Green Texan’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Widiculous Wonkery at its Worst

  Why not just ban or offset CO2 emissions where we can, period?

  First place to start are new electric power plants...If they can build non-fossil fueled plants, great.  If they can verifiably capture and sequester carbon, great.  

  If there are good, verifiable, and long-term carbon offsets available, OK.  If offsets are allowed, this will "create the market" for carbon trading.

  Much simpler approach, with less of this arcane nonsense few understand.

  This one simple rule can get everything started. There is no need for great conceptual castles made of sand -- no matter how ornately elaborated they may be.On Spots vs. strips posted 1 year, 7 months ago 19 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  any need for storage?

  KenG said:

  "using hydro to level renewables is a good idea, as far as it goes. However, hydro is, if I remember correctly, only about 8% of total generation so I would guess dedicating hydro to leveling would only allow wind/solar to contribute two or three times that, so renewables would still only be about 30% of total generation."

  Interesting observation about the limits of using hydro to level out fluctuating wind and solar. How does Ken figure what the proportions of hydro to other renewables would need to be?

  Another renewable supply possibility that seems large is 'dry rock' geothermal. This involves pumping water down a well and using steam that is so generated to turn a turbine.  This is distinct from tapping into 'hot water' stored in a geologic formation -- a la geysers  -- which is a far more limited resource, both geographically and in amount.

  MIT recently did a study of the potential. The western US is the best, with certain areas of very hot volcanic rock lying close to the surface.  However, the potential is there all over if you can drill deep enough. The costs were reported to be seemingly within reach of other conventional power options.

  Is this also a possible "instant-on" gap filler that could function during the times when the solar or wind output dies down?On Cost of solar cells may be driven down dramatically posted 1 year, 7 months ago 36 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  A 'breakthrough' a day keeps hard choices away

  It is fervently to be hoped that this ISN'T like previously announced "year away" breakthroughs for solar photovoltaic. Don't forget there's often lots of hype about breakthroughs in order to attract investor dollars.

  The reason I favor requiring coal plants to sequester carbon is NOT because I favor coal. Still less that I prefer it to solar. That's a red herring b/c this isn't an either-or choice.

  The reason for carbon sequestration is that:

  a. we want the shit to get cleaned up if we are going to have it at all

  b.  making utilities pay the price of cleaning it up puts a price on carbon that is not theoretical.

  Otherwise our near-term hopes for pricing carbon are based rather unrealistically on getting Congress to tax CO2 and/or implementing complex international cap and trade systems of doubtful integrity and enforceability.

  c. the greater cost for scrubbing coal emissions of CO2 will make solar and other alternatives more competitive.

  So far from the situation being coal with sequestration VERSUS solar/ renewables/ efficiency, I think these strategies work synergistically.

  As for 'intermittency', I think a full-scale, 100 percent renewable energy economy would not  distinguish between 'baseload' vs. 'peakload' as to time of day and season, in the traditional way of looking at the problem.  

  If demand exceeded combined solar and wind output at any particular moment, hydroelectric could be the gap filler. So hydro is shifted to a 'topping' cycle, instead of running constantly.  This gives a role for existing large dams should they not be decommissioned.On Cost of solar cells may be driven down dramatically posted 1 year, 8 months ago 36 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "blind alley" ? or eyes wide shut?

  CC & S doesn't need a subsidy; it needs to be a regulatory mandate for new coal plants.

  Yes, it's expensive; that's what will improve the relative economics of the renewable alternatives and speed their introduction.

  Also, carbon dioxide injection into an oil bearing strata would seem to allow for successful sequestration, considering that natural gas in such formations has already been held underground without leakage for millions of years.

  Yes, it's not anything more than transitional technology; but as such it's needed.  It's not the ultimate destination, but it can help us get there.On The blind alley of more coal posted 1 year, 8 months ago 19 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  low-hanging fruit?

  Do the simpler stuff first that has lower cost and higher gain.  Maybe such a near-term focus can include:

  1. capturing soot, including disseminating & requiring cleaner diesel engines

  2. reducing fugitive methane emissions by plugging leaks in natural gas infrastructure plus capturing & burning the methane from landfills

  3.  preserving old-growth forests as carbon offsets as well as planting new forest

  (preservation needs to be paired w/ planting a like area of new forests in order to really have integrity.  otherwise it counts something you DIDN'T do as being a gain.  

  Conversely, ONLY counting new tree plantings ignores other areas being deforested that offset that gain.  so to really count as a valid carbon reduction credit, there has to be both old AND new forest areas protected w/ single unit of carbon credit -- essentially doubling the amount of carbon sequestered in trees over the emissions they offset)On New study: Ordinary soot second biggest driver of climate change posted 1 year, 8 months ago 14 Responses