'Clean' coal plants get go-ahead {in UK} (BBC)

[eppur_se_muova]

The government has given the go-ahead for a new generation of coal-fired power plants - but only if they can prove they can reduce their emissions.

Up to four new plants will be built if they are fitted with technology to trap and store CO2 emissions underground.

The technology is not yet proven and would only initially apply to 25% of power stations' output.

Green groups welcomed the move but said any new stations would still release more carbon than they stored.

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband's announcement followed confirmation in the Budget that there would be a new funding mechanism for at least two - and up to four - "demonstration" carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects.
***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8014295.stm



Will this be put or shut up time for CCS? Or will these plants be allowed to limp along even if they can't come close to meeting that 25% quota? I'm not optimistic. Someone will find a political reason to proceed with constructing more coal plants while they're perpetually "working the bugs out". :puke:

[joshcryer]

1. I personally doubt they'll succeed on any significant level, but it's better than natural gas.

Crunching the emissions for CCS coal versus gas power plants

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/may/05/emissions-ccs-coal-gas-plants

The NGOs are saying that our coal policy may still leave emissions higher because of the 75% unabated coal given only 25% CCS required at the outset. But this ignores pre-combustion CCS, which is likely to be used for at least two of the four new plants. Pre-combustion as you know captures 90% of coal emissions from the outset, with no future retrofitting necessary. The effect of pre-combustion CCS means that our policy - even from the outset - will almost certanly lead to lower emissions than the only other realistic alternative of no coal at all (which is what the NGOs would have accepted) and four new gas plants instead.

More at link. And simple math to illustrate the point.

[kristopher]

2. So you support coal...

That explains a lot.

[joshcryer]

3. Nope, I am against all emissions.

[Nederland]

4. Me too

Opposing all emissions is the only sensible position to hold for anyone who really cares about climate change.

[joshcryer]

5. Except for waste heat and water vapor, of course. :)

We can't be zero emission due to basic thermodynamics, but we can be darn close, as Jacobson has noted in this study:

Evaluating the Feasibility of a Large-Scale Wind, Water, and Sun Energy Infrastructure

Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi

A large-scale wind, water, and solar energy system can reliably supply all of the world’s energy needs, with significant benefit to climate, air quality, water quality, ecological systems, and energy security, at reasonable cost. To accomplish this, we need about 4 million 5 MW wind turbines, 90,000 300-MW solar PV plus CSP power plants, 1.9 billion 3 kW solar PV rooftop systems, and lesser amounts of geothermal, tidal, wave, and hydroelectric plants and devices. The obstacles to realizing this are primarily social and political, not technological. As discussed above, a combination of feed-in tariffs and an intelligently expanded and re-organized transmission system may be necessary but not sufficient to enough ensure rapid deployment of WWS technologies. With sensible broad-based policies and social changes, it may be possible to convert 25% of the current energy system to WWS in 10-15 years and 85% in 20-30 years. Absent that clear direction, the conversion will take longer, potentially 40-50 years.

[kristopher]

6. Then why are you promoting choices for higher levels of emissions

Coal CCS is expensive and unproved. You are crowing about a popular press article that tells you the technology barely edges out natural gas. To me the article sounds like a press release for the coal industry.

What it omits is that for every dollar we spend on coalccs we could build the same amount of natural gas generation for 1/20th the price and spend the rest on renewables.

[joshcryer]

7. I prefer fossil fuel production be expensive. Tax the fuck out of it.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Good idea

But not natural gas, obviously. It's transitional, y'know.

[kristopher]

9. Since that isn't going to happen, what is your plan B?

Continue the status quo?

[joshcryer]

10. Well, since CO2 is going to be emitted by both natural gas and coal in increasing rates...

...the only solution that I see is to work on power storage systems, if not Isentropic, Li-ion, something, flywheels. Something.

This is unacceptable:



But so is this, just as much so:

[kristopher]

11. We will be working on deploying that, however renewable generation can't wait...

We will be working on deploying that, however renewable generation shouldn't have to wait for that future capacity to be put into place before they perform their full role in decreasing carbon emissions from coal.

