Why am I still worried that there is a pro-coal "Nu Coal" agenda building ? Surely people realise it would suicide to extend the use of coal as a major energy source ? Do I really believe that effective, low-cost Carbon Dioxide sequestration and storage will be proved and available in sufficient quantities in the near future ? So, MIT release a study of the future of coal as an energy source :- http://web.mit.edu/coal/The_Future_of_Coal.pdf "Today, and independent of whatever carbon constraints may be chosen, the priority objective with respect to coal should be the successful large-scale demonstration of the technical, economic, and environmental performance of the technologies that make up all of the major components of a large-scale integrated CCS system - capture, transportation and storage. Such demonstrations are a prerequisite for broad deployment at gigatonne scale in response to the adoption of a future carbon mitigation policy, as well as for easing the trade-off between restraining emissions from fossil resource use and meeting the world’s future energy needs Successful implementation of CCS will inevitably add cost for coal combustion and conversion." And James Hansen steps up to the plate :- http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=23642 "C. Recommendations to Policy-Makers Coal should stay underground. |
|||
 |
Campaign against Climate ChangeUK activists portal |
|
|
|
Faustian dealing in the Midwest
From http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/40976/story.htm
Sierra Club Drops Coal Unit Complaints in CO2 Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version
US: March 21, 2007
NEW YORK - A US environmental group said Tuesday it will drop legal complaints against a new Midwest coal-fired power unit that agreed to offset its greenhouse emissions by investing in conservation and clean energy.
The Sierra Club made the deal with Kansas City Power & Light, a subsidiary of Great Plains Energy Inc., to offset carbon dioxide output from the 850-megawatt Iatan 2 coal unit in Missouri, which the company expects to open in 2010.
Unlike all other developed countries, save Australia, the United States, the world's top greenhouse gas emitter, has not agreed to regulate emissions of heat-trapping gases.
But even without regulations, some US companies, organizations and individuals fearing future rules, or wishing to reduce their impact on the environment, have begun to offset their carbon emissions. They do so by investing in projects like burning powerful greenhouse gas methane, at old coal mines, or preserving forests, which absorb carbon dioxide.
The power plant agreement was the "latest sign that smart energy solutions like wind power and energy efficiency are gathering steam," Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's director, said in a statement.
KCP&L will add 400 MW of wind power, 300 MW of energy efficiency, and take other actions to cut emissions, which could include shutting other units. The company will also take steps to reduce overall carbon emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and cut other pollutants, such as nitrogen oxide.
The Sierra Club will drop appeals that sought to stop the construction of the unit. Coal emits more carbon dioxide, the main gas scientists link to global warming, than any other fossil fuel.
The deal follows one Sierra struck last year with the municipal utility of Springfield, Illinois. That utility agreed to retire one of its coal plants, purchase 120 MW of wind, invest US$4 million in energy efficiency, and cut soot, smog and mercury emissions.
"We believe there is significant potential through new energy technology and innovative approaches to improve the environment," Mike Chesser, chairman and chief executive officer of Great Plains Energy said in a statement.
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
Christian Science Monitor Measures The Coal
The Christian Science Monitor (God Bless Them !) have had a crack at understanding the threat Coal poses.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0322/p01s04-wogi.htm
from the March 22, 2007 edition
Global boom in coal power – and emissions
A Monitor analysis shows the potential for an extra 1.2 billion tons of carbon released into the atmosphere per year.
By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Forget the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Disregard rising public concern over global warming. Ignore the Kyoto Protocol.
The world certainly is – at least when it comes to building new electric-power plants. In the past five years, it has been on a coal-fired binge, bringing new generators online at a rate of better than two per week. That has added some 1 billion tons of new carbon-dioxide emissions that humans pump into the atmosphere each year. Coal-fired power now accounts for nearly a third of human-generated global CO2 emissions.
So what does the future hold? An acceleration of the buildup, according to a Monitor analysis of power-industry data. Despite Kyoto limits on greenhouse gases, the analysis shows that nations will add enough coal-fired capacity in the next five years to create an extra 1.2 billion tons of CO2 per year.
Those accelerating the buildup are not the usual suspects.
