Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 04:11 PM Nov 2013

Global Boom in Coal Plants Begs for Carbon Capture Solution

Global Boom in Coal Plants Begs for Carbon Capture Solution

In a stern address to the World Coal Association on the sidelines of the summit, Christiana Figueres, head of the UN's Climate Change Secretariat, made several demands of industry: leave "most existing reserves in the ground," shut down the dirtiest coal-fired facilities and use carbon capture and storage (CCS) on "new plants, even the most efficient."

Her bottom line is that world's "carbon budget is half spent" at a time when the global expansion of coal is wiping out gains from clean energy. "The coal industry faces a business continuation risk that you can no longer afford to ignore," Figueres said.

That message has been echoed in one speech after another, and report after report, by a panoply of major international organizations and institutes with interests in energy and climate policy. The focus on coal power during the two-week talks is because of the industry's enormous global warming contribution. And it reflects how worried climate advocates are about the future—with nearly 1,200 coal plants on the drawing boards, mainly in developing economies.

The World Resources Institute, an environmental policy group, released new findings showing that 1,199 new coal fired plants capable of generating 1.4 million megawatts of electricity are currently being proposed globally—"almost four times the current capacity of all coal-fired plants in the United States."

To put it in perspective, that 1.4 million megawatts (1.4 terawatts) represents about 15 times the wind capacity currently installed world-wide (4.5 TW of capacity required, 0.3 TW installed).
Not to mention that there ins't any commercial CCS available.

Somebody should have these planners call up a poster or two here on E&E, who will show them why they don't need to cough up this hairball on the world.
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Global Boom in Coal Plants Begs for Carbon Capture Solution (Original Post) GliderGuider Nov 2013 OP
But coal is dead! NickB79 Nov 2013 #1
Why? Isn't the world coming to an end? NNadir Nov 2013 #2
NNadir is correct, Germany is not. hunter Dec 2013 #6
There are no good solutions. GliderGuider Dec 2013 #7
Whatever will be will be. I've long lived with that. hunter Dec 2013 #8
Kick. joshcryer Dec 2013 #3
I'll kick this one time for anyone who can post a link, ... CRH Dec 2013 #4
Wikipedia says GliderGuider Dec 2013 #5

NNadir

(33,368 posts)
2. Why? Isn't the world coming to an end?
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 07:02 PM
Nov 2013

I thought we were all supposed to huddle in corners shivering with fear and awaiting the inevitable end.

What is this, hope? Daydreams?

Anyone with any knowledge of thermodynamics, in any case, knows that like the solar scheme and the wind scheme, carbon capture will not and cannot work - it's a thermodynamic treadmill -and like those two insignificant approaches to fantasies - solar and wind magic -which are involved with doing nothing, has been the subject of decades and decades of talk with no action.

I would think that anyone who has conniptions about the long term storage of a few hundred thousand tons of largely insoluble used nuclear fuel which contains materials that obey the Bateman equation and thus cannot accumulate indefinitely - and which has killed almost no one - would be bright enough, educated enough, to recognize that the storage of ten billion ton quantities produced annually of a gas for eternity is impossible.

But noooooooooo...

hunter

(38,264 posts)
6. NNadir is correct, Germany is not.
Mon Dec 2, 2013, 03:21 PM
Dec 2013

Fossil fuels are the very worst option. "Carbon Capture" is a sick fantasy.

It's much easier to sequester nuclear waste, even from current nuclear schemes that discard most of the potential energy in the fuel.

I feel slightly better about the Diablo Canyon nuclear electricity I use than I do about the natural gas electricity.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
7. There are no good solutions.
Mon Dec 2, 2013, 03:38 PM
Dec 2013

Civilization needs so much energy now that we're trapped into FF for the foreseeable future. Nuclear doesn't have the economics or the popular support; and renewables are still too small to make any difference before TSHTF - and in any event their power is adding to FF energy rather than displacing it.

hunter

(38,264 posts)
8. Whatever will be will be. I've long lived with that.
Mon Dec 2, 2013, 04:10 PM
Dec 2013

My ancestors, going back to the beginning of life on earth, have survived, often because they had the good sense to swim, walk, or sail away from trouble.

My most immediate ancestors decided it wasn't a good idea to stick around in 18th and 19th century Europe and thus they escaped much warfare and religious persecution.

I'm trained as an evolutionary biologist. I see the world as a paleontologist.

Our civilization will be an interesting layer of trash in the geologic record should anyone happen upon the earth before our sun collapses and incinerates the place.

CRH

(1,553 posts)
4. I'll kick this one time for anyone who can post a link, ...
Mon Dec 2, 2013, 10:22 AM
Dec 2013

to any project that captures carbon, that is economically feasible, technically backed by science, and has been successful in trials.

It doesn't seem that unsurmountable, to capture at site of ignition and sequester through manufacture or convert to a different state that doesn't rise into the environment. With all the coal and methane in the ground, one would think there would be a huge R&D budget, to prolong the age of burning carbon.

Still we await a solution while the political rhetoric of 'clean coal' and carbon capture is obviously far ahead of the science. One must assume nothing successful is near, or big coal and oil would be heralding near and far, this game changing freshly patented technology, and savior of future economy. But rather, we hear crickets.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
5. Wikipedia says
Mon Dec 2, 2013, 10:40 AM
Dec 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage#Example_CCS_projects

As at September 2012, the Global CCS Institute identified 75 large-scale integrated projects in its 2012 Global Status of CCS report which is a net increase of one project since its 2011 Global Status of CCS report. 16 of these projects are in operation or in construction capturing around 36 million tonnes of CO2 per annum.

There are only 8 industrial-scale integrated projects operating. 36 Mt/a is 0.1% of the CO2 we're emitting. And there ain't no way to sequester the CO2 from transportation or space heating. In the time we have left, I doubt this is going to make any difference to the denouement.
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Global Boom in Coal Plant...