is actually in use in a large power plant, it "exists" either on the drawing board or in research/prototype form. So I generally don't use the word "exists" - I think it can be misleading.

Why I think that that distinction is important is that though it "exists", it is by no means assured that it can ever be used on a real power plant.

But given that coal power is the cheapest we have by quite a bit, a 25% reduction in output + a 25% increase in plant cost (guess) would probably be worth the hit.

Assuming that it can be done as you say, what are the limitations? I presume it is limited by geology, so could a significant fraction of our existing plants be retrofitted or would we have to build a bunch of new plants in the mountains of New Mexico? How much capacity do the repositories have? Is there a danger of leaking/sinkholes/etc.? These types of questions are big, important viability issues and I've never seen them addressed when the concept is thrown on the table.

From one of your links:

Estimates of worldwide storage capacity range from 2 trillion to 10 trillion tons of carbon dioxide, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its report on carbon capture and storage. Global emissions in 2004 totaled 27 billion tons, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration.

If all human-induced emissions were sequestered, enough capacity would exist to accommodate more than 100 years' worth of emissions, according to Benson, coordinating lead author of the IPCC chapter on underground geological storage.

The tone with which they say that seems to me to be intended to imply that that is good, but I don't see it that way. 100 years' worth is not a lot of capacity if it is evenly spread throughout the globe (our power plants and population centers are not evenly spread throughout the globe) or even worse, concentrated in a few places.

 

[Astronuc]

You may consider this a minor quibble, but in my opinion, unless it is actually in use in a large power plant, it "exists" either on the drawing board or in research/prototype form. So I generally don't use the word "exists" - I think it can be misleading.

Why I think that that distinction is important is that though it "exists", it is by no means assured that it can ever be used on a real power plant.

But given that coal power is the cheapest we have by quite a bit, a 25% reduction in output + a 25% increase in plant cost (guess) would probably be worth the hit.

Assuming that it can be done as you say, what are the limitations? I presume it is limited by geology, so could a significant fraction of our existing plants be retrofitted or would we have to build a bunch of new plants in the mountains of New Mexico? How much capacity do the repositories have? Is there a danger of leaking/sinkholes/etc.? These types of questions are big, important viability issues and I've never seen them addressed when the concept is thrown on the table.

Carbon capture and sequestration technology is being demonstrated at power plants and there are plans to scale up the applications. Large plants require large reservoirs and that is one of the key issues, and ensuring reservoir integrity is a key issue. There are two phases to CCS - one is demonstrating viable storage, and the other is demonstrating viable capture. It takes several years to design, construct and implement the technologies.


RWE npower commissions carbon capture and storage testing facilities at Didcot Power Station
http://www.environmental-expert.com/resulteachpressrelease.aspx?cid=28269&codi=37468

RWE npower launches carbon capture and storage joint venture
http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/113648/rwe/press-news/press-release/?pmid=4002805

RWE To Submit Plan To Build Carbon Capture Pilot Plant In UK (Nov 10, 2009)
http://fossilfuel.energy-business-review.com/news/rwe_to_submit_plan_to_build_carbon_capture_pilot_plant_in_uk_091110/

RWE npower Tilbury Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project
http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/rwe_npower_tilbury.html

CO2CRC Mulgrave Capture Project
http://www.co2crc.com.au/research/demo_precombustion.html


RWE to join AEP in validation of carbon capture technology
http://www.aep.com/environmental/news/?id=1420

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Nov. 8, 2007 – American Electric Power (NYSE: AEP) announced today that RWE AG, one of the world’s leading power producers and the largest electricity producer in Germany, will collaborate with AEP and Alstom during a planned validation of commercial-scale application of carbon capture and storage technology on an existing AEP coal-fired power plant.

AEP and RWE, who have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the collaboration, are leaders in clean-coal technology and efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired generation. Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) are believed to contribute to global climate change.

AEP has more than 38,000 megawatts of generating capacity in the U.S., with 67 percent fueled by coal or lignite. RWE has more than 43,000 megawatts of generating capacity in Germany, Great Britain and other countries, with 60 percent fueled by coal or lignite.

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project Database (at power plants)
http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index.html


Carbon Dioxide Storage Only Projects (capturing CO2 from natural gas fields and returning the CO2 to geological repository)
http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/storage_only.html

[/quote] From one of your links: The tone with which they say that seems to me to be intended to imply that that is good, but I don't see it that way. 100 years' worth is not a lot of capacity if it is evenly spread throughout the globe (our power plants and population centers are not evenly spread throughout the globe) or even worse, concentrated in a few places.[/QUOTE] The problem with some articles is that they mix discussions of science and technology with policy. I suspect that people involved in CCS want to do something and do it now. I agree that doesn't address viability over 100, 1000 or 10,000, or even 10 million years.

