Climate Progress

The goal of carbon capture and storage (CCS), also called carbon sequestration, is to take carbon dioxide that would have been emitted into the atmosphere from new or existing power plants (usually coal) and instead store it someplace, hopefully forever. It is an attractive idea across the political spectrum because it might allow us to continue using a major fossil fuel, but in a way that does not destroy the climate.

Unfortunately, CCS has four fundamental problems that have reduced enthusiasm for it recently and limited its likely role:

1. Cost: Coal plants with CCS are very expensive today. The total extra cost for this process, including geological storage in sealed underground sites, is currently quite high, $30 to $80 a ton of carbon dioxide, according to the Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy, “Carbon Sequestration R&D Overview.” And that is on top of the cost of new coal plants, which have become very expensive. In the future, it seems rather unlikely that CCS would be a low-cost solution. The modeling work done for the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) on how to comply with the AB32 law (California’s Global Warming Solutions Act), online here, puts the cost of coal gasification with carbon capture and storage at a staggering 16.9 cents per kWh. Energy efficiency along with lots of low-carbon generation sources beat that easily now or will very soon.
2. Timing: The world does not even have a single large-scale (300+ MW) coal plant with CCS anywhere in the world. The first moderate-sized (30 MW) pilot plant with CCS just started up this month in Germany. Earlier this year, President Bush dropped the mismanaged ‘NeverGen’ clean coal project. In the past year, most governments and most U.S. utilities have scaled back, delayed, or cancel their planned CCS projects (see below). As Howard Herzog of MIT’s Laboratory for Energy and the Environment said in Feburary “How can we expect to build hundreds of these plants when we’re having so much trouble building the first one?“
3. Scale: We need to put in place a dozen or so clean energy “stabilization wedges” by mid-century to avoid catastrophic climate outcomes — see “Is 450 ppm (or less) politically possible? Part 1.” For CCS to be even one of those would require a flow of CO2 into the ground equal to the current flow of oil out of the ground. That would require, by itself, re-creating the equivalent of the planet’s entire oil delivery infrastructure, no mean feat.
4. Permanence and transparency: If Putin’s Russia said it was sequestering 100 million tons of CO2 in the ground permanently, and wanted other countries to pay it billions of dollars to do so, would anyone trust them? No. The potential for fraud and bribery are simply too enormous. But would anyone trust China? Would anyone trust a U.S. utility, for that matter? We need to set up some sort of international regime for certifying, monitoring, verifying, and inspecting geologic repositories of carbon — like the U.N. weapons inspections systems. The problem is, this country hasn’t been able to certify a single storage facility for a high-level radioactive waste after two decades of trying and nobody knows how to monitor and verify underground CO2 storage. It could take a decade just to set up this system.

The bottom line is that we should continue to pursue CCS research, development, and demonstration in a serious effort to turn this long-term strategy into a medium-term one. But efficiency, wind, solar PV, and baseload solar are where we should be placing the big deployment dollars right now (see “Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal’s out, can’t wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW?“)

For those who want to become more knowledgeable on CCS, the rest of this post will cite and excerpt a dozen or so of the recent articles and studies on the subject below.

(more…)

A couple of commenters here worry that Obama seemed to put energy independence on the “back burner” by suggesting his clean energy plan was the “first thing” he would cut to make room for the $700 billion bail out rescue deal. Significantly, that isn’t the message heard by at least one group of crucial voters — undecideds.

During the debate, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg ran a dial group of 45 undecided voters in St. Louis, Missouri: “These voters had an unmistakably Republican tilt, voting for President Bush by a 2-to-1 margin in 2004 and self-identifying as 33 percent Republican and 27 percent Democrat.” What did they hear?

On one of the most important issues to these voters — who will do a better job achieving energy independence — Obama … more than doubl[ed] an already impressive 20-point lead on the issue to 44 points. Obama scored some of his highest marks on our dials when talking about the need to make America energy independent. Even those who felt [Obama lost] the debate agreed in our follow-up focus groups that Obama was the more persuasive candidate on energy independence.

How is it that some seasoned clean energy folks listening to the debate came away with one message, whereas undecided voters came away with the exact opposite message? Welcome to the real world of political messaging!

Let’s look at what Obama said on clean energy during the debate. First, he made clear that a revolution in energy policies was one of his top priorities. When asked by moderator Jim Lehrer what priorities he might he have to give up as President because of the $700 billion financial rescue plan, he said:

But there’s no doubt that we’re not going to be able to do everything that I think needs to be done. There are some things that I think have to be done.

