<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for How much CO2 do our nation’s coal and gas plants actually produce?]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by neosapiens http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-07-co2-coal-gas-plants-produce/ Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:01:35 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-07-co2-coal-gas-plants-produce/1 That suggests that there's a lot of opportunity for effiency improvement in both the coal and gas plant fleets.  Cap and trade ought to push along the most cost-effective improvements to our existing coal and gas plants, in addition to driving renewables.  Is anyone working on figuring out what can be done and what it will cost?  There must be something better than spending trillions of $$ on CO2 capture. Are there ways to retrofit gas plants for efficiency that make economic sense?  Are there heat recovery, biomass or biofuel strategies that could be employed?

]]> That suggests that there's a lot of opportunity for effiency improvement in both the coal and gas plant fleets.  Cap and trade ought to push along the most cost-effective improvements to our existing coal and gas plants, in addition to driving renewables.  Is anyone working on figuring out what can be done and what it will cost?  There must be something better than spending trillions of $$ on CO2 capture. Are there ways to retrofit gas plants for efficiency that make economic sense?  Are there heat recovery, biomass or biofuel strategies that could be employed?

]]> Comment #2 by Sean Casten http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-07-co2-coal-gas-plants-produce/ Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:46:11 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-07-co2-coal-gas-plants-produce/2 There's not much on the coal side, as all that mandated pollution control drives efficiency down.  So the only way to get it back up is to (a) allow coal plants to go back to 1960's level (non-CO2) pollution levels or (b) overhaul the Clean Air Act.  The first option is environmentally distasteful and the second is - while highly desirable - a political non-starter, at least in the near term.  (As I've noted before, CAA reform is absolutely necessary for legally-coherent GHG policy, and I think it will eventually get done - but I don't see anyone in EPA or elsewhere pushing to do so right away.)

On the gas fleet, the story is a bit more nuanced.  We've brought a lot of combined cycle gas turbines on line that have greatly increased fleet efficiency, and in theory, we ought to be able to continue to do so.  However, there are operational challenges due to the fact that combined cycle gas turbines don't like to turn on and off as quickly as simple cycle gas turbines (e.g., the ones without a steam turbine on the back end capturing the waste heat from the gas turbine on the front end).  In some parts of the country, those high efficiency units can get enough run hours to run anyway, but in many instances, fleet operators are operationally forced to keep their efficient stuff off so that they can run the quick-to-dispatch stuff on the margin.  Note that as load grows (e.g., once the recession ends), we'll be able to run those combined cycle turbines a little more often.  But my guess from looking at the data is that for the foreseeable future, we're unlikely to see much continuing enhancement in the gas fleet. 

Note also that the biggest opportunities for generation efficiency are building the generation closer to the load, where the heat can be re-used.  That means stranding a lot of the assets that have driven the trends in the data above, which is a good thing in the long term, and could be done very quickly - but will require a regulatory reform comparable to what we saw after the 1992 EPACT to drive a similar step-function increase in fleet efficiency.

]]> There's not much on the coal side, as all that mandated pollution control drives efficiency down.  So the only way to get it back up is to (a) allow coal plants to go back to 1960's level (non-CO2) pollution levels or (b) overhaul the Clean Air Act.  The first option is environmentally distasteful and the second is - while highly desirable - a political non-starter, at least in the near term.  (As I've noted before, CAA reform is absolutely necessary for legally-coherent GHG policy, and I think it will eventually get done - but I don't see anyone in EPA or elsewhere pushing to do so right away.)

On the gas fleet, the story is a bit more nuanced.  We've brought a lot of combined cycle gas turbines on line that have greatly increased fleet efficiency, and in theory, we ought to be able to continue to do so.  However, there are operational challenges due to the fact that combined cycle gas turbines don't like to turn on and off as quickly as simple cycle gas turbines (e.g., the ones without a steam turbine on the back end capturing the waste heat from the gas turbine on the front end).  In some parts of the country, those high efficiency units can get enough run hours to run anyway, but in many instances, fleet operators are operationally forced to keep their efficient stuff off so that they can run the quick-to-dispatch stuff on the margin.  Note that as load grows (e.g., once the recession ends), we'll be able to run those combined cycle turbines a little more often.  But my guess from looking at the data is that for the foreseeable future, we're unlikely to see much continuing enhancement in the gas fleet. 

