Yesterday's critique of enviros' hopes for peak oil outcomes dovetails beautifully with this article from the NYT on what big coal is up to.
The future for American energy users is playing out in coal-rich areas like northeastern Wyoming, where dump trucks and bulldozers swarm around 80-foot-thick seams at a Peabody Energy strip mine here, one of the largest in the world.
Coal, the nation's favorite fuel in much of the 19th century and early 20th century, could become so again in the 21st. The United States has enough to last at least two centuries at current use rates -- reserves far greater than those of oil or natural gas. And for all the public interest in alternatives like wind and solar power, or ethanol from the heartland, coal will play a far bigger role.
The article presents two approaches being pursued by two big coal players, Peabody Energy and American Electric power, both of which are about aggressive development, and both of which do little to address climate change.
Peabody is taking a wait-and-see attitude about carbon caps, as it pursues development of traditional plants. It doesn't regard near-term carbon caps as a "material threat." American Electric, on the other hand, says, "The politics around climate issues are very real. That's why we need to move on this now." Moving on this now means building a couple of gassification plants that are less polluting but can at some point be more easily retrofitted for carbon capture.
In the NYT, American Electric Power is portrayed as the environmentally progressive coal company. But they're only building 2 gassification plants, which do nothing about CO2 yet. There's apparently 138 other plants on the drawing boards for the U.S., with a lifespan of ~50 years.
This kind of development represents a massive amount of inertia behind coal production, with no plan in place for CO2 management. Peak oil is going to trigger huge energy transitions. It looks like coal is positioning itself nicely to be our post-peak energy solution, except it's leaving climate change out of the equation.
Comments
View as Flat
odograph Posted 4:35 am
29 May 2006
For what it's worth though, in the subject of peak oil and the impact on coal use, I found a link that shows there isn't much happening yet (US Coal Consumption):
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/html/t28p01p1.html
Remarkably stable (despite the evocative text above ... "where dump trucks and bulldozers swarm around 80-foot-thick seams").
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:33 am
29 May 2006
It looks like coal to fuel will be uneccesary soon. Unless my worst fears are realized. Coal gasification powered by nuclear plants.
But the powers that be may try to justify all those new powerplants with electric cars?
But then they fear wind and solar, so generally have opposed electric cars. Is this a change in "strategery" or a flub by the duuhb.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:35 am
29 May 2006
But, higher rates will result in conservation just as higher gasoline prices do, so the impact may not be serious. You also could not ask carbon sequestering power plants to compete with conventional ones. The field will have to be leveled by government.
We also need to continue to subsidize the higher costs of that energy (instead of the food industry) for the poor to heat and cool their homes.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:55 am
29 May 2006
Solar energy is less expensive than coal energy even if the coal is free because the cost of coal burners exceeds the cost of solar collectors.
Coal power plants cost $2 per watt, plus the cost of coal, plus the cost of burning coal.
Solar power costs $1 per watt.
Solar thermal costs $0.20 per watt.
Discounted cash flow analysis with internal rates of return (including operations and maintenance cost) yields favorable results for a sunny future.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:32 am
29 May 2006
Sunlight $0 per barrel.
Yep d, why not 20 cent per kwh? A great impetus for change to renwables.
Support for consumer investment in conservation and solar panels, home battery storage, and wind. And subsidies in order to minimize the impact on familes on lower incomes.
As a new efficiently subsidized energy policy invest in homeowner and small business distributed generation and storage. Rather than corporate subsidies.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
farnishk Posted 6:59 am
29 May 2006
A quick link...
http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/15348 (Carbon Storage : An Easy Solution...For Idiots)
In a nutshell, like the pathetic attempts by oil companies to cut their own emissions while encouraging others to spew out more and more CO2, the coal generators are going to develop headline coal gas burying plants where they are feasible, and pretend that is making the blindest bit of difference to climate change.
Coal may be the future, but only if the public can be convinced that it is clean - let's make sure that this lie is exposed.
http://www.theearthblog.org
Giving The Earth A Future.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:49 pm
29 May 2006
For those doing the math, $/watt is construction capital cost of power. $/kilowatt hour is cost of energy. Energy costs depends on capacity factors, climate, fuel cost, O&M, interest rates, taxes, subsidies, distribution loss, parasitic loss, internal rates of return, and so on. Coal capacity factor may be 85% and solar capacity factor may be 25%. Coal needs a major retrofit every 7 years and solar every 25 years.
Cost of power, $/watt, is more site nonspecific and free of so many energy variables and assumptions, so its easier to compare power options. Solar power at $1/watt is 1000-sun concentrator pv, 36% efficient. I am expecting 42% performance in a few years. NREL and Spectrolab are leading developers of high-intensity pv. Organic flat plate pv is also a promising low-cost power source, but I know very little about that new technology.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:33 pm
29 May 2006
Then if some scheme to tax CO 2 emmissions actually works, the advantage will be enough to make solar soar even with no actual tax incentives.
I think that at 10 suns a concentrator tested at NREL reached 39% efficiency, even without retrieving waste heat, add maybe another 20% for that.
A fairly low tech trough collector that merely tilts with the season could get 10 suns. This is all very encouraging sunflower!
This kind of collector could be installed by regular roofing contractors or homeowner do-it-your-selfers too. How long before they have 'em at Home Depot?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink