Researchers Say Mix of Policies and Current or Near-Term Technologies Could Phase Out US CO2 Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants by 2030
02 May 2010
|
|
| Life-cycle GHG emissions from fossil and alternative sources of electricity. Credit: ACS, Kharecha et al.Click to enlarge. |
CO2 emissions from US coal-fired power plant could be phased out entirely by 2030 using existing technologies or ones that could be commercially competitive with coal within about a decade, according to a paper published online 30 April in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology.
The authors are Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies & Columbia University Earth Institute (GISS); Charles Kutscher from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; and Edward Mazria from 2030 Inc./Architecture 2030.
Lead author Kharecha and colleagues note that current climate science indicates that atmospheric CO2 concentrations, already at 387 ppm in 2009 and rising, need to be reduced to no more than 350 ppm. This global climate change problem becomes manageable only if society deals quickly with emissions of carbon dioxide from burning coal in electric power plants, they state.
Readily available reserves of oil and gas are sufficient to take atmospheric CO2 to at least 400 ppm. Oil and gas are such convenient fuels, and the world has developed such a strong dependence on them, that it is very likely that the large readily available pools of these fuels will be exploited.
The only practical way to preserve a planet resembling that of the Holocene, with reasonably stable shorelines and preservation of species, is to rapidly phase out coal emissions and prohibit emissions from unconventional fossil fuels such as oil shale and tar sands.
Requirements of phasing out coal emissions, averting emissions and/or use of unconventional fossil fuels, and avoiding the need to extract final drops of oil from the most extreme places on the planet, together have strong policy implications.
Although policy details are beyond the scope of this paper, the core requirement is for governments to make fossil fuels more expensive than clean energy alternatives, i.e., to stop allowing cost externalization of major damage to the environment, human health, etc. A first step is to remove fossil fuel subsidies. In addition, there needs to be a substantial rising fee on carbon emissions, so as to generate innovations in alternative energy and energy efficiency technologies.
—Kharecha et al.
Other strategies they outline to make that phase-out possible include:
- Major improvements in electricity transmission and the energy efficiency of homes, commercial buildings, and appliances;
- Replacing coal power with biomass, geothermal, wind, solar, and third-generation nuclear power;
- After successful demonstration at commercial scales, deployment of advanced (fourth-generation) nuclear power plants;
- Carbon capture and storage at remaining coal plants.
Elimination of fossil fuel subsidies and a substantial rising price on carbon emissions are the root requirements for a clean, emissions-free future.
—Kharecha et al.
Resources
Pushker A. Kharecha, Charles F. Kutscher, James E. Hansen and Edward Mazria (2010) Options for Near-Term Phaseout of CO2 Emissions from Coal Use in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol Articles ASAP doi: 10.1021/es903884a
Amen.
Posted by: Nick Lyons | 02 May 2010 at 12:15 PM
This is going to get hysterical denunciations from the usual suspects.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 02 May 2010 at 01:00 PM
They say;
“CO2 emissions from US coal-fired power plant could be phased out entirely by 2030 using Policies and Current or Near-Term Technologies that could be commercially competitive with coal within about a decade.”
The simplistic policies they favor would likely make the US even less competitive in the world and cost millions of jobs.
And no, green energy is not as economical as coal and oil are. Not even close.
They then say “Although policy details are beyond the scope of this paper, . . “
Yes they surely are.
But then, where are the “ . . Current or Near-Term Technologies that could be commercially competitive with coal within about a decade.”?
Surely not just:
• Major efficiency gains in electric transmission/usage;
• Replace coal with biomass, geothermal, wind, solar, nuclear
• Carbon capture and storage at remaining coal plants.
The only thing sensible in the paper is;
“A first step is to remove fossil fuel subsidies.”
Even “ .. . deployment of advanced . . . nuclear power plants” is not viable because the certification barriers created over the last four decades still cripple nuclear power in the US (though not world wide).
