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.
Comments
View as Threaded
GreenEngineer Posted 8:47 am
10 Sep 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:54 am
10 Sep 2007
grist.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:54 am
10 Sep 2007
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
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
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. http://www.environmentalprogress.blogspot.com/
Permalink