Thanks, David. While new, advanced technology power plants can be built with integrated CCS to lower CO2 mitigation cost, the real need is to retrofit the existing fleet to avoid the 300+ GT of CO2 emissions they are already committed to. It is too costly to do this with CCS, so rather than insisting CCS will somehow be able to save the day, those in charge of the R&D pursestrings need to ask a very important question: are there any technologies out there that might help us do this job? Otherwise, we are committing the future of the planet to a single and, in my opinion, unlikely solution - CCS - without making sure that is our only option. Now is the time to diversify the R&D so that we will fully know our options and their costs (and can accurately inform policy and resource allocation), not after many more $Bs are spent to (again) proven that CCS is too expensive in most cases. Is diverting 5-10% of the CCS RD&D budget to alternative concepts really asking too much given what is at stake?
It is time to admit that CCS will at best be a niche technology, and we need all hands (and brains) on deck to find additional solutions, including and, under the dire circumstances, perhaps especially the possibility of post-emissions CO2 management - CDR. This will not happen unless there is a fundamental change in outlook, policy and priorities (and sense of urgency) at DOE, IEA, etc. Let's discuss how to make this happen, not how to continue to place all our bets on one technology. Greg >________________________________ > From: David Lewis <jrandomwin...@gmail.com> >To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com >Cc: dhawk...@nrdc.org; andrew.lock...@gmail.com; gh...@sbcglobal.net >Sent: Monday, October 6, 2014 9:23 AM >Subject: Re: [geo] 'Clean Coal' With Carbon Capture Debuts in North America >(Not in U.S.) - NBC News.com > > > >I wonder what "we" know. > >American Electric Power CEO Mike Morris said his company could prove that CCS fitted to a full scale coal fired plant will be "clearly cheaper than new nuclear, clearly cheaper than sun and wind". He was speaking to Public Radio International's Living on Earth radio show on July 22 2011. Audio and transcript here. > >He mentioned shale gas combined cycle units as the only ones that could produce power more cheaply. But those plants would emit more CO2. His interviewer mentioned that AEPs "operators have demonstrated" their Mountaineer pilot plant "can remove 90 percent of the plant's CO2 emissions". Morris was confident and ready to build at full scale. Except for one thing. His regulator would not allow him to recover one dime of the cost of removing CO2 from the exhaust because there is no requirement to produce low CO2 power mandated by government. "We were strong proponents of Waxman-Markey in the House, but we just couldn't get it over the finish line". > >"Society - American society - needs to decide that's the way they want to go". > > >He summed up the cost factor this way: "there is the impact of running this machine, which we were always targeting at 10 to 15 percent, what's called a parasitic impact, meaning you lose about 10 or 15 percent of the kilowatt hours you could put on the system by running the machines that capture and store the carbon. If that power plant makes energy at five cents, it might make it at seven cents with this technology". His plan was for his company to also profit selling the technology to other companies: "the whole concept of being able to duplicate this technology and install it elsewhere is part of what we're doing. Once its demonstrated, others will come flying to the technology and that's my point. It is not inexpensive. But it is doable". > >What Morris says American Electric Power has done is right in line with what >theIPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage explained was possible >back in 2005. > > > > >> >>Re: [geo] 'Clean Coal' With Carbon Capture Debuts in North America (Not in >>U.S.) - NBC News.com >>Greg Rau Oct 5 at 9:57 AM >>To >>dhawk...@nrdc.org <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> >>CC >>geoengineering >>What happens if full scale demonstrations of CCS simply confirm what we know >>so far - that CCS is too expensive in most applications (except for >>extracting more oil/CO2 out of the ground)? Yes, we need to evaluate "a full >>suite" of other point source mitigation options. That is not happening >>because CCS is viewed as the only game in town in terms of R&D funding and in >>terms of policy formation. We are placing the planet at great risk and >>strangling technology development if those controlling R&D investment and >>policy continue to think that CCS is our only and best hope for mitigating >>the >300 GT of CO2* we are now committed to. And while we are at it how about >>investing in CDR R&D, just in case none of the above save the day? Imagine >>what $2B could do if diverted from one CCS demonstration (of the obvious) >>project to explore potentially cheaper, better, faster technologies. >> >> >>*http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/9/094008/pdf/1748-9326_9_9_094008.pdf >> >> >> >> >>Greg >> >> >> >> >> >> >>From: "Hawkins, Dave" <dhawk...