Comments on: Breaking News: No new coal plants without “Best Available Control Technology” for CO2

By: Climate Progress » Blog Archive » Clean coal, meet harsh reality

Climate Progress » Blog Archive » Clean coal, meet harsh reality — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:37:37 +0000

[...] Breaking News: No new coal plants without “Best Available Control Technology” for CO2 [...]

By: Brian D

Brian D — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 01:59:01 +0000

Well, damn. Any chance of a post-Obama appeal? Or could the post-transition administration approach this from another angle?

By: David Lewis

David Lewis — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:34:41 +0000

As is usual with anyone criticizing CCS these days, all Romm will say is it will cost a lot of money. It is true that there isn’t a full scale plant anywhere that is using coal to generate electricity while capturing its carbon dioxide emissions, but it isn’t as if nothing is known about what the costs will be.

The IPCC figures are that it will cost somewhere between 2 – 3 cents a kw/hr in many situations. (see: “The IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage”. On the other hand, the complex presentation of data in the IPCC report is interpreted by Mark Jaccard, in his “Sustainable Fossil Fuels” book, so you could look there as well.). If the wholesale cost of coal fired electricity is taken to be around 5 cents a kwhr, this is about a 60% increase, which is a lot of money. But if the then 7 – 8 cents a kwhr wholesale cost is compared to any other possible source in many areas of the world, this seems like economical power. If it isn’t, coal using CCS will not be employed.

But what would the IPCC know? It must be fun to endlessly repeat that CCS will cost a lot of money, more than whatever it is you are touting, i.e. solar or wind etc, without attaching cost figures to anything, while calling for implementing 450 ppm, a global disaster, while you reject the best climate science. What is it you are accomplishing again? I’m losing track.

By: mauri pelto

mauri pelto — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:24:48 +0000

Wow, the anti co2 regulation crowd has been outflanked at long last. Not a death knell, but certainly changes the strategy on this climate battlefield. just as a new general is appointed too.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:56:37 +0000

Even if the new administration requires CO2 BACT, Sec. 169 allows them to consider economic impacts in determining what BACT is. I want to be optimistic, but this looks a long way from stopping “all new coal plant permitting.”

By: Dill Weed

Dill Weed — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:50:38 +0000

The legal translation is, “We’re kicking this upstairs to be kicked around some more, watered down, and then to be thrown out when you are distracted by other ermergencies.”

Then, BAU.

Oh, the G-20 agreed to the shape of the table around which they will meet and accomplish nothing.

Word.

Dill Weed

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:09:47 +0000

Too early to cheer.

The decision just says they have to consider CO2 BACT and develop a record to support that decision. They can still say No.

[JR: The EPA Region can say no, which I doubt they would, but EPA headquarters can probably say yes under an Obama administration based on the ruling.]

By: paulm

paulm — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:58:50 +0000

how long before we start having rolling blackouts?

[JR: Had biggest blackout under Bush. Rolling blackouts are a thing of the past. One thing we know under Obama, we will finally have true diversity in energy supply -- and that means negawatts -- which is the best hedge against blackouts.]

By: max

max — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:48:21 +0000

David- Thanks for the links. MAX

By: Shelly

Shelly — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:48:43 +0000

Amazing news, fantastic!

Thanks for your great reporting here on it. I doubt the mainstream media will mention much about this since they are still fixated on the economy and Sarah Palin, so it’s up to the rest of us to put this out there and tell people why it’s important!