Take China, which is widely blamed for the rapid rise in greenhouse-gas emissions. Indeed, China accounted for two-thirds of the more than 560 coal-fired power units built in 26 nations between 2002 and 2006. The Chinese plants boosted annual world CO2 emissions by 740 million tons (see chart). But in the next five years, China is slated to slow its buildup by half, according to industry estimates, adding 333 million tons of new CO2 emissions every year. That's still the largest increase of any nation. But other nations appear intent on catching up.
"Really, it's been the story of what China is doing," says Steve Piper, managing director of power forecasting at Platts, the energy information division of McGraw-Hill that provided country-by-country power-plant data to the Monitor. "But it's also a story of unabated global growth in coal-fired power. We're seeing diversification away from pricier natural gas and crude oil. Coal looks cheap and attractive - and countries with coal resources see an opportunity that wasn't there before."
For example, the United States is accelerating its buildup dramatically. In the past five years it built 2.7 gigawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity. But in the next five years, it is slated to add 37.7 gigawatts of capacity, enough to produce 247.8 million tons of CO2 per year, according to Platts. That would vault the US to second place –just ahead of India – in adding new capacity.
Even nations that have pledged to reduce global warming under the Kyoto treat are slated to accelerate their buildup of coal-fired plants. For example, eight EU nations – Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic – plan to add nearly 13 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity by 2012. That's up from about 2.5 gigawatts over the past five years.
New countries join coal-fired binge
In all, at least 37 nations plan to add coal-fired capacity in the next five years – up from the 26 nations that added capacity during the past five years. With Sri Lanka, Laos, and even oil-producing nations like Iran getting set to join the coal-power pack, the world faces the prospect five years from now of having 7,474 coal-fired power plants in 79 countries pumping out 9 billion tons of CO2 emissions annually – out of 31 billion tons from all sources in 2012.
"These numbers show how far in the wrong direction the world is poised to go and indicate a lot of private sector investors still don't get it in terms of global warming," says David Hawkins, climate center director of the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington. "This rapid building of global-warming machines – which is what coal-power plants are – should be a wakeup call to politicians that we're driving ever faster toward the edge of the cliff."
But the cliff can be avoided, some researchers say, without having to reduce the world's energy consumption.
If carbon dioxide gas could be captured at power plants and then pumped underground and permanently "sequestered" in layers of rock, then coal might continue to be used without damaging the climate, concluded a major report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released last week.
In that light, whether or not China decides to build power plants that sequester carbon dioxide underground will be a central question. Right now, based on those power plants that Platt's has been able to verify, overall construction growth could be tapering off. But none of them is expected to sequester emissions – and estimates of how many plants China expects to build vary widely.
So far there are 100 power plants with firm construction plans compared to 361 built in the previous five years, according to Platts. But other analysts, pointing to official government reports, say the total may be far higher.
Chinese government reports, for instance, tout coal-power plant building far in excess of what Platt's and others have been able to verify – about 170 gigawatts of new coal-power over the past three years, according to China expert Philip Andrews-Speed, director of the Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy at the University of Dundee in Scotland.
"If the Chinese are right then it's a much worse problem than we might think," says Christopher Bergesen, a Platts expert who oversees power-plant data collection. He acknowledges Platts data may be a conservative base line for China. But until China reveals plant-specific data, not just aggregate numbers, he and other researchers can't be sure how fast China is building power plants that spur global warming.
That leaves climate scientists and policy experts wondering how to influence power-plant construction in China and India. A huge factor is whether the EU and the US are able to persuade the Chinese to build plants that capture and sequester CO2. Much depends on the US because China is unlikely to sequester its carbon dioxide if the US does not, analysts say.
"The Chinese won't be able to go forward by themselves," says Dr. Andrews-Speed. "They are going to need, EU, Japan, and US together to help them and set a good example."
Right now, the US is planning to build more than 150 coal-fired power plants that don't sequester their emissions, according to the US Department of Energy. Platts short list of those most likely to be built in five years lists 64 power plants – which would still vault the US into a virtual tie with India at 38,000 megawatts of new output.
If that happens, the US alone would add 250 million tons a year of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere - on top of the billions its power plants already emit. The recent decision by new owners of TXU not to build eight coal-fired power plants gives some reason for hope.
