mgb_phys said: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.
mgb_phys said: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.
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.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.
. . . .
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.Nebula815 said: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.
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.Astronuc said: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.
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.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.
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.russ_watters said: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.
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.
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:Astronuc said: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.
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.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.
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 equipmentNebula815 said:The problem here is twofold though:
1) The technology to do this was in existence
Nothing burns completely clean in the atmosphere at high temperatures, not even hydrogen. See NOx.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 technology exists, but it's not proven at large scales, and the cost is uncertain.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.
russ_watters said: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. ...
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?russ_watters said: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.
I wasn't even discussing viability of the whole concept, but only the fact that there exists technology to capture and store CO2. Whether or not it is necessary to do so is a rather contentious subject.russ_watters said: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 . . . .
It can be done, but pulling CO2 out the atmosphere generally is much more energy intensive that grabbing it immediately as a product of coal combustion.Al68 said: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?
Sure, but I wasn't comparing pulling it out of the air to grabbing it at the source. I was comparing pulling it out of the air to shipping or piping it around the world.mheslep said:It can be done, but pulling CO2 out the atmosphere generally is much more energy intensive that grabbing it immediately as a product of coal combustion.
Right now, carbon capture technology is focused capturing at the source, and piping it somewhere, locally or wherever, into an underground reservoir. In some cases, it could be pumped into oil or gas reservoirs to enhance production. In other cases it pure storage.Al68 said:Sure, but I wasn't comparing pulling it out of the air to grabbing it at the source. I was comparing pulling it out of the air to shipping or piping it around the world.
mheslep said:Indeed, the US now has the largest unproven gas reserves in the world due to the shale gas, some 1750 TCF. Even so, that's only 75 years of gas at today's US usage rates.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/164713-how-much-natural-gas-remains-in-the-usa
This is basically a lie. Cap and trade doesn't provide an extra tax. What it does instead is artificially limits production of carbon-producing fuels. Instead of a tax, there's a distribution of resources towards fuels/energy sources which are more carbon-neutral, just because people aren't allowed to buy as many carbon-producing fuels. This redistribution of resources is automatic, and driven by the market economy: those alternative fuels which are most cost effective will get the most resources under a pure cap-and-trade system.skypunter said:Cap and trade attempts to artificially make hydrocarbons more expensive, through taxes, in order to make alternatives appear more affordable. That is money out of our pockets.
Chalnoth said:This is basically a lie. Cap and trade doesn't provide an extra tax.
Whatever the end effect of Cap and Trade, it exactly meets this definition. Whether or not the government subsequently allows redistribution of the collected revenue under a rule set to other individuals or businesses changes the definition of tax not at all. There are certainly different kinds of taxes; the best one can say here is that this tax different in application from, say, the income tax.tax
/tæks/
–noun
1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
ALL taxes tend to restrain trade in the area to which they are applied.Chalnoth said:What it does instead is artificially limits production of carbon-producing fuels.
That is what is hoped, it's not a fact of the proposed lawChalnoth said:Instead of a tax, there's a distribution of resources towards fuels/energy sources which are more carbon-neutral,
No, there's no default quota placed on 'people' re how much they can buy; there's an intended increase in the price of carbon emissions. BTW, the bill may simply move emissions elsewhere ( e.g. China).Chalnoth said:just because people aren't allowed to buy as many carbon-producing fuels.
Secondary effect. In the first instance, the government demands the price increase, i.e, a tax.Chalnoth said:The increase in prices comes from the increased resources required to extract energy from renewable sources.
It doesn't allow it. It simply happens: the government doesn't see any of any extra money paid at all. There is no revenue collected at all with pure cap-and-trade.mheslep said:Whatever the end effect of Cap and Trade, it exactly meets this definition. Whether or not the government subsequently allows redistribution of the collected revenue under a rule set to other individuals or businesses changes the definition of tax not at all. There are certainly different kinds of taxes; the best one can say here is that this tax different in application from, say, the income tax.
That may be an impact on the entire bill, but it's not an effect of cap and trade in and of itself. Carbon levies are, obviously, taxes. And they're not such a bad thing either, though cap and trade is perhaps better.mheslep said:Furthermore, the effect of this bill as scored by http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090626/hr2454_cbo20090626.pdf" for this particular bill is an increase in government revenue via carbon levies of $873 billion over ten years; roughly that same amount is then spent by the government under the bill (i.e. 'bureaucrats' as you mentioned) on other energy related topics such as energy efficiency technology R&D, renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration, electric vehicle tech, etc, etc.
This is why for any cap and trade system to be effective, it needs to be supplanted with tariffs on imports from countries that don't have similar systems.mheslep said:BTW, the bill may simply move emissions elsewhere ( e.g. China).
Offsets are the downfall of Cap n' Trade. In my view there's no stopping massive gaming of the offsets, which is why I favor the straightforward carbon tax* strongly supported by many (most?) economists.Astronuc said:fee = tax?
