Steven Chu's Science Magazine Editorial: Carbon Capture and Sequestration

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=79707582290&_fb_noscript=1

Science Magazine Editorial: Carbon Capture and Sequestration

Friday, October 2, 2009 at 4:01pm

Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have caused the climate to change, and a dramatic reduction of these emissions is essential to reduce the risk of future devastating effects. On the other hand, access to energy is the basis of much of the current and future prosperity of the world. Eighty percent of this energy is derived from fossil fuel. The world has abundant fossil fuel reserves, particularly coal. The United States possesses one-quarter of the known coal supply, and the United States, Russia, China, and India account for two-thirds of the reserves. Coal accounts for roughly 25% of the world energy supply and 40% of the carbon emissions.* It is highly unlikely that any of these countries will turn their back on coal any time soon, and for this reason, the capture and storage of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants must be aggressively pursued.

This special issue of Science discusses the potential role of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) in reducing CO2 emissions. The scale of CCS needed to make a significant dent in worldwide carbon emissions is staggering. Roughly 6 billion metric tons of coal are used each year, producing 18 billion tons of CO2. In contrast, we now sequester a few million metric tons of CO2 per year. At geological storage densities of CO2 ( 0.6 kg/m3), underground sequestration will require a storage volume of 30,000 km3/year. This may be sufficient storage capacity, but more testing is required to demonstrate such capacity and integrity.

We should pursue a range of options for new coal-fired power plants (such as coal gasification, burning coal in an oxygen atmosphere, or postcombustion capture) to determine the most cost-effective approach to burn fuel and reduce the total amount of CO2 emitted. No matter which technology ultimately proves best for new plants, we will still need to retrofit existing plants and new plants that will be built before CCS is routinely deployed. Each new 1-gigawatt coal plant is a billion-dollar investment and, once built, will be used for decades.

Estimates of CCS costs vary considerably, but experience with other pollution control technologies such as the scrubbing of SO2 and NOx show that costs can be considerably lower than initial estimates. Furthermore, new ideas are now being explored, such as more efficient, lower-temperature catalytic conversion of coal to hydrogen and methane, CO2 capture based on phase separation, and polygeneration (production of variable mixtures of electricity, methane, liquid fuel, and ammonia). In the natural world, sequestration of CO2 occurs through photosynthesis, calcification of CO2 by phytoplankton, and mineralization in ground root systems. Can we enhance natural processes ("reforestation plus") or draw inspiration from nature as a starting point for artificial capture? Similarly, nature provides proof that the energy penalty for releasing adsorbed CO2 in postcombustion capture can be decreased: Through carbonic anhydrases, our blood captures CO2 created by cell metabolism and releases it in the lungs with no enthalpic energy penalty.

Public support of CCS R&D is essential, and for this reason, $3.4 billion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money is being invested by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in CCS R&D. The DOE is also supporting the testing of CO2 sequestration in seven different U.S. geologic formations. To accelerate global dissemination of CCS technology and expertise, international collaborations are essential. The G-8 leaders called for at least 20 CCS projects by 2010. In July, I announced a new U.S.–China Clean Energy Research Center that will facilitate joint research in several areas, including CCS. Intellectual property developed jointly will be shared between our countries.

There are many hurdles to making CCS a reality, but none appear insurmountable. The DOE goal is to support R&D, as well as pilot CCS projects so that widespread deployment of CCS can begin in 8 to 10 years. This is an aggressive goal, but the climate problem compels us to act with fierce urgency.
________________________________________
* http://energy.gov/carbongraph

[groovedaddy]

1. Is it just me or am I missing something. The heavy reliance upon fossil fuels, coal in particular,

is always sited as the reason that it isn't going away any time soon. Yet alternative means of generating electricity do exist. If governments subsidized alternatives to the extent to which they currently subsidize fossil fuels wouldn't the alternative sources be in a better position to replace fossil fuels?

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. I honestly believe that Chu and the Obama Administration want to move away from fossil fuels

However, they are realists.

Over the course of more than a century, we’ve put in place an infrastructure that is based on burning fossil fuels. It is impossible to make that go away over night as much as we might like to.

We need to roll out clean energy sources as fast as we can! However, at the same time, we need to limit the damage still being done by our current (dirty) energy sources.