But if the US began building plants that stuff the CO2 underground, the picture could change dramatically, experts say. At least five bills now pending in Congress would effectively put a price on CO2, but just two of those push sequestration.
"The good news is the politicians have their hands on the steering wheel," Dr. Hawkins says. "If they would just turn the wheel toward sequestration, then we don't have to go over this cliff."
Impact on climate models
To date, many climate models have not fully accounted for the worldwide acceleration of coal-plant building, scientists say.
"The phenomenon ... would lead to greater CO2 emissions than most 'business as usual' forecasts project," says Robert Socolow, co-director of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton University in an e-mail. "Fortunately the world has now begun to take CO2 seriously, and coal-power emissions will be target No. 1 worldwide over the next decade. The fact that the US is waking up at last will give us the opportunity to have a positive effect on CO2 policy in the rest of the world,"he adds.
Grist comments CS Monitor
The Grist has commented on the CS Monitor piece :-
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/26/101741/252
Coal is the enemy of the human race
Here's the thing, though: coal gasification and sequestration (CCS) projects involve enormous, incredibly expensive centralized generation plants with unproven technology. I suspect that no reasonable, politically possible price on carbon (via tax or cap-and-trade) will be high enough to make CCS economically viable. No company will build these plants unless they are forced to do so by their respective governments. That, in essence, is what Al Gore proposed -- ban dirty coal plants, thereby forcing coal companies' hands.
What are the chances that all the relevant national governments are going to force their coal industries to do this, especially since the more governments do it, the more competitive advantage any given country can get by not doing it? Color me skeptical.
Ultimately, the only thing that will save us is an alternative to dirty coal that's -- given some modest price on carbon -- cheaper and easier than dirty coal. With the proper technological and regulatory tweaks, I believe R&E (distributed renewable generation coupled with efficiency and conservation) is that alternative.
The Roll To Coal
Here's the Independent (down to a staff of 1.5 at present ?) on the possibly inexorable roll to cheap & dirty coal :-
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2398876.ece
CO2 emissions targets at risk from 'the roll to coal'
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Published: 28 March 2007
Soaring greenhouse gas emissions from power stations are seriously threatening Britain's new climate-change targets, launched in a blaze of publicity only two weeks ago, according to a new report.
Emissions of carbon dioxide from the power sector are shooting up because of an increasing switch from burning high-priced gas to cheaper, but more carbon-intensive, coal, says the report, commissioned by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
They have rocketed by nearly 30 per cent since 1999, with a rise of 6 per cent in 2006 alone - and this raises "serious concerns", the report says, about whether the Government can meet its proposed target under the recently launched Climate Change Bill to cut emissions by 26 per cent to 32 per cent by 2020.
The findings, in the report UK Power Sector Emissions - targets or reality? by consultants IPA Energy + Water, show that in 2006, emissions from power stations shot up to 178 million tonnes of CO2 - an increase of 6 per cent in 2005 - after a sector-wide return to coal use which was driven by high gas prices and increasing electricity demand.
The power sector is the biggest source of Britain's greenhouse gases, accounting for about a third of the total. Its emissions have reached the highest level since 1992, cancelling out all of the gains from the "dash for gas" in the 1990s, when power companies went the other way.
"This is a disgrace for Britain, and shows that for the past decade the Government has talked a good game on climate change while failing dismally to tackle emissions from this highly polluting sector," said Keith Allott, the head of climate change at WWF-UK.
"The 'dash for gas' in the 1990s helped drive down carbon emissions almost by accident - but the power sector is now on a 'roll to coal' with profound environmental implications. If the Government is serious about climate change, the power sector has to be brought to heel - either through incentives or legislation - so that coal burn is dramatically reduced."
Coal : The Comeback Kid : And I'm Not Kidding !
The Guardian is following up the coal resurrection :-
========================================================
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2045827,00.html
The UK's carbon emissions rose by an estimated 1.25% last year, according to provisional figures published today, but the environment secretary, David Miliband, insisted the government is still on track to meet its Kyoto targets.
Mr Miliband admitted the increase was "worrying" and said the figures underlined the importance of efforts to tackle climate change "both from government and wider society".
He said the rise in carbon dioxide emissions had been driven by unusually high international gas prices leading to a switch to coal for electricity production.