Note also that the biggest opportunities for generation efficiency are building the generation closer to the load, where the heat can be re-used.  That means stranding a lot of the assets that have driven the trends in the data above, which is a good thing in the long term, and could be done very quickly - but will require a regulatory reform comparable to what we saw after the 1992 EPACT to drive a similar step-function increase in fleet efficiency.

]]> Comment #3 by georgiact http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-07-co2-coal-gas-plants-produce/ Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:40:18 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-07-co2-coal-gas-plants-produce/3 CO2 is NOT a pollutant and it certainly has almost no impact on climate!!!!  This has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  The jig is almost up.  Atmospheric CO2 could triple and we wouldn't even be able to measure its impact on climate.  We have a lot of REAL environmental and energy challenges to deal with.  All the money and time being wasted on trying to reduce CO2 could have been spent on other serious issues like hypoxia, invasive species, mercury, stormwater runoff etc.  The only thing that trying to cap CO2 has done is hurt the environment by promoting horrible government-subsidized solutions such as ethanol... which is a lousy fuel, causes more real pollution to be emitted, wastes water and land, and drives food prices up.  It would be great if windmills and solar panels were workable solutions, but they are not, at least on a large scale.  If we want to be taken seriously on the real issues, we need to come up with real, economical solutions to actual environmental problems, otherwise, we risk loosing credibility to the point where we will be marginalized beyond repair.  For example, it is not credible to decry CO2 on the one hand, and then denounce nuclear on the other.   

]]> CO2 is NOT a pollutant and it certainly has almost no impact on climate!!!!  This has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  The jig is almost up.  Atmospheric CO2 could triple and we wouldn't even be able to measure its impact on climate.  We have a lot of REAL environmental and energy challenges to deal with.  All the money and time being wasted on trying to reduce CO2 could have been spent on other serious issues like hypoxia, invasive species, mercury, stormwater runoff etc.  The only thing that trying to cap CO2 has done is hurt the environment by promoting horrible government-subsidized solutions such as ethanol... which is a lousy fuel, causes more real pollution to be emitted, wastes water and land, and drives food prices up.  It would be great if windmills and solar panels were workable solutions, but they are not, at least on a large scale.  If we want to be taken seriously on the real issues, we need to come up with real, economical solutions to actual environmental problems, otherwise, we risk loosing credibility to the point where we will be marginalized beyond repair.  For example, it is not credible to decry CO2 on the one hand, and then denounce nuclear on the other.   

]]> Comment #4 by Christopher S. Johnson http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-07-co2-coal-gas-plants-produce/ Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:26:46 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-07-co2-coal-gas-plants-produce/4  

NASA: 

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/causes 

 

“Most scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps 

heat radiating from Earth toward space.” 

 

 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) 

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2009/ocp2009-ccsp.htm 

 

“Climate research conducted over the past several years indicates that most of the 

global warming experienced in the past few decades is very likely due to the observed 

increase in greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities.” 

 

 

 AGU (American Geophysical Union) 

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml 

 

“The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of 

the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the 

extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, 

and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not 

natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of 

greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.” 

 

 

And on, and on, and on.  Universities, Global Panels, Space Programs, 

Government science programs, and privately funded institutions – over, and 

over, and over again, explain this situation to the public. 


 


]]>  

NASA: 

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/causes 

 

“Most scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps 

heat radiating from Earth toward space.” 

 

 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) 

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2009/ocp2009-ccsp.htm 

 

“Climate research conducted over the past several years indicates that most of the 

global warming experienced in the past few decades is very likely due to the observed 

increase in greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities.” 

 

 

 AGU (American Geophysical Union) 

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml 

 

“The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of 

the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the 

extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, 

and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not 

natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of 

greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.” 

 

 

And on, and on, and on.  Universities, Global Panels, Space Programs, 

Government science programs, and privately funded institutions – over, and 

over, and over again, explain this situation to the public. 


 


]]> Comment #5 by Tasermons Partner http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-07-co2-coal-gas-plants-produce/ Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:07:57 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-07-co2-coal-gas-plants-produce/5 Even if ya don't believe CO2 is responsible for global warming, it is a universal fact that CO2 is acidic (a simple pH test can confirm this).