@nrdc.org> >>To: "<andrew.lock...@gmail.com>" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> >>Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >>Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2014 11:58 AM >>Subject: Re: [geo] 'Clean Coal' With Carbon Capture Debuts in North America >>(Not in U.S.) - NBC News.com >> >> >>I went to the launch. CCS is currently expensive but the cost assessment >>needs to be done in the context of a full suite of methods to achieve deep >>reductions. When real market drivers for such reductions are adopted we >>should see cost-reducing innovations stimulated for CCS and a range of >>competing technologies. It's way to soon to write-off any of the candidates >>as "too costly." >> >> >>Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector. >> >> >> >> >>On Oct 4, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Andrew Lockley >><andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>Poster's note: potentially of interest to air capture types. Cynics may claim >>that this is simply an expensive piece of subsidized greenwash for the fossil >>fuels industry - and one that's being used partially to extract even more >>fossil fuels via EOR. >> >> >>http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/clean-coal-carbon-capture-debuts-north-america-not-u-s-n218221 >> >> >>'Clean Coal' With Carbon Capture Debuts in North America (Not in U.S.) >> >> >>BY JOHN ROACH >> >> >>A first-of-its-kind coal-fired power plant retrofitted with technology to >>capture and store most of the carbon dioxide produced at one of its boilers >>officially began operations this week in Saskatchewan, Canada. Meanwhile, a >>similar project in Illinois to demonstrate a cleaner way to burn the world's >>most abundant fossil fuel remains in legal and financial limbo.Whether the >>U.S. government-backed project in Meredosia, Ill., will advance so-called >>carbon capture and storage, or CCS, technology is an open question, but >>experts deem the technology itself vital if the world hopes to stand any >>practical chance at staving off catastrophic climate change.advertisement >> >> >>And CCS is being propelled forward by pollution-control measures such as the >>Obama admnistration's proposed rules to limit carbon emissions from new and >>existing power plants. >> >> >>"The reason that you want to look at CCS is the math," John Thompson, the >>director of the Fossil Transition Project at the Clean Air Task Force, a >>nonprofit that advocates for low-carbon energy technologies, explained to NBC >>News. >> >> >>About two-thirds of the roughly 30 gigatons of carbon dioxide released by >>human activity each year comes from the power sector and industrial >>activities such as oil refining and fertilizer production. These activities >>are all "amenable to carbon capture and storage," Thompson said. "In fact, >>you can capture 90 percent of the CO2 from any one of those particular >>sources." >> >> >>'Great bumper sticker' >> >> >>While increased use of nuclear, solar and wind power could replace some coal, >>gas and oil-fired power plants, they are not an option for most industrial >>sources of carbon dioxide, he added. "Eliminating fossil fuels is a great >>bumper sticker," he said. "It is an ineffective climate solution." >> >> >>To boot, global greenhouse gas "emissions are higher than they have ever been >>and we are building more coal plants every year," >> >> >>Steven Davis, an earth systems scientist at the University of California, >>Irvine, told NBC News.In fact, current emission and construction trends >>suggest that the international goal to limit warming to 3.6 degrees >>Fahrenheit is "completely implausible," he said during a presentation of his >>research at a recentclimate conference in Seattle. Getting anywhere close to >>the goal, he added in a follow-up interview, will almost certainly require >>massive deployment of solar and nuclear power along with CCS."But there is a >>big cost associated with CCS," he noted. "It is like 40 or 50 percent more >>expensive to get energy from a fossil plant if it has CCS." >> >> >>How CCS works >> >> >>Carbon capture and storage is a basket of technologies used to prevent carbon >>dioxide from escaping to the atmosphere in the course of power generation and >>other industrial activities. The captured gas is typically injected deep >>underground where, in