User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Richard:
I agree that this would be a good idea, but this is not how carbon trading generally works at the current time. As one of the participants explained, carbon trading would allow the Swiss to continue driving around in the heaviest and most fuel-inefficient SUVs. All we would need to do is to increase the price of gas by 10 Cents per liter, and use that money to buy carbon credits from any country that is not currently at its CO2 emission limit yet. Problem solved ... errh not.
By the way, carbon capture in coal-burning power plants is still a not fully solved problem. Several technologies for "washing" the carbon out of the exhaust of such power plants are known, but they increase the price of electricity generated in this fashion by roughly 7 Cents/kWh. In addition, huge amounts of carbon are being generated that need to get stored somehow, and we don't know yet how to do that.
Could we pump the CO2 into oil wells, for example? How would we guarantee that the CO2 disposed in this fashion really stays underground? Could we pump the CO2 into salt deposits in the ground? How could we guarantee that the CO2 stays there? Should we try to bind the carbon to some type of rock? This would require gigantic earth movements.
At the current time, we don't have either the technical knowhow nor a legal framework for properly and permanently disposing of captured carbon.
The coal power fired plants currently being built in China have on average a 28% thermal efficiency. Then there are the distribution losses, especially over long distances and these can account for some 8%.
In the west the average thermal efficiency of a modern pulverised fuel (PF) plant is about 38%.
There are several emerging coal technologies such as supercritical boilers and Integrated Gasification, combined cycle which are considerably more efficient and have a significat effect in reducing the CO2 emissions.
These raise the thermal efficiency of the plant to very close to 50% making it comparable in efficiency with combined cycle gas turbine.
Put simply, an IGCC plant could deliver power to the end user at twice the efficiency and half the coal consumption of the typical Chinese plant.
We should be assisting the Chinese in providing them access to these modern designs, and also investing in them in the west to replace our aging coal fired plant.
After all - why is China burning all this coal? To make cheap manufactured goods for the West. Consider it part of a trading deal, cheap goods in exchange for state of the art energy efficiency.
The modern coal technologies are described here:
http://www.australiancoal.com.au/cleantech.htm
Ken
Good thinking. And while we're add it we should pay for the replacement of Russia's old non-CCGT gas power stations with state of the art CCGTs. This would be truly win-win as Russia would need to use less gas internally, be able to sell more and Europe would have increased supplies available. The relationship between Russia and the EU could only improve. Even "gifting" Russia the CCGTs might end up being a smart move.
Chris, List,
When I think of your recent post about the nuclear cliff that we are facing, with no relief until the early 2020s, then we really must consider the coal technologies that bring about fuel savings and implement them now, both in the developing Far East, India and the lazy west.
Between the USA and China, they burn 2.3 billion tonnes of coal per year.
Can this be sustained over the next decade or so?
Would it not be better to start building supercritical coal plants ASAP so that we at least have some stop-gap, before the propose new nuclear plants come on line in 2020 or so.
Most of the UK coal plants are getting fairly old too, built in the 1960s and 1970s. Drax is having a rolling program of turbine blade replacement to make its steam plant more efficient.
What about all the CCGT gas sheds thrown up in the 1990s - how many of them will be fully serviceable by 2015 - especially with the cost saving advantages of gas being a thing of the past? What is the typical service life of a 600MW gas shed?
Regarding China, its development and the need for electrical power.
You can be sure that the Chinese are more open to suggestions for a technology transfer which cold help them significantly reduce their coal consumption over the next decade. Its much easier to build a clean coal plant in Shanghai, Shenzhen or Beijing than spend 8 years debating in the west, who's back yard the new generation nuclear plants will be situated.
If the West wants to continue to have access to cheap manufactured goods, then they should at least help pay for modern efficient factories and the accompanying modern efficient power plant.
Power plants should now have reached the point where they are an "off the peg" item built to a generic approved design. Standardisation of design of a supercritical coal fired plant would mean that they could be rapidly deployed where they are most needed.
We are all facing a crisis. Now is the time for action on a globalscale. We have the technology available to reduce fossil fuel consumptions both for power generation and surface based transportation.
Why don't we just get on with it, or is there something else round the corner, that is causing our world politicians to procrastinate??
Don't you think we could fully utilize on the available capital right here at home. Jesus, we can't even get a tax credit for solar extended in this country. And you think we are going to get money to help Russia cut its carbon emissions. Very funny.
No need for gifting since it is already happening:
http://www.industcards.com/st-other-ru-moscow.htm
I would rather we spend our money at home to build nuclear plants, upgrade houses with better insulation, install ground source heat pumps, fund research on photovoltaics, and other measures that reduce our energy usage and provide us with energy from more sustainable sources.
We should spend the money on building our own nuclear reactors.
Even with the best technology, if China continues to build coal plants at this pace, the increased efficiency won't mean much with respect to what needs to be done; reduce carbon emissions by at least 80% by 2050 or earlier, not to mention the reductions that need to occur now. And I haven't even mentioned the 150 plants the U.S. has on the drawing board (although a few may have been taken off).
Promises of better technology are just a way for the coal companies to lure us into a continuation of the past. They want to sell coal, period. All else is mainly PR.
Most certainly. If you wish to increase the fuel-efficiency of the power plant, you need to increase its operational temperature. This requires better control technology ... and it reduces the life span of the power plant. Yet, this is a good thing, because a more fuel-efficient power plant also puts out less CO2 per kWh of generated electricity.
Francois:
And besides, as we speak and by the end of the week, China will have built at least one more coal fired, not carbon capture ready, power plant probably without the latest pollution control equipment much less any hope of capturing carbon.
Let's be real. It does not matter what Switzerland or the rest of Europe does as long as we permit this steady march to Armageddon to continue. Maybe we are making ourselves feel good through our personal virtue but unless we stop these coal plants now, we are totally screwed.
Even with the United States on board, which is a big if, and even if we all started walking and riding bicycles tomorrow morning, this problem simply cannot be solved without China and India on board. I understand China's point of view. We, in the Western world has been spewing out this crap since the industrial revolution. Telling them to stop now is unfair.
But what is the alternative. Switzerland could simply disappear tomorrow and it wouldn't make a bit of difference in the future temperature of the planet.
I agree with tstreet about the scale of China's expansion. China is growing a Britain's worth of electric generation capacity every year.
But Peak Coal will eventually force the Chinese to shift to nuclear, photovoltaics, and wind.
People will do what works within what is known. Our critical task is to make known sustainable infrastructure.