[Vision2020] CO2e Clarification: Clean Coal, a Global Failure in the Making

[Ted Moffett]

I was skeptical of the claim made in the article "Clean Coal, a Global
Failure in the Making" that by 2030 CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere
"may be over 500 ppm," so I carefully read the source referenced for this
claim (
http://blogs.worldwatch.org/datelinecopenhagen/efficiency-can-lead-in-emissions-abatement-says-the-iea/
),
and if I understand correctly, by this is meant over 500 ppm CO2e, or CO2
equivalent, which is expressing in terms of CO2 level the impacts of various
greenhouse gas emissions combined, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, et. al.  The
level of CO2 alone in Earth's atmosphere is very unlikely to be over 500 ppm
by 2030, even with predicted large increases in CO2 emissions from human
activity:


http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002413/clean-coal-a-global-failure-in-the-making/?tag=shell;content

This article I think indicates that the coal industry's optimistic
"propaganda" regarding CCS (carbon capture and storage) potential is green
wash to promote public and political acceptance of coal, while their
industry continues dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere
annually.  Numerous advanced nuclear reactors could be built to replace coal
power by the time coal power with CCS, if practical, could be employed large
scale.

Also, consider this paragraph on the consensus on the science regarding
anthropogenic climate change, that references a survey (that I previously
posted to Vision2020) of scientists who specialize in climate, that
demonstrates the so called "debate" on human impacts on climate is "largely
nonexistent":

"Nevertheless, everything could work out perfectly and clean coal could be
spreading in 2030. By that time, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere may be
over 500ppm<http://blogs.worldwatch.org/datelinecopenhagen/efficiency-can-lead-in-emissions-abatement-says-the-iea/>.
That’s no problem if the climate change skeptics are right; if the 97
percent of climatologists who study climate change are
right<http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php>,
that number would mean we’re in for some major upheaval."

---------------
 Clean Coal, a Global Failure in the Making

By Chris Morrison | Oct 30, 2009

Here’s a bit of unalloyed pessimism for you: Carbon capture and
sequestration, more widely known as clean coal technology, is not going to
work out. Governments and the coal industry are trying to bite off too much
at once.

In theory, clean coal is a fine idea. The process of burning coal releases
gases, which all modern plants already “scrub” of harmful substances like
sulfur dioxide. To fight global warming, coal mine and plant owners want to
do the same for carbon dioxide.

Sounds great, except that a fairly average-sized 1,500 megawatt coal plant
produces about three billion tons of CO2 yearly. All that CO2 has to be
separated out, a process that uses up a lot of the energy the plant
produces. Then, according to current thinking, we must bury the CO2 and hope
that it doesn’t come back up.

That’s a hell of a challenge. A report released Thursday by the pro-CCS
Global Carbon Capture and Storage
Institute<http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/downloads/Status-of-CCS-WorleyParsons-Report-Synthesis.pdf>helps
outline just how much. A few bullet-points:

   - Clean coal research is currently moribund; only seven CCS projects
   exist today, and all are attached to gas plants
   - The GCCSSI expects national governments to coordinate to give $100
   billion yearly to CCS research
   - Provided the money is forked over *immediately*, we might have 20
   plants by 2020
   - And if those initial plants work out as expected it will take until
   2030 to have a significant number operating
   - If the technology works as expected, it will add an average of 78
   percent to the cost of electricity from coal

Anyone familiar with the basics of risk wouldn’t bet on that many “ifs”,
especially given the looming difficulty of not only coaxing governments to
throw trillions of dollars into research, but also share the technology as
it develops.

Nevertheless, everything could work out perfectly and clean coal could be
spreading in 2030. By that time, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere may be
over 500ppm<http://blogs.worldwatch.org/datelinecopenhagen/efficiency-can-lead-in-emissions-abatement-says-the-iea/>.
That’s no problem if the climate change skeptics are right; if the 97
percent of climatologists who study climate change are
right<http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php>,
that number would mean we’re in for some major upheaval.

In other words, we need better solutions, right now. For coal, there are
already some available. Old, inefficient plants can be shut down in favor of
new ones that operate at a much higher thermal efficiency, and work onnew
concepts like underground coal gasification could be accelerated.

The $2.4 trillion the International Energy Agency says we should spend
researching clean
coal<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&tkr=ELE:SM&sid=aTPRe8gAe8rk>sould
also be spent other ways; research and investment into renewables like
geothermal and solar power come to mind, and it’s also enough money to buy
several hundred nuclear plants.

If we do insist on clean coal, the concept needs a rethink. Trying to figure
out the most cost-effective way to scrub CO2 is enough of a challenge. The
additional problem of permanently sequestering it underground adds too much
expense and uncertainty.

There are better ways. One would be to use the CO2 to create liquid fuels
for transportation. Oddly, this idea is rarely brought up in the debate over
clean coal, although scientists are already working on ways to use CO2 they
captured from ambient air for
fuel<http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id=E1_TPTSQPSV>
.

It’s a more energy-intensive process (read: expensive) process to capture
CO2 from the air around us than the flue of a coal plant, where it’s already
highly concentrated. But the attitude toward CO2 from coal is that it must
be buried, because it’s new to the atmosphere — nevermind whether the fuel
could replace a petroleum product, which also emits new CO2.

But the thinking on clean coal is, for the moment, quite rigid. One can only
hope that, in the wholesale rush toward what seems immediately sensible, we
don’t forget one of our best weapons — creativity, and adaptation to new
circumstances.

------------------------------------------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20091031/a0a984cf/attachment.html