theory, it will stay forever. In some cases, this >>injected gas is used to force out remnant oil from underground deposits, a >>process known as enhanced oil recovery." >> >> >>It is a natural next step especially for the fossil fuel industry which sees >>value in CCS because it means we can continue to keep burning their >>products," Davis said. >> >> >>The Boundary Dam Power Station, owned by SaskPower, is near Estevan, >>Saskatchewan. The world's first commercial-scale carbon capture and storage >>project officially opened there this week. >> >> >>The carbon capture approach used at SaskPower's newly retrofitted Boundary >>Dam Power Plant in Saskatchewan removes the carbon dioxide with a chemical >>solution after the coal is burned to generate electricity. The captured gas >>will be used for enhanced oil recovery; some will be stored 2.1 miles deep in >>the Earth in a layer of brine-filled sandstone. >> >> >>A second method called coal gasification employs heat and pressure to convert >>coal into gas before it is burned, easing the removal of carbon dioxide. A >>Southern Company power plant under construction in Kemper County, Miss., due >>to come online in 2015 uses this approach. The captured carbon dioxide will >>be shipped via pipeline to nearby oil fields.The project in Meredosia, Ill., >>is backed by a $1 billion federal stimulus grant and aims to demonstrate a >>technology known as oxy-combustion, where the coal is burned in oxygen and >>carbon dioxide instead of air to produce a concentrated stream of carbon >>dioxide for transportation and storage in saline rock deep underground. >> >> >>FutureGen delays >> >> >>That Illinois project, known as FutureGen 2.0, will retrofit and restart a >>boiler at a retired coal-fired power plant. It is the second iteration of a >>demonstration project originally conceived under the George W. Bush >>administration in 2003. The original project was scrapped due to cost >>overruns.The scaled-back version also faces financial hurdles, including >>efforts to secure $650 million in private sector financing that have been >>hindered by a legal challenge from the Sierra Club, which opposes coal plant >>construction, according to MIT Technology Review.advertisement >> >> >>NBCNEWS.COM<http://NBCNEWS.COM> "The lawsuit is really about the integrity >>of the permitting process," Eva Schueller, an attorney for the Sierra Club, >>told NBC News. The current permit, she explained, will allow the project >>backers to operate the refurbished plant as a traditional coal plant without >>limits on the amount of carbon it can release into the atmosphere. >> >> >>The environmental group and the project backers are working together "to >>resolve issues related to the air permit," Lawrence Pacheco, a spokesman for >>the FutureGen Alliance, told NBC News in an email. Meanwhile, he added, the >>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently issued the project an >>underground storage permit for carbon dioxide and limited construction has >>begun at the plant. >> >> >>'The world changes' >> >> >>Thompson with the Clean Air Task Force holds a dim view on the FutureGen 2.0 >>project, which he noted even if built would demonstrate a "third-tier" >>approach to carbon capture that is unlikely to gain mass market traction. >> >> >>Nevertheless, he is optimistic about the future of carbon capture and storage >>technology. "I see a series of projects breaking ground or going into >>operation that for the first time actually capture CO2 from these power >>sources and once that happens I think the world changes," he said. >> >> >>The caveats, noted Davis, concern the high price tag for energy generated >>with the technology as well as the new infrastructure required to do it. For >>example, his rough calculations suggest that to capture and store just 10 >>percent of global carbon dioxide emissions would require the same amount of >>pipelines and pumping infrastructure that already exist for the oil industry." >> >> >>It is not technologically impossible," he said, "but some people might hear >>that and say there is no way we are going to do it." >> >> >>-- >>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>"geoengineering" group. >>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>email to >>geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. >>To post to this group, send email to >>geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. >>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> >> >>-- >>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>"geoengineering" group. >>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> >> >>-- >>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>"geoengineering" group. >>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