========================================================
And so does the BBC :-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6506223.stm
========================================================
And here's why we should worry : after Peak Oil comes Coal Futures :-
========================================================
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6505127.stm
Many people think that running out of oil, or "peak oil", would be good for the climate. In his new book The Last Oil Shock, David Strahan begs to differ; he suggests it may bring catastrophe.
Many industry figures now accept the oil slide will begin soon. It is becoming increasingly clear that global oil production will soon go into terminal decline, with potentially devastating economic consequences.
Although the idea of peak oil has traditionally been ridiculed by the industry, now even some of the world's most senior oilmen concede the case.
Last year Thierry Desmarest, chairman of Total, the world's fourth largest oil company, declared that production would peak by around 2020.
He urged governments to find ways to suppress oil demand growth and put off the witching hour.
Other forecasters are convinced the peak date is even closer.
But many environmentalists continue to resist the idea.
Some seem to suspect that anybody who argues that oil production is set to fall must be a closet climate change denier with a secret agenda.
It is quite possible to run out of oil and pollute the planet to destruction simultaneously.
Others, like Stephen Tindale of Greenpeace, instinctively distrust forecasts of an imminent peak, but wish fervently that it would come soon.
"Let's hope that the oil does run out", he told me, "and that the world has to develop alternatives to oil seriously quickly, and from a climate point of view that would be an excellent outcome."
Neither position could be more wrong.
Dirty growth
It is mathematically impossible that peak oil will solve climate change.
Although oil is the biggest single source of energy-related greenhouse gases, coal and gas combined are bigger still, and the expected growth in their emissions would overwhelm any reduction from oil.
As I demonstrate in The Last Oil Shock using the International Energy Agency's "business-as-usual" forecast, even if oil production peaks in 2010 and immediately starts to fall at 3% a year, total emissions would still rise by 25%, reaching 32 billion tonnes in 2030.
Yet by that time, we need to be well on the way to at least a 60% cut in emissions.
Oil depletion has the capacity to worsen emissions and destroy the wealth needed to fight global warming
So it is quite possible to run out of oil and pollute the planet to destruction simultaneously.
In fact peak oil could even make emissions worse if it drives us to exploit the wrong kinds of fuel.
Burning rainforest and peatlands to create palm oil plantations for biofuels releases vast amounts of CO2, and has already made Indonesia, according to some ways of calculating it, the world's third biggest emitter after the US and China.
Synthetic transport fuels made from natural gas using the Fischer-Tropsch process emit even more carbon on a well-to-wheels basis than conventional crude; and when the feedstock is coal, the emissions double.
None of these alternatives are likely to fill the gap left by conventional crude - at least, not in time.
But because they are so much more carbon intensive, it is quite easy to conjure scenarios in which we still suffer fuel shortages while emitting even more CO2 than in the current business-as-usual forecast - the worst of all possible worlds.
================================================================
Joint Science Academies demand Coal, MFFs, Nuclear, Fusion prog
From Joint Science Academies' latest statement yesterday - see also press release - my emphases:
it will be necessary to develop and deploy new sources and systems for energy supply, including clean use of coal, carbon capture and storage, unconventional fossil fuel resources, advanced nuclear systems, advanced renewable energy systems (including solar, wind, biomass and geothermal energy)...
Modern power technology Fossil fuels will continue to dominate electricity production over the next two decades. The best coal-fired power stations now achieve efficiencies substantially better than the average. Modernisation of old power plants could help to save energy and to reduce carbon emissions...
Research and innovation
Increasing energy efficiency is a first crucial step towards solving the climate-energy problem. An entire portfolio of approaches will be needed, especially the substitution of fossil fuels by renewable energy sources, clean coal technologies, carbon capture and storage and advanced exploitation of nuclear fission and, in the longer term, fusion. This portfolio can be developed only through aggressive investment in research, development and innovation, with the efforts ranging from basic science over strategic analyses to practical applications.
Key research and innovation issues include: overcoming the intermittency problem for renewables, converting biomass (eg lignocellulose) to transport fuels, and coming to grips with the challenges of safety, waste, and non-proliferation in the nuclear energy domain. A wholesystems approach to energy security needs to be pursued.