Path To Climate Solution: Reduce Emissions

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Path To Climate Solution: Reduce Emissions stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

H. JOSEF HEBERT | 06/19/09 05:16 AM | AP

I Like ItI Don’t Like It

WASHINGTON — Finding an economical way to capture carbon dioxide from existing coal burning power plants is key to getting China to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions as well as for U.S. efforts to combat global warming, says a study being released Friday.

The report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concludes that the United States cannot meet its targets for stabilizing greenhouse gases unless it finds a way to economically capture carbon dioxide emissions coming from existing coal-burning power plants.

Coal plants generate about half of the country's electricity and 80 percent of the nearly 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide released annually into the atmosphere from power production. China also relies heavily on coal for electricity production and in the last five years has been on a rush to build new coal plants _ none of them designed to capture carbon dioxide.

"There is no credible pathway towards stringent greenhouse gas stabilization targets without CO2 emission reductions from existing coal power plants," says the report. Members of Congress, where a bill to limit U.S. greenhouse gas emissions could come up for a House vote as early as next week, were being briefed on the MIT report.

Carbon dioxide has been captured and put into the ground in relatively small scale projects _ mostly in connection with enhanced oil recovery, for years, but never in the huge volumes that would be needed to capture emissions from a large coal plant.

The MIT report says there are multiple technologies being explored for carbon capture, but the government still has not adequately supported carbon capture research and is moving too slowly to develop large demonstration projects to show that capturing carbon dioxide and injecting it into the ground will work at the scale needed.

The report, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press in advance of a press conference Friday, says the federal government and industry need to "dramatically expand" its support for carbon capture research and development to the tune of $12 billion to $15 billion over the next decade.

Such technology, if shown to work in U.S. plants, could get China to reduce greenhouse gases from its rapidly growing network of coal burning power plants, the report says.

Story continues below
advertisement

"We've got to address the carbon emissions from our current fleet (of coal plants) and also have to think how the technology we develop can be applied in China," Ernest Moniz, director of the MIT Energy Initiative and co-author of the report, said in an interview.

Together, the U.S. and China account for 20 percent of the world's carbon dioxide from coal burning power plants, said Moniz. If China doesn't address emissions from its coal plants "we really can't address the climate issue in a serious way."

The MIT report summarizes a consensus view of participants in a symposium sponsored by MIT's Energy Initiative on the feasibility of retrofitting existing coal plants with carbon capture technology. Participants included 54 representatives utilities, academia, government, public interest groups and industry.

The report said about half of the U.S. coal plants _ most of those producing 300 megawatts or more of power _ may be suitable for carbon capture technology. Many of the smaller plants, accounting for about 30 percent of electricity production, can achieve emission reductions through increased efficiency, use of a mix of coal and biomass as fuel and other measures. Other plants, especially the oldest, may have to be replaced, said Moniz.

Wayne Leonard, chief executive of Entergy Corp., who was a co-chairman of the symposium, said the symposium's conclusions should be viewed "in an international context" especially as carbon capture technology development relates to China.

"In the U.S. coal is the reality. But in China and India it is the future" and they won't abandon it because of climate change, said Leonard. "But offering them a technological solution, a solution that we are actively developing and deploying ourselves on our own coal plants, would be something that has a far better chance of success in getting them to act."

While Entergy, the New Orleans-based utility, relies on coal for less than 10 percent of its electricity production, it was a co-sponsor with MIT of the carbon capture symposium on which Friday's report is based.

WASHINGTON — Finding an economical way to capture carbon dioxide from existing coal burning power plants is key to getting China to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions as well as for U.S. effort...
WASHINGTON — Finding an economical way to capture carbon dioxide from existing coal burning power plants is key to getting China to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions as well as for U.S. effort...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
35
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

Our very own EPA has already proven that what you wrote in the above article is bogus.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:15 AM on 07/01/2009
- quidam56 I'm a Fan of quidam56 5 fans permalink

We hear so much about coal fired power plants and carbon sequestration when talking about global warming. We don't hear enough about mountaintop removal. See for yourself what the new and improved, clean, green, hybrid coal industry is doing. http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=138

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 AM on 06/21/2009

Phew. I'm glad they are back to mountain top removal. Living in the mountains has it's ups and downs, literally, so we could use some flat land for a change. We could grow vegan food on it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:21 AM on 07/01/2009

Biochar Soil Technology­.....Husba­ndry of whole new orders of life

Wise Land management; Organic farming and afforestation can build back our soil carbon,

Biochar allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, ( living biomass & Glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar.