[groovedaddy]

4. I don't expect it to happen over night. But the way the fossil fuel industry STILL fights

the whole notion of climate change and given the deep pockets they have, they can make it drag out for a long, long time.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. "If governments subsidized alternatives to the extent to which they … subsidize fossil fuels …"

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-g20-climate26-2009sep26,0,5748722.story

G-20 leaders pledge to phase out fossil fuel subsidies

The pledge, though purposely vague, is clearly directed at tax breaks and government assistance for oil, coal and other fossil fuels. It wins praise from environmentalists.

By Jim Tankersley

September 26, 2009

Reporting from Pittsburgh - World leaders at the Group of 20 summit pledged to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels in the "medium term" Friday, a nebulous goal that the leaders nevertheless said could make a noticeable dent in global warming.

The pledge is purposely vague, though it is clearly directed at tax breaks and government assistance for oil, coal and other fossil fuels. It does not set a date for subsidy phase-outs, nor does it specify what would count as a subsidy or how countries would police compliance.

The pledge explicitly protects cash payments and other programs designed to help the poor afford energy, along with subsidies for renewable energy. But it leaves considerable gray areas. For example, it is unclear whether a prohibited subsidy would include greenhouse-gas emissions permits to be issued free to coal plants that would be created under climate legislation passed recently by the House.

Environmentalists hailed the pledge as a building block for international efforts to curb global warming and as a small burst of momentum in the run-up to international climate-change treaty negotiations in Copenhagen in December.

…

[Nihil]

14. Not time to hold your breath on that one yet though ...

> The pledge is purposely vague, though it is clearly directed at tax
> breaks and government assistance for oil, coal and other fossil fuels.
> It does not set a date for subsidy phase-outs, nor does it specify
> what would count as a subsidy or how countries would police compliance.

Not quite what one would hope for if people were taking the problem seriously.

:argh:

[JohnWxy]

7. I think this is to some degree a political calculation to placate the coal interests while we

invest in renewable technologies. I think they see it as a necessary "pay-off" which will in time probalby result in something. Whether or not it's cost effective remains to be seen.

[NNadir]

9. The so called "renewable industry" is the lipstick on the coal pig.

Every single, without exception, person who spends his or her time in this forum advancing stupid Rube Goldberg Schemes to save his or her car CULTure life style with so called "renewable" energy - some of which consist entirely of strip mining the soil, for instance, opposes the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy, the only scalable form of energy that has displaced significant coal in this country or any other country.

I hold every member of the "renewables will save us" car cults - NOT ONE of whom gives any evidence of having ever cracked open a science book - directly responsible for this:

[kristopher]

10. .

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[kristopher]

5. This is a sop to fossil fuel interests while the climate bill is going through Congress.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. So, you're saying that when “the climate bill” is passed, all of this will change

i.e. all of the money in the budget for carbon capture will be withdrawn, FutureGen will be canceled again (remember, it was canceled by the George W. Bush administration.)

This entire charade will be dropped.

Is that right?

Would you care to bet?

[kristopher]

11. So you are reduced to strawman arguments?

No, I think they will continue to fund research into CCS just as they continued to fund renewables. Going from research to deployment is a totally different animal, however.

It really is simple - Coal may be cheap but the net energy gain is already fairly low, on the order of 15:1, and it is declining. We have developed specific technologies for mining that produce the low prices we currently have for coal. The supply of coal that is able to be extracted with that technology is, however, very limited in relation to the large reserves that you frequently hear about. The bulk of our reserves are in narrow, thin seams that we currently do not have any way to mine at a price that even approximates what is delivered by today's mountaintop removal.

Both the impending change in reserve profile and the penalties associated CCS are going to have a big effect in the areas of economics and net energy.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. Clearly, I misunderstood your statement

“This is a sop to fossil fuel interests while the climate bill is going through Congress.”

So, at what point can we test whether this is true or not, and what test will we be able to apply to determine its truth or falsity?

[kristopher]

13. I already addressed that.

Just watch what actually gets deployed.

I gave you an example of how a current head to head competition between a state of the art coal plant and an offshore wind farm ended with the immediate elimination of the coal plant - and that was giving the coal plant every possible consideration that it would be equipped with CCS if and when the technology ever became available without counting the unknown costs of that system as points scored against it in the evaluation. The trend against building new coal plants nationwide is clearly against them - again for reasons of financial uncertainty that I've specified. Both of these bits of evidence have at their root a growing policy movement towards the elimination of fossil fuels and a restructuring of our energy system around renewables.