If we look at the fact that fossil fuels and nuclear fuel are finite sources, we can conclude that under the present system, humanity will consume all the resources, and then there is the waste issue as well.

In the long term, millenia or millions of years, the only viable source of energy will be solar based (direct solar as in PV or CSP, or indirect as wind and hydro) or perhaps geothermal.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem with some articles is that they mix discussions of science and technology with policy. I suspect that people involved in CCS want to do something and do it now. I agree that doesn't address viability over 100, 1000 or 10,000, or even 10 million years.

What I'm saying is that their numbers don't imply viability for even much shorter timeframes. This is admittedly speculative, but if the storage is spread out evenly around the world and all of it is accessible, the numbers for the US look like this:

The Earth is 197 million square miles.
The US is 3.5 million square miles or 1/58th of the Earth's surface (including alaska).
The US puts out 1/5th fo the worlds CO2 and half of that via coal plants.

So if the global capacity to store all CO2 is 100 years, the US's capacity to store our coal plant emissions only is 17 years.

And if, as the link implies, the storage is mostly in pre-existing oil and gas wells, that means we have to build pipelines to ship our CO2 to Texas or worse, Alaska. This is why I much prefer basing planning on a solution that is known to work and known to have at worst hundreds of years of fuel available. I'm curious about this, though, so I'm going to search around a bit to see if I can find any studies of the real viability of this.

In the long term, millenia or millions of years, the only viable source of energy will be solar based (direct solar as in PV or CSP, or indirect as wind and hydro) or perhaps geothermal.

There is no need to look that long term, but even if we look out the next few hundred years, fission still remains viable. The indirect solar will essentially always be viable but they are limited in capacity. Direct solar isn't viable yet, but I wouldn't bet against solar technology over a timeframe of 20 years, much less 50. Fusion, if it ever becomes viable, would also be long lasting, but I wouldn't bet for fusion even given 50 more years of research. Either way, the point is that if people are serious about wanting to do something about CO2 production, we do have viable options now that can be implimented simply by making the choice to do it.

 

[mheslep]

The problem here is twofold though:

1) The technology to do this was in existence

Yes that's an important point - it means everybody knew at day 1 (cap and trade on coal plants for SOx emissions) how to price scrubbing equipment

2) They were dealing with pollutants

CO2 emissions are not a pollutant, even if Congress wants to say they are. If you have a coal-fired powerplant that is burning completely clean, it will have 100% pure CO2 emissions.

Nothing burns completely clean in the atmosphere at high temperatures, not even hydrogen. See NOx.

The CO2 itself is released in massive quantities. We do not have the technology to capture and store it right now, as it isn't technically a pollutant.

The technology exists, but it's not proven at large scales, and the cost is uncertain.

 

[mheslep]

What I'm saying is that their numbers don't imply viability for even much shorter timeframes. This is admittedly speculative, but if the storage is spread out evenly around the world and all of it is accessible, the numbers for the US look like this:

The Earth is 197 million square miles.
The US is 3.5 million square miles or 1/58th of the Earth's surface (including alaska).
The US puts out 1/5th fo the worlds CO2 and half of that via coal plants.

So if the global capacity to store all CO2 is 100 years, the US's capacity to store our coal plant emissions only is 17 years.

And if, as the link implies, the storage is mostly in pre-existing oil and gas wells, that means we have to build pipelines to ship our CO2 to Texas or worse, Alaska. This is why I much prefer basing planning on a solution that is known to work and known to have at worst hundreds of years of fuel available. ...

Couple comments:
1. As you might guess the geology suitable for storage over the Earth's surface is apparently so non-uniform that it's probably not even approximate to use the 1/5 factor. For instance, most of the SE United States is apparently unsuitable for storage - wrong geology.

2. The fraction of global CO2 put out by the US is falling fast. We're flat (actually emissions fell several % in the last two years), as is W. Europe, but the rest of the world's emissions are growing exponentially. So the important question is for whoever made that 100 year assessment, did they plan for those conditions? In twenty years I expect the US will be 1/10 of global CO2 emissions and still falling.

3. We don't have to store ALL CO2 emissions, just a sizable fraction of it.

 

[Al68]

And if, as the link implies, the storage is mostly in pre-existing oil and gas wells, that means we have to build pipelines to ship our CO2 to Texas or worse, Alaska.

Why, don't Texas and Alaska have any local CO2 to sequester? Does the CO2 sequestered need to be the exact same CO2 molecules that are emitted from power plants?