Comments on: Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal’s out, can’t wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW?

By: Sam

Sam — Sat, 10 May 2008 21:28:53 +0000

Whoops, I see a couple of typos in my last post. In particular, the last sentence should read “who in reality want to be free riders on future generations (and not that-far-in-the-future generations at that).” Forgot the “not,” though readers of this thread will probably fill it in, as with the other more minor typos.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Sat, 10 May 2008 20:10:01 +0000

Sam — Thanks for the correction and further information.

By: Sam

Sam — Sat, 10 May 2008 17:57:27 +0000

David wrote, Sam wrote “So if Norway has been doing it, why can’t China, etc?” Of course they could. The difference is that in Norway, it is being done to aid in increased crude oil recovery, so there is a direct, immediate economic incentive to do so.”
David, thanks for your reply. But that isn’t how the article put it. The Norwegian CO2 is being stored in a saline aquifer, unlike projects in Alberta that are using the CO2 to increase recovery (according to a Nat’l Geographic documentary I recently saw). Furthermore, the article says that the motive was to avoid paying Norway’s carbon tax for venting the CO2 back into atmosphere, not to aid recovery of hard to get oil. That was my real point, and it goes to one of Joe’s recent rants. It highlights the fact that we desperately require goernments to set a price on carbon in the atmosphere that will tell people what energy is really costing us, and will cost us increasing amounts in the future, giving companies incentives to deal with emissions.

After I posted my comment yesterday, I saw this update on the Sleipner field:
http://www.reuters.com/ article/ environmentNews/ idUSL2915061620080429
They are now going to try to use the field to store CO2 from more sources, undoubtedly charging something for the service. But the real point is that the reason it is feasible to do in the first place was a law that was charging them for carbon emissions. Surely in light the destruction that we now know CO2 causes, making oil companies–and of course their customers, us–pay either for storage or a fine is as reasonable as it will be unpopular among the “free marketeer no-or-low-taxers” among us, who in reality want to be free riders on future generations (and that-far-in-the-future generations at that).

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Sat, 10 May 2008 17:24:12 +0000

Sam wrote “So if Norway has been doing it, why can’t China, etc?” Of course they could. The difference is that in Norway, it is being done to aid in increased crude oil recovery, so there is a direct, immediate economic incentive to do so.

By: drwoood

drwoood — Sat, 10 May 2008 06:36:37 +0000

The question is how much investment would be required to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions to levels something like 40% below 1990 levels by 2020? This is roughly what is required to stabilise greenhouse gas levels below 500ppm.

By: Sam

Sam — Sat, 10 May 2008 04:31:43 +0000

Undoubtedly this is naive, but I have to ask it anyway….
This guy–an oil company engineer in UK– says that Norway already is doing CCS:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/25727
Brief excerpt:
Carbon storage is not just wishful thinking: there is already a successful CCS scheme operating in Norway. The Sleipner gas field was discovered in 1974 and is one of the largest gas producers in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. However, the gas in the field contains 4–10% carbon dioxide, while typically less than 2.5% is required to ensure the gas will burn properly. In almost any other country, the oil company would have removed the excess carbon dioxide from the gas and vented it into the atmosphere. But under Norway’s environmental laws, Statoil – the state oil company – would have faced an annual carbon-tax bill of about $50m for this option. Instead, Statoil researchers investigated storing the carbon dioxide in a nearby geological formation: the saline aquifer called Utsira that lies above the Sleipner field. Utsira is a massive formation: at some 500 km long, 50 km wide and 200 m thick, it has the capacity to store 100 times the annual volume of carbon dioxide emitted from all Europe’s power stations.

After several years of experimental study, a commercial plant was installed on the Sleipner platform in time for the start of production in 1996. Two MEA absorber columns were installed that reduce the CO2 content of the gas to 2.25%. Four compressors – standard items of equipment on most oil and gas platforms – are then used to pressurize the nearly pure excess carbon dioxide to 80 × 105 Pa, before it is injected into the base of the Utsira aquifer 1 km below. The high pressure is significant because carbon dioxide has a “critical point” at a temperature of 31 °C and a pressure of 74 × 105 Pa, beyond which it exists in a “supercritical fluid” state with a density of about 700 kg m–3. Since injecting CO2 will raise the pressure in the aquifer, the CO2 remains in this fluid state.

So if Norway has been doing it, why can’t China, etc? Yes, fine, it will raise the price of energy, but surely we can deal with that more easily that we will have to deal with the effects of extreme weather, desertification, drought, etc., and surely we can–assuming govts are being at least somewhat farsighted and responsible– gradually squeeze the price of carbon upward to make it OK. In any case, we need CCs because all these coal plants aren’t going to be decommissioned any tme soon.

By: Susan K

Susan K — Sat, 10 May 2008 01:27:21 +0000

Re who pays for FITs, yeah, what scatter said.

Ultimately we all pay one way or another for energy policy

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Fri, 09 May 2008 21:35:59 +0000

On the othr hand, you can always make your own ethanol, at home, for a mere $10,000 and then about $1 per gallon:

http://www.reuters.com/ article/ environmentNews/ idUSN0850981420080509

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Fri, 09 May 2008 21:31:35 +0000

Here is a reporter’s take on carbon sequestration. The cost projections seem rathr optimistic to me:

http://www.reuters.com/ article/ environmentNews/ idUSL0573285820080508

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 09 May 2008 18:50:09 +0000

Eric — Since when do baseload power plants not have unscheduled outages? Seriously. IN any case, I’m not talking about going to 100% CSP!!!

First off, we have lots and lots of sources of power that deliver at 4 am. whereas demand then is incredibly low — and that’s why the price is so damn cheap. In any case, if you are really worried about nighttime power, then you should want wind is spread around the country.

Second, one doesn’t really see a week of cloudy weather in the desert. But again, the point is to spread the CSP over vastly different places in the Southwest, so you never have that problem — just as wind power facilities hundreds of miles away from each other do not have a high correlation in power output.

Third, one needs the most 4 a.m. electricity in the summer (when air-conditioning is kept on overnight). A mere 8 hours of storage would allow even CSP to deliver power then — although I can’t really imagine why you would want to throw away valuable “peak and shoulder” power to save it for worthless nighttime energy.

Fourth, the power that is most needed is from sunrise to a few hours after sunset. Your baseload plants don’t help you at all with that most precious of all power. Our overabundance of baseload is precisely why nighttime power is so damn cheap.

So I say, keep nuclear at 20%. Keep our hydro. Bring on 20%+ wind and other renewables. Give CSP as much storage as is cost-effective. And then Start phasing out traditional coal, and, if it is feasible, bring in CCS.

I can’t imagine that strategy would cause any 4 a.m. problems this century.