The typical coal plant in the US produces about 1000g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Natural gas combined cycle produces about 450g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with no storage produces about 15g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with CAES natural gas backup to replace "baseload" coal produces about 80g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.

As I've repeatedly said, natural gas is the best immediate way to fully utilize renewable energy sources currently being deployed. The electricity sector emitted 2,000 million metric tons of CO2 in 2007. If we had replaced that with natural gas we would have avoided 55% of that for an immediate reduction of 1,100 million metric tons if CO2.

If we were able to match wind or solar with that then the amount of renewable would reduce the amount of gas by the full capacity of the renewable - whatever that is.

So let's say we take a 1GW coal pant and shut it down in favor of more complete utilization of existing natgas plants. We can do that right now, we don't have to wait for anything to be built. This is a realistic possibility for much of our grid that would reduce CO2 in each affected coal plant by 55%.

We then build a 1 GW wind farm with a 33% capacity factor.
We have now reduced the carbon footprint of the coal plant by a further 15% which leaves us with 30% of original emissions.
The area gets serious about efficiency and reduces demand by 30%.
We have now essentially eliminated the coal plant.

By now, the price of solar is much lower and so is the price of batteries because of EVs; so we shift the balance of where the power is generated from the remaining natural gas to distributed generation oriented around homes and communities where local smaller scale storage is part of the package.

You are carbon free.

[joshcryer]

12. Why should it have to wait? For communities with full capacity, stop using fossil fuels.

For communities without it, use what is available. It should be whole communities simply stopping the fossil fuel addiction, imo. It seems silly to me to have a big ass windfarm and instead of spending the billion or so more to install a load balancing system right along side it you opt to instead build the natural gas balancing plant.

Also, your lower bounding for natural gas emissions I believe isn't fair, because it's not considering the infrastructure that simply having it around supports, such as millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions for simple home heating and cooking. This again relates to the "dominate paradigm" that I believe Jacobson was discussing. "We use natural gas thus we have to use it."

[kristopher]

13. Why should WHAT have to wait?

Will you please stop smoking dope so that your posts are at least comprehensible?

Here study this when you are sober. I've added a couple of points of clarification.
... renewable generation can't wait...

We will be working on deploying what you suggested, however renewable generation shouldn't have to wait for that future, not yet built, storage capacity to be put into place *before* they perform their full role in decreasing carbon emissions from coal.

The typical coal plant in the US produces about 1000g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Natural gas combined cycle produces about 450g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with no storage produces about 15g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with CAES natural gas backup to replace "baseload" coal produces about 80g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.

As I've repeatedly said, natural gas is the best immediate way to fully utilize renewable energy sources currently being deployed. Coal used in the electricity sector emitted 2,000 million metric tons of CO2 in 2007. If we had replaced that with natural gas we would have avoided 55% of that for an immediate reduction of 1,100 million metric tons if CO2.

If we were able to match wind or solar with that then the amount of renewable would reduce the amount of gas by the full capacity of the renewable - whatever that is. Coal can't do that.

So let's say we take a 1GW coal pant and shut it down in favor of more complete utilization of existing natgas plants. We can do that right now, we don't have to wait for anything to be built. This is a realistic possibility for much of our grid that would reduce CO2 in each affected coal plant by 55%.

We then build a 1 GW wind farm with a 33% capacity factor.
We have now reduced the carbon footprint of the coal plant by a further 15% which leaves us with 30% of original emissions.
The area gets serious about efficiency and reduces demand by 30%.
We have now essentially eliminated the coal plant.

By now, the price of solar is much lower and so is the price of batteries because of EVs; so we shift the balance of where the power is generated from the remaining natural gas to distributed generation oriented around homes and communities where local smaller scale storage is part of the package.

You are carbon free.


(Added)This is a critical point you may not be aware of - a coal plant runs and all other generation conforms to its generating profile. This profile is one where the coal turbine runs virtually 24/7 whether it is generating needed power or not. The move to renewables augmented initially by natural gas creates a totally different machine (it is helpful sometimes to think of the grid as a single machine), one in which the individual elements conform more directly to user needs than to the efficiencies associated with large scale centralized thermal generation.