We have to have energy independence, so I’ve put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years’ time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil by increasing production at home, but most importantly by starting to invest in alternative energy, solar, wind, biodiesel, making sure that we’re developing the fuel-efficient cars of the future right here in the United States, in Ohio and Michigan, instead of Japan and South Korea….

And I also think that we’re going to have to rebuild our infrastructure, which is falling behind, our roads, our bridges, but also broadband lines that reach into rural communities.

Also, making sure that we have a new electricity grid to get the alternative energy to population centers that are using them.

That is a strong, thoughtful, and unequivocal message.

Since Obama didn’t really answer the question directly — nor should he have (see below) — Lehrer asked the question again, and here is where Obama made what I would call a tactical debate mistake:

(more…)

Installed U.S. capacity of baseload geothermal power is 2958 MW. Our geothermal power is set to double over the next several years, according to “U.S. Geothermal Power Production and Development Update,” by the U.S. Geothermal Energy Association.

The following table gives the power currently on-line, in Phase I (secured rights, exploration drilling), Phase II (confirmation being done), Phase III (final permits), and Phase IV (production drilling underway, facility under construction):

(more…)

[Climate Progress has covered the Pickens Plan many times since Memo to T. Boone Pickens: Your energy plan is half-brilliant, half-dumb. Here Earl Killian makes a strong analytical case that the “half-dumb” part of the plan is in fact a wasteful, wildly impractical — if not outright absurd — distraction.]

Thomas Boone Pickens is a billionaire who made his money in oil and corporate takeovers. He began investing in natural gas in 1997, and in wind power in 2007. In 2008, he went public with the Pickens Plan via a website and a well funded advertising campaign. Here we analyze the Pickens Plan, as presented here, which begins by correctly observing:

America is addicted to foreign oil. It’s an addiction that threatens our economy, our environment and our national security.

The Pickens Plan as presented consists of two parts:

1. Take the natural gas that we currently use to generate electricity in the U.S., and use it to fuel transportation instead, and
2. Build wind power to produce the electricity lost in step 1.

The Plan As Presented — CNG vs. Electricity

(more…)

The number of companies planning plug-in hybrids is growing steadily. Some recent announcements can be found here. Calcars maintains an excellent update on “How Carmakers are Responding to the Plug-In Hybrid Opportunity.”

As for Honda, last year, the Wall Street Journal reported

Honda Motor Co. Chief Executive Takeo Fukui said so-called plug-in hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles [PHEVs] offered too few environmental benefits for his company to pursue, and noted that an advanced hybrid vehicle called the Chevrolet Volt that General Motors Corp. is aiming to launch in a few years made little sense.

But while pretty much every other major automaker in the world has realized the need to start developing a plug-in, Bloomberg reported last week, “Honda, Citing Battery Limits, Avoids Rush to Plug-Ins.”

Yes, the batteries still need improvement, but that is hardly a reason not to aggressively pursue what is certain to be the car of the future. What is particularly ludicrous about Honda’s position is that they remain enthusiastic about hydrogen cars — indeed, they are probably the only major automakers still drinking the hydrogen-flavored Kool-Aid– even though the technological hurdles are infinitely greater. Bloomberg reports:

(more…)

Not even close.

If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.

So warned IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri last fall when the IPCC released its major multi-year report synthesizing our understanding of climate science. And remember Pachauri was handpicked by the Bush administration to replace the “alarmist” Bob Watson. It’s the facts that make scientists alarmists, not their politics (see “Desperate times, desperate scientists“).

What happens if we fail to act in time to avert the climate catastrophe?

• We cross carbon-cycle tipping points, such as the loss of the tundra, beyond which there is “no redemption.”
• We head toward CO2 concentrations this century that are triple or quadruple preindustrial levels.
• We should expect 0.8 to 2.0 meters of sea level rise this century, inundating the homes of 100 million people.
• We face desertification of one third the planet and loss of the glaciers that provide water to a billion people.
• We face loss of more than two thirds of the species on the planet, and a hot, acidic, and largely lifeless ocean
• We face humanity’s self-destruction — 6°C total planetary warming.

Worst of all, this utterly preventable catastrophe is probably irreversible on a time-scale of centuries, and thus threatens the health and well-being of our children and the their children and the next 50 generations.

A trillion-dollar climate rescue package would put us on the path to avert these catastrophic outcomes, jumpstart the transition to a clean energy economy, while largely paying for itself in energy savings. It would also sharply reduce the $10 to $20 trillion transfer of wealth to the oil exporters that we can expect over the next quarter century alone. Air pollution would drop sharply and millions of jobs would be created.

What happens if we fail to act in time to avert the financial catastrophe that Treasury Secretary Paulson says is now upon us:

(more…)

The buzzwords of the day: TE with high TZ.