And CO2 reduction by the US will not be matched world wide
- so any massive, expensive effort here will only mean we will be less able to afford any accommodations required to survive in a world with high CO2.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 02 May 2010 at 08:10 PM
>>"The simplistic policies they favor would likely make the US even less competitive in the world and cost millions of jobs."
Well, TT, sorry to break it to you, but millions of US manufacturing jobs have already been gone, in case you haven't notice, due to globalism.
The new hope for manufacturing jobs will be for the creation of millions of GREEN INDUSTRY manufacturing jobs, in the manufacturing and installation of tens of thousands of square miles of solar panels, and gazillions wind turbines...More jobs will be created from the maintenance of these "unreliable" wind turbines and solar panels, in the minds of AGW deniers. With the involvement of US government in giving supports to the fledgling US green industry, perhaps the US green manufacturing sector can be competitive world-wide in this area.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 02 May 2010 at 10:14 PM
Is any method of simplyfying (weakening) nuclear sertification rules? Now they cause major investment risk for power utilities. May be making nuclear reactors smaller and placing them underground can diminish potential damage threat therefore the rules of certification could be more practical.
Coal had caused much more pollution both in nuclear and CO2 area than nuclear reactors did in absolute and relative terms. Smoke coming from coal power plants is radioactive and cause quite radioactive pollution. Nuclear power plants have no smoke at all. Life cycle analysis shows similar conclusions. Sequestration can prevent this radioactive pollution of coal fired power plants but I don't believe it will be mainstream solution.
Posted by: Darius | 03 May 2010 at 12:02 AM
Lets just pretend that cars and houses don't exist and don't put CO2 into the air in vast quantities. Coal and coal fired power plants are now treated as the CO2 problem of the world when automobiles are far worse polluters when kilowatt hours delivered to the wheels per kilogram CO2 released is compared to kilowatt hours delivered to the grid per kilogram CO2 released. Vast quantities of CO2 release would be prevented with lower speed limits on motorways. The efficiency measure of passenger miles per kilogram of CO2 release decreases greatly at speeds above 60 km/h. Automobiles are already inefficient with their passenger mile per CO2 rating.
Canada can build many CANDU reactors along the US borders including in Mexico and sell nuclear power cheaper than coal power can be sold now in the US. A CANDU 600 reactor is well proven and two were built recently in China in less than five years each.
Even Chernobyl type RMBK reactors are safer than propane and gasoline delivery trucks and railcars. Some are still in use many years after Chernobyl, but none have burst their steam pipes and caught fire because they were operated according to the rules.
Remember you and all life has always had about 50 natural internal nuclear explosions for each kilogram every second, and each of them gives off a powerful X-Ray.
The US should have a big make work project to build hundreds of coal to automobile fuel factories, Nuclear power plants and installing cogeneration turbines in every new building. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 03 May 2010 at 01:03 AM
All large power plants must go through the NEPA process requiring public review of the EIS. This takes time. Until just a few years ago, coal and natural gas was a cheaper source of base load electricity. Now new nukes may be cheaper many places in the US. As a result, the NRC has received many new application. It takes time to review them. So far the NRC has not denied a permit. I can not remember the last time intervenors won a court challenge either.
It does take less time to get a permit for construction in China. Does that government allow debate? New nukes are designed for 60 years. I do not see a problem with a few months of public debate on decisions with long term ramifications for a community.
Lots of proposed coal plants have failed to get approval for new construction. As a result, new nuke plants will start replacing old coal plants if the builders of nuke plants do a good job on the first new plants. Replacing coal is not going to happen by 2030 however.
Posted by: Kit P | 03 May 2010 at 06:41 AM
The summary fails to mention the effects of smart grid demand management and cross-regional balancing. Wind, solar, geothermal, etc can indeed amount to quite a large percentage of electrical power needs if balanced cross regionally and with storage (hydro, CAES) and quick dispatch power plant (gas turbine)
Posted by: Will S | 03 May 2010 at 09:26 AM
Who keeps paying these stoners to write these reports? This is the same damn coverage we've heard a hundred times over the last year! Of course we need to get off coal! Of course we need to improve electrical transmission! Of course we need to adopt more renewable energies! Good Lord, give me something new!