It is the creation of this machine (much of it from the existing elements of the current grid) that will place the economic emphasis on noncarbon sources for all future decision related to delivering power to users. By sending these strong signals to grid managers, it will act to lower prices for the components and that enables the community level power planning and development that you claim you want.

[joshcryer]

15. You have to build one of the two: NG peaking plants or power storage plants.

You say we should build NG peaking plants, and say that "renewable generation shouldn't have to wait for that future, not yet built, storage capacity." What on earth precludes storage capacity from being built? Because it's "not proven"? By "proving" it, you show the NG industry that it is not necessary for a move forward, and that indeed, if it does want to be a useful (rather than detrimental) technology, it must accept that it is not going to be a long term technology. Instead what we have is a plan that makes it more important, and does little to get rid of the fossil fuel infrastructure we have become so dependent upon.

[kristopher]

18. GET SOBER!

All of your remarks are addressed in my last post:
We will be working on deploying that, however renewable generation shouldn't have to wait for that future capacity to be put into place before they perform their full role in decreasing carbon emissions from coal.

The typical coal plant in the US produces about 1000g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Natural gas combined cycle produces about 450g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with no storage produces about 15g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with CAES natural gas backup to replace "baseload" coal produces about 80g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.

As I've repeatedly said, natural gas is the best immediate way to fully utilize renewable energy sources currently being deployed. The electricity sector emitted 2,000 million metric tons of CO2 in 2007. If we had replaced that with natural gas we would have avoided 55% of that for an immediate reduction of 1,100 million metric tons if CO2.

If we were able to match wind or solar with that then the amount of renewable would reduce the amount of gas by the full capacity of the renewable - whatever that is.

So let's say we take a 1GW coal pant and shut it down in favor of more complete utilization of existing natgas plants. We can do that right now, we don't have to wait for anything to be built. This is a realistic possibility for much of our grid that would reduce CO2 in each affected coal plant by 55%.

We then build a 1 GW wind farm with a 33% capacity factor.
We have now reduced the carbon footprint of the coal plant by a further 15% which leaves us with 30% of original emissions.
The area gets serious about efficiency and reduces demand by 30%.
We have now essentially eliminated the coal plant.

By now, the price of solar is much lower and so is the price of batteries because of EVs; so we shift the balance of where the power is generated from the remaining natural gas to distributed generation oriented around homes and communities where local smaller scale storage is part of the package.

You are carbon free.

[joshcryer]

19. No, you do *not* address why "future generation would have to wait" if you iavoided NG where....

...possible. You simply do not address it. It's NG or nothing. Period. That's your view. It is stupid, and it will not, I repeat, *not* reduce our emissions before 2030 r 2040 or perhaps until you are long dead. That's the reality we are facing.

[kristopher]

22. Straw man arguments and ignorance are all you offer

joshcryer wrote:

No, you do *not* address why "future generation would have to wait" if you iavoided NG where....

...possible. You simply do not address it. It's NG or nothing. Period. That's your view. It is stupid, and it will not, I repeat, *not* reduce our emissions before 2030 r 2040 or perhaps until you are long dead. That's the reality we are facing.

It is obvious you have nothing worthwhile to say except "no". You have no data, no rationale, no logic, no plan, no vision, no understanding and lack even the most basic analytic skills.

Will you please stop smoking dope so that your posts are at least comprehensible?

Here study this when you are sober. I've added a couple of points of clarification.
... renewable generation can't wait...

We will be working on deploying what you suggested, however renewable generation shouldn't have to wait for that future, not yet built, storage capacity to be put into place *before* they perform their full role in decreasing carbon emissions from coal.

The typical coal plant in the US produces about 1000g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Natural gas combined cycle produces about 450g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with no storage produces about 15g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with CAES natural gas backup to replace "baseload" coal produces about 80g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.

As I've repeatedly said, natural gas is the best immediate way to fully utilize renewable energy sources currently being deployed. Coal used in the electricity sector emitted 2,000 million metric tons of CO2 in 2007. If we had replaced that with natural gas we would have avoided 55% of that for an immediate reduction of 1,100 million metric tons if CO2.