That is a trend that is only going to increase.

If CCS ever becomes an economically viable alternative (unlikely for the reasons stated), it will be competing against an infrastructure redesigned around renewable energy sources. Among other things I told you V2G was coming, I told you PHEVs were coming, I told you offshore wind was coming, and I told you CAES was coming. All of these topics were raised here first by me making the same sort of prediction as I am on CCS, so I feel my track record of demonstrated knowledge regarding the topic of carbon management is solid.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. I shall call you “Chanticleer" n/t

[kristopher]

16. You may as well...

Your inability to deal with complexity leads you astray on everything else. It is too bad for you that facts are such stubborn things.

What is totally inexplicable to me is that anyone would still be defending hydrogen for transportation and the continued building of coal plants. When objectively compared to the alternatives there is simply no rational basis for your position - that's why you are unable to actually make an argument and rely instead on a series of flighty thoughts arrived at while you search feverishly for yet another news item that you think might give validity to your irrationality.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. For you, the world is clear-cut

You have an ideal in mind. I have a similar ideal in mind.

“Wind” and “Solar” are both sufficient to provide the energy we need. No argument there.
Coal is bad. CCS is a kludge. CCS doesn't make coal good, it makes it less bad.

What you fail to acknowledge is that it will take time to make a transition from our current (far from ideal) situation to an ideal situation, and that we don't know what that eventual "ideal" situation will be.

Even the most optimistic scenarios do not suggest that renewables can shoulder the load immediately:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_2030.html">20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan">A Solar Grand Plan

A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.

We need to dramatically cut carbon emissions much faster than that, (some say http://www.earth-policy.org/">as rapidly as 80% by 2020.)

The DoE study sees carbon capture and sequestration as an essential technology to rapidly cutting greenhouse gas emissions. I see it as undesirable, and inelegant, but perhaps a pragmatic necessity. James Hansen seems to see it the same way:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf

29 December 2008

Michelle and Barack Obama
Chicago and Washington, D.C.
United States of America

Dear Michelle and Barack,

…

Science and policy cannot be divorced. It is still feasible to avert climate disasters, but only if policies are consistent with what science indicates to be required. Our three recommendations derive from the science, including logical inferences based on empirical information about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of specific past policy approaches.

(1) Moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO₂.

This is the sine qua non for solving the climate problem. Coal emissions must be phased out rapidly. Yes, it is a great challenge, but one with enormous side benefits.

…

CCS also deserves R&D support. There is no such thing as clean coal at this time, and it is doubtful that we will ever be able to fully eliminate emissions of mercury, other heavy metals, and radioactive material in the mining and burning of coal. However, because of the enormous number of dirty coal-fired power plants in existence, the abundance of the fuel, and the fact that CCS technology could be used at biofuel-fired power plants to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide, the technology deserves strong R&D support.

…

It is a bridge technology, to help us get from where we are to where we eventually want to be (rather like a gasoline/electric hybrid automobile, far from ideal, but a possible bridge.)


The same goes for hydrogen. Yes, yes, ideally, electric cars which recharged in 5 minutes or less and had a range of 200 miles, and stored all of that charge in a small, lightweight package and were comparably priced to an ICE-powered car would be great. Today, they are not a reality. (We'll see what EEstor eventually ships.)

Today, fuel-cells offer a number of advantages over batteries.

[kristopher]

19. My only ideal is what works best.

And to understand that I've spent years studying human culture as it relates to energy, general policymaking, energy policy, economics, energy systems, economics of energy systems, and all relevant energy technologies. I came at this issue with no preferences and after it all I ended up at exactly the same place Jacobson and virtually every other *independent* researcher has.

First:
"Even the most optimistic scenarios do not suggest that renewables can shoulder the load immediately."

Where do you get the idea that is "the most optimistic scenario"? Gore's plan calls for a 10 year transition. It can be done with political will. Why not negotiate from the position you prefer instead of starting by giving away the farm? All you are doing is trying to give the green light to coal companies to build new coal plants.

Second, I'm not ignoring or failing to acknowledge that there are going to be transition technologies. It is just that CCS is a very poor choice as a transition technology. The new plant or retrofit cost/kw is unknown, and the acceptance of the concept allows fossil fuel interests to greenwash their worst product. It is pure, speculative bullshit that has its roots in the strength of that lobby within our government. If you think government agencies such as DOE are an objective source for evaluating this issue then I can only say that you are extremely naive and that you seem to be unable to recognize the effect of political maneuvering when it spills over in the policy realm. However I should add that you don't seem to have such blindness when that maneuvering is contrary to what you WANT to believe.

