Solar companies are getting some swagger:
"We designed the eight-year tax credit extension very purposely," said Rhone Resch, president of Solar Energy Industries Association. "We believe that at the end of that time, solar will have achieved grid parity, which means simply that we will be the lowest-cost source of retail electricity in almost all 50 states."
If solar power will be cost-competitive with current new coal in eight years, and coal with carbon sequestration is a least 10-15 years out, and coal with sequestration will cost substantially more than current new coal ... explain to me again why anybody thinks coal with sequestration will be implemented on a wide scale in the U.S., ever? I don't get the math.
Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7
Comments
View as Flat
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:50 am
20 Oct 2008
Hence, the 8 year timeline.
Permalink
jimbeyer Posted 7:12 am
20 Oct 2008
Does this cost parity include the added generation capacity needed to provide power at night? Just wondering....
I don't think coal with sequestering will ever be practical, by the way.
Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.
Permalink
KenG Posted 9:58 am
20 Oct 2008
Permalink
Duggles Posted 11:00 am
20 Oct 2008
Permalink
KenG Posted 10:53 pm
20 Oct 2008
German CCS
Permalink
jimbeyer Posted 12:42 am
21 Oct 2008
I feel very funny about this technology. Probably not logical. Part of me thinks the whole thing is simply hopeless if U.S./Europe builds one CCS plant while China builds 5 regular ones. How can we be serious about this technology without some international agreement in place? And who verifies that no one cheats? If China can cheat with their own dairy products, they can cheat about this.
This tempts me to want to simply take coal out of the equation. Perhaps too simplistic....
Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 2:42 am
21 Oct 2008
I know of none connected to a coal plant. However, inadvertent CCS from air has demonstrated itself on a large scale.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, author of How fire can be tamed
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 3:13 am
21 Oct 2008
"Let's build a boat."
"Well, the technology gives me a funny feeling. Won't we have to wear hollowed-out watermelons as head protection? What if the eye holes don't line up?"
The whole thing is not hopeless, although discussions of CCS as if it were an attribute of a plant -- implying that only when all existing plants are replaced with CCS ones will those existing plants' emissions be reduced to zero -- are useful if you wish to avoid hope.
I think Beyer can add two and two. Let him therefore examine his idea about CCS becoming more expensive over time by determining the thickness of the dust layer 500 gigatonnes of CO2 would make, on the Sahara desert say, if it were precipitated there as MgCO3.
Or hey, don't bother with the arithmetic, Jim, just jump directly to the apology.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, author of How fire can be tamed
Permalink
jimbeyer Posted 4:47 am
21 Oct 2008
Interesting points include:
Separates capture from a particular source, including coal.
Could be run with intermittent energy sources (wind,solar) instead of efficiency hit on more valid on-demand source such as coal.
Although concentrations are much lower, major energy costs/issues occur with restoring absorbent or moving, storing CO2.
Correctly separates the cost of CCS from energy production, as it probably should. Costs of stand-alone CCS may even be lower due to use of intermittent energy sources.
Not all that expensive to collect CO2 from ambient air; surprisingly low, in fact. New absorbents would lower costs further.
I think the main issue with CCS is that if it isn't done in a big way, the results of a partial attempt seem pretty silly; saving a few coal plants worth of CO2 while China and India build dozens more each year. I agree one must start somewhere, however...
Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.
Permalink
Duggles Posted 7:35 am
21 Oct 2008
Permalink