I sat in on a meeting with some financial people who were apparently planning to make millions or billions off Cap n' Trade.
Duke Energy has been concerned about fair pricing for their offsets.
I'm not so sure it's strongly supported by most economists.mheslep said:Offsets are the downfall of Cap n' Trade. In my view there's no stopping massive gaming of the offsets, which is why I favor the straightforward carbon tax* strongly supported by many (most?) economists.
Follow-up question: who cares what economists think? Are economists environmental scientists and mechanical and chemical engineers?mheslep said:Offsets are the downfall of Cap n' Trade. In my view there's no stopping massive gaming of the offsets, which is why I favor the straightforward carbon tax* strongly supported by many (most?) economists.
Chalnoth said:I think that's sort of the point of cap and trade: to provide incentives to gradually replace fossil fuel technologies.
mgb_phys said:Isn't this like the Nasa employees that were 'silenced' for mentioning evolution or global warming?
Your employment contract (especially with a federal agency) says you can't make public pronouncements about your work without clearing them with the press office.
So to drum up some publicity you claim to have been silenced by The Man.
That's the goal of people who support CO2 reduction, but cap and trade isn't capable of doing that because you can't "gradually replace" a power plant, nor can you gradually invent a new technology (such as carbon capture).Chalnoth said:I think that's sort of the point of cap and trade: to provide incentives to gradually replace fossil fuel technologies.
A wide variety of technologies. Fossil fuels are obviously too useful for anyone single renewable energy source to replace them.skypunter said:With what?
It feels like we're being herded toward a cliff, while the "shepherd" promises that we can fly!
Edit: I think you are on point here with a major problem surrounding the application of cap and trade to CO2, but imprecise. I agree completely that reducing real toxics like SO2 was just a question of money, and it was understood almost exactly how much money so the value of those improvements could be traded. Here's the difference with CO2: I assert removing it from, say, coal plants is also just a question of money, and time. I could set up a rig in my basement to capture CO2 from a combusted a lump of coal. However, the problem is we do not know how much money sequestering CO2 at scale costs. Is my geology suitable for storage? Don't know. Got to do some test drilling. If I can't store CO2 here, got to pipe it. What's the cost of the right of way for ~100 miles of pipe? Don't know. What's the cost of a certified CO2 separation rig at 1GW scale? Well there have been several pilot plants, but nothing certified so I really don't know that cost either. The point is without knowing the cost, I can't trade the value to someone else. Now, economists well understand this kind of limitation of uncertainty of costs, even if they don't know a dam thing about drilling and CO2 separations.russ_watters said:Follow-up question: who cares what economists think? Are economists environmental scientists and mechanical and chemical engineers?
The problem isn't the economic models per se. The problem is the view of reality input into the models isn't based on real science/engineering. Economists don't know that pollution reduction vs cost isn't a continuous function because they don't understand what it actually takes to reduce pollution.
Ie, in the case of CO2, you can't say that money/current pollution = new pollution
Back when "pollution" referred to abnormal combustion products such as nitrous and sulfur oxides, it was theoretically possible (and was done) to reduce them in a hyperbolic function of cost along a very wide range of pollution levels. The reason is, the solutions were designed to improve, not replace, existing energy production methods. You can take a coal plant and reduce the NO2 by a factor of 10 if you want and it is just a question of money. But CO2 isn't like that. No amount of new technology is going to reduce the CO2 output of coal power plants by more than about 20% (the difference between current efficiency and the theoretical maximum). Only by discarding coal altogether can we get rid of its CO2 production.
The problem is externalities. Engineers in this context are in business of optimizing designs given input/output costs to their system. They don't evaluate the cost to the nation based on the security issues surrounding imported oil, nor mostly do thet care about carbon emissions (I'm skeptical on CO2 in the short run). They don't care because there is no cost to either imports or CO2 on their balance sheets. If these external problems are to be considered in the overall design of energy plants and systems, someone has to put a price on them that then shows up on the engineers tally. That's where economists come in. The best way to do this, IMO, is not via caps, it's via a rebated carbon tax.russ_watters said:So by slowly cranking down on the cap, you can, in the short term, get your cap and trade to follow a continuous function, but in a little bit of time, you'll hit a wall where you can't go any further without abandoning the coal plant (or finding a way to destroy or store CO2 itself). And if that's the way it has to go, you've wasted time and money on a partial solution that is of little help in working towards the full solution.
I don't follow this last part - what does long term around times in nuclear have to do with proposed cap and trade, which is not in effect yet?russ_watters said:That's the goal of people who support CO2 reduction, but cap and trade isn't capable of doing that because you can't "gradually replace" a power plant, nor can you gradually invent a new technology (such as carbon capture).
This is part of the reason we don't see more nuclear plants being built now.[...]
I share concerns about the results of bad policy and economics, but not that economics is not relevant. Economics is about understanding the effects of supply, demand, and prices. Of course it's relevant to energy, and anything else that can have a price put on it.Economics is simply not equipped to handle this issue,