Biochar viewed as soil Infrastructure; The old saw;
"Feed the Soil Not the Plants" becomes;
"Feed, Cloth and House the Soil, utilities included !".
Free Carbon Condominiums with carboxyl group fats in the pantry and hydroxyl alcohol in the mini bar.
Build it and the Wee-Beasties will come.
As one microbiologist said on the Biochar list; "Microbes like to sit down when they eat".
By setting this table we expand husbandry to whole new orders of life.

Unlike CCS which only reduces emissions, biochar systems draw down CO2 every energy cycle, closing a circle back to support the soil food web. The "capture" collectors are up and running, the "storage" sink is in operation under our feet. Pyrolysis conversion plants are the only infrastructure we need to build out.

Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:46 PM on 06/20/2009
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

"Path To Climate Solution: Reduce Emissions"

Duh! You think?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:55 PM on 06/20/2009
- Gasparilla I'm a Fan of Gasparilla 29 fans permalink

And then there's the issue that is too politically incorrect to discuss, which is overpopulation. All our "gains" in energy usage are eaten up by a corresponding rise in population. In this country, our projected population of 430 million by 2050 [306 million now] will be mostly due to the direct and indirect effects of immigration. We are at the maximum, or beyond, of being able to provide water for the population we have now. Our fish populations are a shadow of what they were.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:57 PM on 06/19/2009
- LOCUTUS13 I'm a Fan of LOCUTUS13 18 fans permalink
photo

You see the real issue here and not the distractions posted all over this website. I'm in my late fifties and the human population has more than doubled since I was born while most other species have been in decline. The less people the less recourses we use and the less pollution we make. It's so simple a 12 year old can figure it out!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:14 PM on 06/19/2009
- Gasparilla I'm a Fan of Gasparilla 29 fans permalink

Exactly, Locutus. Gee, isn't it awful about all those poor people in India and other Third World countries. Except for the fact that those countries have exploding populations that end up with millions living in huge slums because there is not enough land in the countryside to support them. We can't sustain that kind of growth, but most people are too scared to open their mouths and say it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:07 PM on 06/19/2009

gas & locutus,

You can scream until you run out of screams about overpopulation. As long as we continue to adapt, overpopulation is a moot point. Besides, you're never going to convince enough people to off themselves. Especially not me!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:27 AM on 07/01/2009
- research I'm a Fan of research 243 fans permalink

That does nothing to stop the deadly mountain top removal aspect of coal.

In ten years, we could install rooftop solar on every appropriate roof in the world, and save money at 3 cents.KWH. The rest of our fuel and energy needs can be met with Waste BioChar. See my profile for details.

We can have lower cost, truly clean, safe distributed energy Forever.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:18 PM on 06/19/2009

But Char is a fish!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:23 AM on 07/01/2009
photo

Why do my logical comments keep getting sc.ru.bb.ed or go pe.n.din.g?

*waving finger in the air* To the m.o.d.e.r.a.t.o.r: You're number 1!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:38 PM on 06/19/2009
- SteveMI I'm a Fan of SteveMI 2 fans permalink
photo

Right- being scientifically literate is not cool, dissenting arguments have been wiped-

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:15 AM on 06/20/2009
- Gasparilla I'm a Fan of Gasparilla 29 fans permalink

Hippie, I would suspect your problems might lie with the post you did earlier. "Clean coal is horse////".Try just sticking to the facts.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:47 AM on 06/20/2009
photo

Carbon capture is a joke. Clean coal is horsesh!t!

We need to generate our electricity with natural gas and get off coal NOW. Take the money that would be wasted on "clean coal" and put it into renewables. As more renewable energy comes on line then we can use less NG. It just makes sense.

We could immediately cut emissions and eliminate soot using an energy source that we have an oversupply of and the infrastructure is already mostly in place. Why are we wasting time and money?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 PM on 06/19/2009
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

"Carbon capture is a joke. Clean coal is horsesh!t!"

On that we can agree, CH.

It's pure greenwashing writ large.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:58 PM on 06/20/2009
- Rhetticent I'm a Fan of Rhetticent 21 fans permalink

Exusian, we have common ground.

Part of my problem with the current state of the global warming debate is that the current approach does virtually nothing to abate CO2. I've always favored anything that would truly help us be good stewards of the planet, but cap and trade is not one of them. From your perspective, where is the flaw in massive conversion of motor vehicles and power plants to natural gas, a cleaner burning alternative that would greatly diminish our need to buy oil imports, create jobs and keep our money at home, and reduce our carbon footprint? What is maddening to me that instead of a common sense solution, our government is determined to create a poorly functioning Rube Goldberg monstrosity that will be easily gamed and not affect the environment at all....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:51 AM on 06/23/2009
- Overtone I'm a Fan of Overtone 19 fans permalink
photo

Coal can be superseded in less time than needed to implement CO2 capture!