You keep making the claim that our needs will be best served by this
- as yet undeveloped capture technology
- that depends on a yet to be developed design for storage
- in a yet to be identified storage medium
- at a totally unknown cost
- can be retrofitted to existing plants
- in an as yet unknown manner.

With all of that you assert that it is faster/more practical/less expensive or something that makes it preferable to just using the same money to act now and build the permanent infrastructure we are going to eventually end up with.
That is a false belief no matter how many gray lit reports focused on perpetuating a business-as-usual approach you trot out.

The same thing with hydrogen. You say it has advantages over batteries. SO FUCKING WHAT? It ALSO has DISADVANTAGES in relation to batteries and the DISADVANTAGES OUTWEIGH THE ADVANTAGES.

Please get a grip on reality.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. "My only ideal is what works best"

(I believe that is a tautology.)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideal

…

1 : existing as an archetypal idea
2 a : existing as a mental image or in fancy or imagination only; broadly : lacking practicality b : relating to or constituting mental images, ideas, or conceptions

…

I have learned that sometimes I must settle for what can be done, even if it is not ideal.



I like Al Gore. I really do. However, he has not presented a plan per se (at least not that I'm aware of) he has presented “http://www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/">A Generational Challenge to Repower America”:

http://www.wecansolveit.org/content/pages/287/#looklike

…

What does 100% renewable and clean energy electricity look like?

• The Vice President is offering a challenge, not a prescription, to develop a safe, reliable, efficient and clean electricity system within a decade.


• When we use the microwave or plug in a coffee maker, our electricity system will function just like it does today, but behind the scenes, it will look and function quite differently and much cleaner.


• The US will be able to reduce our demand, as much as 30% through efficiency.


• We can have a unified national grid that cost-effectively and reliably moves electricity around the country from our energy sources to our energy users at the moment it's needed.


• The electricity system can be a mix of carbon-free baseload and distpatchable sources like solar thermal with storage, geothermal, wind, solar photovoltaics, biomass, existing nuclear and hydropower, and coal and natural gas power if they are able to capture the carbon.


• As soon as today, we can begin calling on our leaders to put the policies in place that will help our businesses, engineers, investors, and utilities to begin ramping up manufacturing and installation of clean energy systems to meet the challenge.

…

I guess you’d forgotten that bit about carbon capture…


Here, we see claims about the "http://www.wecansolveit.org/content/solution/adoption_of_renewables/">Adoption of Renewables." (For example, “When connected together through a national grid, wind power could provide at least one-third of our total electricity needs.” “Just a small area of solar thermal in the Southwest could supply all of the US electricity needs.” {Well, if you call thousands of square miles small…}) They are claims I generally agree with, but I don't notice any timetable.


Maybe you can point me to some place where he puts some meat on these bones?

[kristopher]

21. Maybe if you can't read more than one sentence...

My only ideal is what works best. And to understand that I've spent years studying human culture as it relates to energy, general policymaking, energy policy, economics, energy systems, economics of energy systems, and all relevant energy technologies. I came at this issue with no preferences and after it all I ended up at exactly the same place Jacobson and virtually every other *independent* researcher has.

First:
"Even the most optimistic scenarios do not suggest that renewables can shoulder the load immediately."

Where do you get the idea that is "the most optimistic scenario"? Gore's plan calls for a 10 year transition. It can be done with political will. Why not negotiate from the position you prefer instead of starting by giving away the farm? All you are doing is trying to give the green light to coal companies to build new coal plants.

Second, I'm not ignoring or failing to acknowledge that there are going to be transition technologies. It is just that CCS is a very poor choice as a transition technology. The new plant or retrofit cost/kw is unknown, and the acceptance of the concept allows fossil fuel interests to greenwash their worst product. It is pure, speculative bullshit that has its roots in the strength of that lobby within our government. If you think government agencies such as DOE are an objective source for evaluating this issue then I can only say that you are extremely naive and that you seem to be unable to recognize the effect of political maneuvering when it spills over in the policy realm. However I should add that you don't seem to have such blindness when that maneuvering is contrary to what you WANT to believe.

