Comments on: It’s coal, stupid! Is it? http://www.energypolicyblog.com/2007/05/04/it%e2%80%99s-coal-stupid-is-it/ Sustainable energy policy, more competition, better regulation, improved policies. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:54:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Aurélie Vauchel http://www.energypolicyblog.com/2007/05/04/it%e2%80%99s-coal-stupid-is-it/comment-page-1/#comment-13239 Aurélie Vauchel Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:36:00 +0000 http://www.energypolicyblog.com/?p=22#comment-13239 Ten months after this post, can we answer the question “Will the U.S. and Europe be willing and able to adopt CCS technology” ? The European Commission has decided to take a step forward in the direction of carbon capture and planned legislation in early 2008 to back up these technologies legally, technically and financially. The reason of this decision is explained in an article published by economy newspaper Cinco Días: http://www.ecoticias.com/detalle_noticia.asp?id=13360 Without carbon capturing, the EU can not meet its ambitious emissions targets: cutting CO2 emissions in half by 2050. There are about a dozen of projects which might show positive progress using technologies such as precombustion, oxicombustion and postcombustion, but these results will not be ready at least until 2015. According to the Spanish Ministry of Energy, Europe will have in 2009 a CO2 capture plant in the Northwest of Spain, in the coal mining region of El Bierzo. The "City of Energy", a public entity itself, will build an experimental plant near the coal power plant of Cubillos del Sil which will capture CO2 from the atmosphere. The project will cost 70 million euros. The plant is considered a first step towards the industrialisation of this technology, based in injection and CO2 transportation. The EU plans to have 12 plants like this working for 2015. But this is not as simple as it seems. In September 2007, the results of a Commission public consultation (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/setplan/doc/2007_setplan_report_public_consultation_en.pdf) on low carbon technologies revealed significant public scepticism about the potential contribution of CCS and similar technologies to the fight against climate change. As regards the United States, new legislation proposes ban on new fossil fuel powered energy plants that fail to deploy carbon capture and storage systems. Representatives Edward Markey and Henry Waxman tabled a bill imposing a moratorium on new coal-powered plants that lacked the ability to control their carbon dioxide emissions. Under the proposed legislation, the moratorium would remain in place until the federal Government imposed wider regulations to curb global warming pollution in the US. The 7th Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration will take place on May 5th - 8th, 2008 at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The main objectives of this conference are to focus on carbon capture, separation and sequestration technologies that are being or could be deployed in the U.S. and North America, and to facilitate the necessary dialogue between technology developers/purveyors, industry and the public on the development and deployment of viable technologies. Even if the CCS technology is not already worked out, governments want to push forward the research on this subject as they seem more concerned about climate change and reduction of CO2 emissions. Ten months after this post, can we answer the question “Will the U.S. and Europe be willing and able to adopt CCS technology” ?

The European Commission has decided to take a step forward in the direction of carbon capture and planned legislation in early 2008 to back up these technologies legally, technically and financially. The reason of this decision is explained in an article published by economy newspaper Cinco Días:
http://www.ecoticias.com/detalle_noticia.asp?id=13360
Without carbon capturing, the EU can not meet its ambitious emissions targets: cutting CO2 emissions in half by 2050. There are about a dozen of projects which might show positive progress using technologies such as precombustion, oxicombustion and postcombustion, but these results will not be ready at least until 2015.

According to the Spanish Ministry of Energy, Europe will have in 2009 a CO2 capture plant in the Northwest of Spain, in the coal mining region of El Bierzo. The “City of Energy”, a public entity itself, will build an experimental plant near the coal power plant of Cubillos del Sil which will capture CO2 from the atmosphere. The project will cost 70 million euros. The plant is considered a first step towards the industrialisation of this technology, based in injection and CO2 transportation. The EU plans to have 12 plants like this working for 2015.

But this is not as simple as it seems. In September 2007, the results of a Commission public consultation (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/setplan/doc/2007_setplan_report_public_consultation_en.pdf) on low carbon technologies revealed significant public scepticism about the potential contribution of CCS and similar technologies to the fight against climate change.

As regards the United States, new legislation proposes ban on new fossil fuel powered energy plants that fail to deploy carbon capture and storage systems. Representatives Edward Markey and Henry Waxman tabled a bill imposing a moratorium on new coal-powered plants that lacked the ability to control their carbon dioxide emissions. Under the proposed legislation, the moratorium would remain in place until the federal Government imposed wider regulations to curb global warming pollution in the US.

The 7th Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration will take place on May 5th – 8th, 2008 at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The main objectives of this conference are to focus on carbon capture, separation and sequestration technologies that are being or could be deployed in the U.S. and North America, and to facilitate the necessary dialogue between technology developers/purveyors, industry and the public on the development and deployment of viable technologies.

Even if the CCS technology is not already worked out, governments want to push forward the research on this subject as they seem more concerned about climate change and reduction of CO2 emissions.

]]> By: Willy De Backer http://www.energypolicyblog.com/2007/05/04/it%e2%80%99s-coal-stupid-is-it/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Willy De Backer Fri, 11 May 2007 09:39:25 +0000 http://www.energypolicyblog.com/?p=22#comment-7 Before we invest heavily in CCS, maybe we should have a closer look at the "real" coal reserves. Your users might want to read my blog post on this isse: http://3eintelligence.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/hopes-for-green-coal-future-in-ashes/ Before we invest heavily in CCS, maybe we should have a closer look at the “real” coal reserves. Your users might want to read my blog post on this isse:
http://3eintelligence.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/hopes-for-green-coal-future-in-ashes/

]]> By: John Busby http://www.energypolicyblog.com/2007/05/04/it%e2%80%99s-coal-stupid-is-it/comment-page-1/#comment-5 John Busby Wed, 09 May 2007 12:59:34 +0000 http://www.energypolicyblog.com/?p=22#comment-5 Unfortunately the MIT report "The future of coal" shows that with carbon capture additional coal inputs are needed for a given electricity output, ranging from an additional 27% to 37%, which in practice will probably be around 50% extra. This means that a third of coal production will have to be devoted to carbon capture. Petrochemicals will be needed to manufacture the amines used for the absorption of the CO2 from the flue gases. Additional energy will also be needed for sequestration and to transport the liquid CO2 to the repository. Capital costs are also increased by the same order. Fortunately, climate change will be ameliorated by fossil fuel exhaustion, hopefully before Lovelock's "tipping point" is reached, if it has not already been passed. The decline of fossil fuels production is the real problem for mankind. Unfortunately the MIT report “The future of coal” shows that with carbon capture additional coal inputs are needed for a given electricity output, ranging from an additional 27% to 37%, which in practice will probably be around 50% extra. This means that a third of coal production will have to be devoted to carbon capture. Petrochemicals will be needed to manufacture the amines used for the absorption of the CO2 from the flue gases. Additional energy will also be needed for sequestration and to transport the liquid CO2 to the repository. Capital costs are also increased by the same order.

Fortunately, climate change will be ameliorated by fossil fuel exhaustion, hopefully before Lovelock’s “tipping point” is reached, if it has not already been passed. The decline of fossil fuels production is the real problem for mankind.

]]>