Future cars will need no fuel and can become power plants when parked.

Breakthroughs include the MagGen. These magnetic generators will initially make it possible to cut the cord on a plug-in hybrid so it no longer needs to plug-in. Later, they can replace the batteries in an electric car. Then, the MagGen can run when the car is parked and sell power to the utility. Prototypes are under development.

Next is a Self Powered Internal Combustion Engine - SPICE, which can power a hybrid. It will need no fuel and is another path to ending the need to plug-in. The engine can run when parked. Both systems can wirelessly transmit and sell power to the local utility.

The SPICE will be powered by hydrinos - which let a barrel of water equal hundreds of barrels of oil.

Scientists and engineers will doubt these technologies are possible until they have been validated by Independent Laboratories. That is an important step on the agenda.

Until now, car ownership has been an expense. Payments to car owners driving a hybrid with a SPICE, or powered by MagGen, are likely to be substantial.

The cost of many vehicles might be paid for by utilities, as they purchase power.

Parked cars each become decentralized power plants - a cost-effective path to reducing fossil fuels - and a rebirth of both the automobile industry.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:09 PM on 06/19/2009
- whatbox I'm a Fan of whatbox 5 fans permalink
photo

Carbon capture and storage (CC&S) is not a real solution to the problem of CO2 emissions from power generation. It is a red herring, a distraction from finding genuine long-term sustainable solutions. It allows the power companies to keep building coal fired plants, and then, one day, throw up their hands and say "CC&S is too expensive, it can't be implemented!", but by that point the plants will be built and operating.

There are better options available: enhanced geothermal, solar thermal, solar PV, wind, and yes, even nuclear. These options take CO2 out of the picture completely, and reduce other forms of pollution too, such as sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, mercury, lead, cadmium, etc.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 AM on 06/19/2009
- SteveMI I'm a Fan of SteveMI 2 fans permalink
photo

Solar, Wind, geothermal- with all the regulations/taxes restrictions on conventional power-
I've never heard any law being passed by any BIG oil lobbyist etc that puts any restriction on 'alternative energy'. Quite the opposite.

Why would any energy company not say 'lets do away with this ugly/messy power/ taxes/regu­lations/pr­otests/ unpredictable fuel prices/deliveries etc etc. All we have to do is buy up a cheap farm field- fill it with windmills and create unlimited clean energy'

The same reason Merck doesn't do away with expensive R&D, testing, lawsuits/side effects etc
and just make crystals and magnets

The same reason Overtone here is still cutting and pasting comments in his mom's basement and not a billionare with his magic energy devices.

Alternative energy, like alternative medicine is only 'alternative' because it has never actually worked.
It's an ideology. I'd give up gas/electric bills in a second if I could just put up a windmill-and a solar panel-
but call me a conformist - I like a hot shower in the morning!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:32 PM on 06/19/2009
- Rhetticent I'm a Fan of Rhetticent 21 fans permalink

We have fields upon fields of windmills, put up in our state with backing of the utilities and the oil companies. The problem now is that there are no transmission lines to deliver the power to any place with any sizeable population. We're decades away from having a grid that will deliver the generated electricity.

The oil companies are getting into alternatives in a big way to hedge their bets. But even the most optimistic projections only show 25% of our needs being met by alternatives by 2020.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:15 PM on 06/19/2009
- Rhetticent I'm a Fan of Rhetticent 21 fans permalink

But remember, we can only make Al Gore the first Green Billionaire if we enact cap and trade with carbon offsets. So that's what we'll have to do. He's a Nobel Prize Winner for god's sake.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:40 AM on 06/19/2009
- melmoid I'm a Fan of melmoid 12 fans permalink

Are you a commie? Al is entitled to make a buck on green energy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:23 PM on 06/19/2009
- NL207 I'm a Fan of NL207 8 fans permalink

Clearly you aven't been paying attention here.

Al Gore isn't generating 1 watt of green energy. He is not making one cent producing green energy. His revenue will come entirely as a product of government regulation rerstricting the production of energy from any sources that produce carbon dioxide as a waste product.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:31 PM on 06/19/2009
- Greenguy25 I'm a Fan of Greenguy25 2 fans permalink

The title of this article has brought me a new found comfort, so good to see that we have the best and brightest working these things out.

http://www.mygreenscene.com

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:00 AM on 06/19/2009

Comfort? Geeesh, I'm glad I don't live next to you!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:18 AM on 07/01/2009
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect