Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumGlobal 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 futurewith 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.
NickB79
(19,114 posts)They must not have gotten the memo.....
NNadir
(33,368 posts)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)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)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)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.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)CRH
(1,553 posts)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)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.