Increases in CO2 lead to increasingly acidic water and soil.

Therefore, CO2 is a pollutant.

]]> Even if ya don't believe CO2 is responsible for global warming, it is a universal fact that CO2 is acidic (a simple pH test can confirm this).

Increases in CO2 lead to increasingly acidic water and soil.

Therefore, CO2 is a pollutant.

]]> Comment #6 by jestbill http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-07-co2-coal-gas-plants-produce/ Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:08:24 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-07-co2-coal-gas-plants-produce/6 Ummmm....three things?  Looks to me like maybe 2-1/2:

1. Switch fuels.

2. Use less energy by being efficient.

3. Use less energy period.

So let's shut off some of those inefficient coal plants that even investors don't like and solve both the CO2 problem AND the other pollution problems.

This article is flawed mainly by its use of "intensivity."  What solves any of these problems is a reduction of the total production of the named pollutants, not a calculation that stays the same if the trouble doubles.

 

]]> Ummmm....three things?  Looks to me like maybe 2-1/2:

1. Switch fuels.

2. Use less energy by being efficient.

3. Use less energy period.

So let's shut off some of those inefficient coal plants that even investors don't like and solve both the CO2 problem AND the other pollution problems.

This article is flawed mainly by its use of "intensivity."  What solves any of these problems is a reduction of the total production of the named pollutants, not a calculation that stays the same if the trouble doubles.

 

]]> Comment #7 by Sean Casten http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-07-co2-coal-gas-plants-produce/ Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:25:55 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-07-co2-coal-gas-plants-produce/7 Jestbill,

Responding to each of your points separately:

1. My framing of three solutions is meant to be maximally broad, stepping incrementally throught the fuel chain, from resource extraction to resource conversion to (converted) resource utilization.   Make CO2-beneficial changes to the first bucket and you're fuel switching.  Make CO2 beneficial changes to the second bucket and you're investing in efficiency.  Make CO2-beneficial changes to the third bucket and you're conserving.  But there are no solutions that lie outside of those three buckets (unless you're into CCS and geoengineering, that is...)

2. Re the use of the word "intensivity", blame my editor.  It's a charged word, and not in anyway intended in the Bush-speak way of suggesting that we can double GDP, cut CO2/GDP by 10% and claim victory for an increase.  However, as used here - CO2/MWh - it is an implicit efficiency measure, per the framing in point 1 above.  Economic growth scales roughly with MWh use, not CO2 release.  Just as the comfort of your home is a function of air temperature, not fuel purchased to maintain that air temperature, the "comfort" of the economy is based to some degree on access to electricity (among other things), not the fossil fuel burned to generate that electricity.  So just as a home-owner is well served to keep the refrigerator door closed and caulk their windows, our economy is well served by burning less fuel per MWh.  What's striking is the degree to which the coal fleet has failed to do so.

]]> Jestbill,

Responding to each of your points separately:

1. My framing of three solutions is meant to be maximally broad, stepping incrementally throught the fuel chain, from resource extraction to resource conversion to (converted) resource utilization.   Make CO2-beneficial changes to the first bucket and you're fuel switching.  Make CO2 beneficial changes to the second bucket and you're investing in efficiency.  Make CO2-beneficial changes to the third bucket and you're conserving.  But there are no solutions that lie outside of those three buckets (unless you're into CCS and geoengineering, that is...)

2. Re the use of the word "intensivity", blame my editor.  It's a charged word, and not in anyway intended in the Bush-speak way of suggesting that we can double GDP, cut CO2/GDP by 10% and claim victory for an increase.  However, as used here - CO2/MWh - it is an implicit efficiency measure, per the framing in point 1 above.  Economic growth scales roughly with MWh use, not CO2 release.  Just as the comfort of your home is a function of air temperature, not fuel purchased to maintain that air temperature, the "comfort" of the economy is based to some degree on access to electricity (among other things), not the fossil fuel burned to generate that electricity.  So just as a home-owner is well served to keep the refrigerator door closed and caulk their windows, our economy is well served by burning less fuel per MWh.  What's striking is the degree to which the coal fleet has failed to do so.

]]>