The world doesn’t need a major technology breakthrough to cost-effectively cut carbon emissions in half by midcentury (see “The breakthrough technology illusion“). Indeed, most such breakthroughs would be difficult to deploy fast enough and on a large enough scale to make a large difference in that timeframe. Other key medium-term technologies, like low-cost solar photovoltaics, don’t require breakthroughs so much as they need steady technological advances, economies of scale, and continued experiential learning from increased market sales.

Sure, we are going to need big-time advances to give us new low-carbon technologies for widescale deployment in the second half of this century to have any hope of getting back to 350 ppm — but is there any genuine breakthrough that could make a serious difference fast enough to matter by 2050? Such a technology would have to be compatible with the existing energy system. Ideally, it would take advantage of major existing inefficiencies or flaws in our current energy system. It would have to be a technology that could be scaled to many different applications.

Only one long-sought-for technology I can think of, a true holy Grail of clean energy, fits the bill: thermoelectric (TE) materials and devices, which directly convert temperature differences to electric voltage and vice versa.

Thermoelectric devices are based on the fact that when certain materials are heated, they generate a significant electrical voltage. Conversely, when a voltage is applied to them, they become hotter on one side, and colder on the other. The process works with a variety of materials, and especially well with semiconductors — the materials from which computer chips are made.

Why does the ability to turn low-level heat into electricity matter? Because the energy system throws away vast amounts of energy as waste heat. Heck, the energy now lost as waste heat just from U.S. power generation exceeds the energy used by Japan for all purposes.

And that doesn’t even include the massive amount of waste heat from much smaller scale engines, like those in your car, where some 80% of the fuel’s energy is lost. Wouldn’t it be great to capture some of that waste heat and use it for electricity — in plug-in hybrids, for instance?

Imagine if you could design a TE device right into a microchip, to take waste heat and generate more power for you laptop? And what about the potential of high-efficiency, solid-state heating and cooling devices? Or, as M.I.T. noted recently:

The same materials might also play a role in improving the efficiency of photovoltaic cells, harnessing some of the sun’s heat as well as its light to make electricity. The key will be finding materials that have the right properties but are not too expensive to produce.

And, of course, a larger scale system could take the waste heat that needs to be rejected from baseload solar (a concentrated solar thermal electric system) and use it to increase efficiency and power output.

Okay, if TE devices are so great, why aren’t they everywhere already? After all, the key underlying scientific principles of TE were first discovered nearly 200 years ago.

(more…)

GM has rolled out its upcoming plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, the Chevy Volt. Calcars has posted a bunch of articles from GM and the press on “why GM changed the design.” Personally, I can’t really imagine that many people will choose to buy — or not buy — this particular vehicle on the basis of its looks.

The new Volt design is about the same size as the Prius, but with much less cargo space because of the batteries:

GM says it will cost 2 cents per mile to drive the Volt less than 40 miles per day versus 12 cents per mile for gasoline at a price of $3.60.

Imagine how much you’ll save when the price of gasoline is double that (see “Must read CIBC report: $7 gas by 2010“).

In theory the new House energy bill would provide a $5,000 tax credit (see below), but many people might not be able to get that because of our delightful tax code. In particular, the Alternative Minimum Tax may negate some or all of the credit, as it does with the current hybrid vehicle tax credit, as the IRS explains:

(more…)

When the world’s uber-centrist magazine of choice runs a headline almost identical to mine (see “The Last Car You Would Ever Buy — Literally“), you know it’s all over. Especially when one of that magazine’s leading energy columnists, Vijay Vaitheeswaran, used to sing that technology’s praises (here). Here’s the bottom line:

But the promise of hydrogen-powered personal transport seems as elusive as ever. The non-emergence of hydrogen cars over the past decade is particularly notable since hydrogen power has been a darling of governments worldwide, which have spent billions of dollars in subsidies and incentives to make hydrogen cars a reality….

Here’s the fatal flaw in the H2 economy:

…the logistical, technological and economic problems facing hydrogen fuel-cell cars mean that they are very unlikely to make it to market any time soon. One thing holding back hydrogen vehicles is a chicken-and-egg problem: why build cars if there is nowhere to fill them up, or hydrogen filling-stations if there are no cars to use them? Just around the corner, honest.

But wait, here’s another fatal flaw in the H2 economy:
(more…)

The California Assembly and Senate have passed legislation, SB 375, that would encourage local communities to control sprawl. This is seen as critical to California achieving its AB 32 cap on greenhouse gas emissions (reducing them to 1990 levels by 2020–a 30% cut).

(more…)