There was some question in this thread about what exactly John Edwards means when he says he would "require that all new coal-fired plants be built with the required technology to capture their carbon dioxide emissions." Would he require that new coal plants sequester their emissions, or merely that they be built in such a way that they could sequester their emissions at some point in the future?
I called the Edwards campaign today. The answer is the latter: the ban would not require coal plants to sequester their emissions; it would merely require compatibility.
This is enormously significant difference. More later.
Not all green jobs are created equal
Mountaintop removal defenders disrupt July 4th music festival in West Virginia
Comments View as Flat
GreenEngineer Posted 8:47 am
10 Sep 2007
next question
What is their criteria for "compatibility"? Does this mean IGCC (as it should), or does this include the (currently pie-in-the-sky) possibility of sequestration from conventional plants?
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:54 am
10 Sep 2007
It means IGCC ...
... though to be honest, they didn't strike me as having a very good grasp on the subject. ("What is it, 'IPGG'?" "No, IGCC." "Yeah, that.")
grist.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:54 am
10 Sep 2007
All I know is that
You can gasify the coal before you burn it. This allows you to separate the CO2 from the combustibles but,
- Gasifying coal is expensive, so you increase costs for no return if you don't use the gas for something.
- I am familiar with only two ideas to get rid of the CO2. Pump it down old oil wells or into the ocean floor.
Both methods are totally experimental with a low probability of success, and both require your power plant to be built near an old oil well or the ocean so you have a place to pump the CO2.If this is close to accruate, then building them makes no sense whatsoever. Anyone more knowledgeable out there to fill in the blanks?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 10:12 am
10 Sep 2007
Ah, but here's the rub
If we build a bunch of new coal plants -- even if they are IGCC plants -- we have to make it work, no matter how much money it costs. The only other alternative is simply shutting them all down.
That's why Edwards' "moratorium" is much weaker than it looks. Allowing a bunch of IGCC plants to be built commits us to making sequestration work, even if it ends up making no economic sense.
grist.org
Permalink
Chaoslillith Posted 5:53 am
11 Sep 2007
Who in the campaign did you speak with?
Name please?
I would like to verify with that person as well as with others from the campaign. Otherwise, this is unsubstantiated hearsay.
Come check out my blog. www.environmentalprogress.blogspot.com/
Permalink