Comments on: A concentrated solar BACT for new coal?

By: Bob Wallace

Bob Wallace — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:28:05 +0000

Obviously we’ve got enough petroleum if we simply keep our demand down to where it is right now. We’re back in the era of $2 a gallon because of demand decay.

Better we put maximum effort into efficiency and leave as much carbon sequestered as possible….

By: Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:47:27 +0000

How about concentrated solar to cook out oil from shale??? We need liquid fuels for transport

By: Charlie

Charlie — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:30:39 +0000

From an overall perspective, the BACT for coal plants is end-use energy efficiency. I’ll leave it to the lawyers as to whether that counts under the regulation, from the perspective of best technology, better utilization of electricity to avoid needing new plants is better than any control technology that could be put in the plant.

By: Ronald

Ronald — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:35:00 +0000

It would be a shame if these coal plants don’t get replaced with completely new and non-carbon fueled electricity production because somebody added some CSP to the plant. But like the original article said, ‘as long as these fossil fuel plants aren’t going anywhere.’ Which is true, these fossil fuel plants are there whether they stick on some CSP or not.

By: Mark Shapiro

Mark Shapiro — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:30:59 +0000

vakibs asks:

“Joe

What is the point of cutting emissions, when these coal plants keep on running for an indefinite amount of time ?”

Yes, Joe always suggests cutting carbon emissions, because EVERY cut gets us closer to zero.

But your point is well taken — there are some cuts that actually make it more difficult to make the next cuts. That’s why I prefer efficiency, renewables, and conservation to most “clean coal” projects.

By: vakibs

vakibs — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:11:07 +0000

Joe

What is the point of cutting emissions, when these coal plants keep on running for an indefinite amount of time ?

Borrowing the popular analogy from the President-elect, You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig

What we need to be thinking of are energy sources to power a zero-carbon economy. We should be making economic blueprints for the construction of such new power plants and infrastructure. We should have a fixed hard deadline on the shutting down of coal plants.

This is all quite obvious. But you keep on using your Orwelian speak.. Cutting emissions with coal and natural gas plants.. Thank you very much for the joke. Now why are we trying to fool ourselves, here ?

By: Ronald

Ronald — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:09:42 +0000

Unless there is a Chicago, Arizona, CSP probably wouldn’t work there. I’m guessing you are mentioning Chicago, Ill. which doesn’t have enough sun. CSP for electricity is mostly in 4 states, Calf. Ar. Nev. and NM.

By: Total Solar Energy

Total Solar Energy — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 04:08:26 +0000

yeah, if they can change existing plants to carbon neutral then that’s a step in the right direction.

By: Mark Shapiro

Mark Shapiro — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:46:51 +0000

Great idea.

Chicago has two coal fired plants: Fisk, 326 MW, on 60 acres, and Crawford, 542 MW on 72 acres. If CSP needs 3 acres per MW, these two plants could provide about 5-10% of their current output with zero emissions. And the generators and transmission lines are already in place.