You keep making the claim that our needs will be best served by this
- as yet undeveloped capture technology
- that depends on a yet to be developed design for storage
- in a yet to be identified storage medium
- at a totally unknown cost
- can be retrofitted to existing plants
- in an as yet unknown manner.

With all of that you assert that it is faster/more practical/less expensive or something that makes it preferable to just using the same money to act now and build the permanent infrastructure we are going to eventually end up with.
That is a false belief no matter how many gray lit reports focused on perpetuating a business-as-usual approach you trot out.

The same thing with hydrogen. You say it has advantages over batteries. SO FUCKING WHAT? It ALSO has DISADVANTAGES in relation to batteries and the DISADVANTAGES OUTWEIGH THE ADVANTAGES.

Please get a grip on reality.

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. Back to repeating yourself again

That's my cue…

[kristopher]

23. Miscue you mean

I've taken the time to write broad answers to your flighty comments, and frankly it is a waste of time. Instead of directing your reply at the meat of the arguments I've been making you opt to select one TANGENTIAL point (that is true) and attempt to split hairs and trot off to tilt at yet another windmill.

My only ideal is what works best. And to understand that I've spent years studying human culture as it relates to energy, general policymaking, energy policy, economics, energy systems, economics of energy systems, and all relevant energy technologies. I came at this issue with no preferences and after it all I ended up at exactly the same place Jacobson and virtually every other *independent* researcher has.

First:
"Even the most optimistic scenarios do not suggest that renewables can shoulder the load immediately."

Where do you get the idea that is "the most optimistic scenario"? Gore's plan calls for a 10 year transition. It can be done with political will. Why not negotiate from the position you prefer instead of starting by giving away the farm? All you are doing is trying to give the green light to coal companies to build new coal plants.

Second, I'm not ignoring or failing to acknowledge that there are going to be transition technologies. It is just that CCS is a very poor choice as a transition technology. The new plant or retrofit cost/kw is unknown, and the acceptance of the concept allows fossil fuel interests to greenwash their worst product. It is pure, speculative bullshit that has its roots in the strength of that lobby within our government. If you think government agencies such as DOE are an objective source for evaluating this issue then I can only say that you are extremely naive and that you seem to be unable to recognize the effect of political maneuvering when it spills over in the policy realm. However I should add that you don't seem to have such blindness when that maneuvering is contrary to what you WANT to believe.

You keep making the claim that our needs will be best served by this
- as yet undeveloped capture technology
- that depends on a yet to be developed design for storage
- in a yet to be identified storage medium
- at a totally unknown cost
- can be retrofitted to existing plants
- in an as yet unknown manner.

With all of that you assert that it is faster/more practical/less expensive or something that makes it preferable to just using the same money to act now and build the permanent infrastructure we are going to eventually end up with.
That is a false belief no matter how many gray lit reports focused on perpetuating a business-as-usual approach you trot out.

The same thing with hydrogen. You say it has advantages over batteries. SO FUCKING WHAT? It ALSO has DISADVANTAGES in relation to batteries and the DISADVANTAGES OUTWEIGH THE ADVANTAGES.

Please get a grip on reality.

[kristopher]

17. About the risk averse nature of capital...

Wealth management due for $10 trillion shift: BlackRock exec

By Joe Rauch

BOSTON (Reuters) - U.S. financial advisors are due for upheaval as baby boomers, controlling $10 trillion in assets, reach retirement age and shift their investment priorities, said a senior executive at asset manager BlackRock Inc (BLK.N).

Baby boomers will move the industry's main client goal from one from accumulation -- investing in assets that create the most value over time -- to one of "decumulation," said Frank Porcelli, who heads U.S. retail for BlackRock, at the Reuters Global Wealth Management Summit in Boston.

"The questions won't be, 'How did I do against the S&P 500?'" he said. "It's, 'Can I meet these liabilities?'"

Instead of a focus on building wealth and a retirement nest egg, those clients will soon focus on making the money last.

Baby boomers, he said, are increasingly spooked by the turbulent markets of the past year, and concerned with ensuring their funds last through retirements that could last 20 years or more.

The $10 trillion that will be in the control of the newly-retired will dictate a more conservative investment and spending approach.

BlackRock is one ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5956HO20091006

[sharp_stick]

2. Amazing

when was the last time an American Government Secretary actually used and referenced real science?