150 New Coal Plants Under Construction, 2 IGCC, None Capture Carbon.

[NNadir]

People here and elsewhere who essentially understand zero about the subject of energy are always talking about IGCC, talking about wonderful renewable energy, talking about conservation.

Meanwhile the wholesale destruction of the atmosphere proceeds without comment.

Here the New York Times reports the consequences of all this wishful thinking and coal pimping:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 — Within the next few years, power companies are planning to build about 150 coal plants to meet growing electricity demands. Despite expectations that global warming rules are coming, almost none of the plants will be built to capture the thousands of tons of carbon dioxide that burning coal spews into the atmosphere.

Could delays in carbon capture keep the United States out of global emissions agreements?
Environmentalists are worried, but they put their faith in a technology that gasifies the coal before burning. Such plants are designed, they say, to be more adaptable to separating the carbon and storing it underground.

Most utility officials counter that the gasification approach is more expensive and less reliable, but they say there is no need to worry...

...“The phrases ‘capture ready’ and ‘capture capable’ are somewhat controversial,” said Revis James, the director of the energy technology assessment center at the Electric Power Research Institute. “It’s not like you just leave a footprint for some new equipment.”

Many experts outside the industry share his concerns.

A major new study by faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, scheduled for release soon, concludes in a draft version that it is not clear which technology — the so-called integrated gasification combined cycle or pulverized coal — will allow for the easiest carbon capture, because so much engineering work remains to be done...

...Adding carbon capture later also has implications for power supply. Early estimates are that carbon capture will require so much energy that it could reduce plant output by 10 to 30 percent...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/business/21coal.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=science

The New York Times is full of the other wishful thinking bullshit, solar, solar, solar blah, blah, blah and of course some rather remarkable claims that there are some fossil fuels that are "clean," like natural gas.

This is bullshit of course, since the most dangerous fossil fuel waste, carbon dioxide, is produced on billion ton scales (not as reported "thousands of tons") by natural gas as well as coal.

[Systematic Chaos]

1. Last paragraph in your quote is the kicker...

"...Adding carbon capture later also has implications for power supply. Early estimates are that carbon capture will require so much energy that it could reduce plant output by 10 to 30 percent..."

And we lose 10 to 30 percent of that power to capture what fraction of the total CO2? If it's not a helluva lot more than 30 percent then what's the point?

Oh, and I caught that "thousands of tons" and almost ended up with pink lemonade all over my desk. :eyes:

[Nederland]

2. We need more nuclear plants now (nt)

[BeFree]

3. More

We need more. More of everything. More roads, more houses. More water, more trees. And, by Gawd, we are gonna get more, more than we ever bargained for. And it will be the last thing we do.

More, more and even more, til there ain't no more, eh?

[Hun Joro]

4. More is right.

We'll choke to death on the American dream.

[Dead_Parrot]

5. And whoever owns the most stuff when we all die, wins. nt

[BeFree]

6. Not really.

But that attitude is what will kill us all.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nederland]

9. You're confused

I meant to say that we need more nuclear plants and less coal plants. The switch to nuclear actually means using less resources, because of the enormous efficiency gains that nuclear provides over coal.

Get it?

[phantom power]

8. We should ban carbon. Some of it is even *radioactive*. In my own body!!!!!

[Kolesar]

10. NY Times has done a great job of global warming education and I am not being sarcastic

The newspaper has printed a lot more about the subject than any Ohio newspaper. I thought the discussion of supercritical was quite interesting.

I am still trying to figure out the meaning of your post other than that you are mad.

[NNadir]

11. Well the difference between thousands and billions pisses me off.

The major issue in climate change is an issue of scale. Thus their error was serious.

But I fully concede your point. At least they are publishing something.

[Kolesar]

12. Activists in TX and NC are getting some traction stopping coal plants in those states

Here in Ohio we have this bad situation that the generators want to build plants here although we don't need capacity. Ohio is already exporting electricity to other states. And they want to stick it in our rate base.

I think the NY Times could have been more clearly saying Billions of tons/year/the US and thousands of tons/year/one plant.

[NNadir]

13. Each TXU plant will produce millions of tons per year.

According to this article in the Dallas Morning News, the 11 TXU plants will produce a total of 78 million tons of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/090306dnproglobal.3350a24.html

Thus the average plant will produce about 7 million tons per year.

The New York Times was not even right if it was discussing one plant.

[Kolesar]

14. You are right. Here is my letter to the newspaper

Hello Editor and reporter Matthew Wald,

I greatly appreciate the large amount of coverage that the New York Times gives to the issue of climate protection.

In the story February 21, 2007, it would have been more correct to refer to “millions of tons” of CO2, rather than “thousands of tons”. Every power plant will emit on the order of millions of tons of CO2. I think it is important to properly express the order of magnitude of the problem we are trying to solve.

Best regards,

:)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/business/21coal.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

Reference on the Texas plants:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/090306dnproglobal.3350a24.html

Dallas-based TXU, which plans to build 11 of the new coal plants, would account for 78 million tons of the new emissions – the same amount that would result if TXU gave each of its 2.4 million retail customers four Cadillac Escalades, noted Jim Marston, Texas director of the national group Environmental Defense.

Note: I copied this to [e-mail]

[NNadir]

15. One would hope they publish it.

[Kolesar]

16. I write a lot of letters that I consider to be education for reporters & editors

So I write these choppy & unglamorous letters that just get to the point.

I wrote to US News & World Report and got them to quit putting fake halos around Shrub's head.

http://www.bushislord.com/