Posted by: sheckyvegas | 03 May 2010 at 10:40 AM
@sheckyvegas
Well of course we've seen these reports before but the real issue is whether the P.T.B. at the time pay them any heed. Far too often a report or study will be dismissed out of hand because of political bias or something and by the time someone's willing to listen the detractors who are still around will just point out that the old report is "out of date." And around and around it goes. It's a crock I know but that's how the politicos earn their lobby bribes.
Posted by: ai_vin | 03 May 2010 at 01:16 PM
Not much may be done to reduce emissions from coal fired power plants unless the Price is Right. Doing nothing will have to cost the operators more than cleaning up their act. Of course, 110% of the extra cost will be passed on to the end users. In the end, that would be good for cleaner energy sources.
Posted by: HarveyD | 03 May 2010 at 03:00 PM
Indeed I have noticed millions of US manufacturing jobs have already gone due to lower cost overseas factories - called "globalism"? for some reason.
The new illusion is greatly increased manufacturing costs where the result is more expensive power, more expensive US made goods and more imports.
Manufacturing jobs, even the few Green ones, will dry up since making more expensive power plants has no payback - it is make work.
We already have power plants.
Investing more in them is no different than destroying and rebuilding them - it just puts us right where we are now.
Oh yes, they will be cleaner then,
so all the CO2 will be imported (actually it will fly in) from the foreigh factories.
Millions and billions invested in GREEN INDUSTRY manufacturing jobs, in the manufacturing and installation of tens of thousands of square miles of solar panels, and gazillions wind turbines...More jobs will be created from the maintenance of these wind turbines and solar panels. Not only will our electric rates soar to pay for this huge waste, but the US government will generously support the high cost US green industry with the unemployment money you have left after your utility bills.
Perhaps the US green manufacturing sector can be competitive in the US -
Ha - three chances; Fat, Slim and None.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 03 May 2010 at 08:42 PM
. . . and the polar ice and glaciers continue to melt while the oceans become more acidic . . .
Posted by: Sanity Chk | 04 May 2010 at 10:29 AM
@ Toppatom;
You seem to be pretty wired into the US car industry. However, there are limits to globalism. The US has high productivity per employee because of our capital efficiency, and for some mostly automated assembly processes, it makes much more sense to manufacture them inside the US. Nanosolar and Solyndra are very automated, as is FirstSolar, and they all built lines in the US. Assembling heavy solar thermal equipment (such as Bright Source or eSolar), is more about the installation than the fabrication.
Your bigger point is asking whether it yet makes sense to go large with renewable energy, given that it is still more expensive than coal?
The cheapest thing we can do is stop subsidizing fossil fuels. The second cheapest thing we can do is tax fossil fuels to account for their externalities. The third cheapest thing we can do is subsidize renewable energy, just as we did for coal, oil, nuclear, and hydro for most of the last century, so renewable can mature into the game change it has the clear potential to be. This is cheap because of the spinoffs, economic development and exports which result.
Ah, but we need jobs now you say. Yes. So let's make the US government a big purchaser of renewable energy capacity...NOW. After all, it was the ICBM program in the 1960's making huge purchases of microchips that got the semiconductor industry to scale up and become the game changer we've enjoyed for the last 40 years.
Posted by: HealthyBreeze | 04 May 2010 at 12:00 PM
The US productivity and capital efficiency have not kept most of our industry from leaving - it is that simple.
Since most of the Nanosolar and Solyndra factories and their processes are very automated, the labor involved(that's jobs) is minimized and much of the automation equipment will be imported.
"Assembling heavy solar thermal equipment (such as Bright Source or eSolar), is more about the installation than the fabrication" OK, and therefore? We can use "globalized" labor?
The cheapest things are to tax, spend, subsidize or make the US government a big purchaser of renewable energy capacity, like the ICBM program in the 1960's?
No.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 04 May 2010 at 10:15 PM