If we were able to match wind or solar with that then the amount of renewable would reduce the amount of gas by the full capacity of the renewable - whatever that is. Coal can't do that.

So let's say we take a 1GW coal pant and shut it down in favor of more complete utilization of existing natgas plants. We can do that right now, we don't have to wait for anything to be built. This is a realistic possibility for much of our grid that would reduce CO2 in each affected coal plant by 55%.

We then build a 1 GW wind farm with a 33% capacity factor.
We have now reduced the carbon footprint of the coal plant by a further 15% which leaves us with 30% of original emissions.
The area gets serious about efficiency and reduces demand by 30%.
We have now essentially eliminated the coal plant.

By now, the price of solar is much lower and so is the price of batteries because of EVs; so we shift the balance of where the power is generated from the remaining natural gas to distributed generation oriented around homes and communities where local smaller scale storage is part of the package.

You are carbon free.


(Added)This is a critical point you may not be aware of - a coal plant runs and all other generation conforms to its generating profile. This profile is one where the coal turbine runs virtually 24/7 whether it is generating needed power or not. The move to renewables augmented initially by natural gas creates a totally different machine (it is helpful sometimes to think of the grid as a single machine), one in which the individual elements conform more directly to user needs than to the efficiencies associated with large scale centralized thermal generation.

It is the creation of this machine (much of it from the existing elements of the current grid) that will place the economic emphasis on noncarbon sources for all future decision related to delivering power to users. By sending these strong signals to grid managers, it will act to lower prices for the components and that enables the community level power planning and development that you claim you want.


What I'm describing to you IS the shift in the "dominate (sic) paradigm" you feel jacobson is talking about. It this redesign of the machine and the inevitability of its nature that is most meaningful in the elimination of fossil fuels.

Here is another quote for you from Jacobson that you might not have noticed in your zeal to find something to support your foolishness. I'm sure that if you'd been reading for understanding it would have made a bit more of an impression, " Building such an extensive infrastructure will take time. But so did the current power plant network. And remember that if we stick with fossil fuels, demand by 2030 will rise to 16.9 TW, requiring about 13,000 large new coal plants..." p61


When he says "stick with fossil fuels" he is referring to the design of the machine, large scale centralized thermal generation.

[joshcryer]

23. "renewable generation shouldn't have to wait for that future" why should it wait?

"renewable generation shouldn't have to wait for that future"

Why should it wait?

ANSWER THE QUESTION. WHY DOES PRODUCING ENERGY STORAGE MEAN THAT "enewable generation shouldn't have to wait for that future"? WHY?

[kristopher]

25. Your question was already addressed dolt.

.. renewable generation can't wait...

We will be working on deploying what you suggested, however renewable generation shouldn't have to wait for that future, not yet built, storage capacity to be put into place *before* they perform their full role in decreasing carbon emissions from coal.

The typical coal plant in the US produces about 1000g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Natural gas combined cycle produces about 450g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with no storage produces about 15g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with CAES natural gas backup to replace "baseload" coal produces about 80g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.

As I've repeatedly said, natural gas is the best immediate way to fully utilize renewable energy sources currently being deployed. Coal used in the electricity sector emitted 2,000 million metric tons of CO2 in 2007. If we had replaced that with natural gas we would have avoided 55% of that for an immediate reduction of 1,100 million metric tons if CO2.

If we were able to match wind or solar with that then the amount of renewable would reduce the amount of gas by the full capacity of the renewable - whatever that is. Coal can't do that.

So let's say we take a 1GW coal pant and shut it down in favor of more complete utilization of existing natgas plants. We can do that right now, we don't have to wait for anything to be built. This is a realistic possibility for much of our grid that would reduce CO2 in each affected coal plant by 55%.

We then build a 1 GW wind farm with a 33% capacity factor.
We have now reduced the carbon footprint of the coal plant by a further 15% which leaves us with 30% of original emissions.
The area gets serious about efficiency and reduces demand by 30%.
We have now essentially eliminated the coal plant.

By now, the price of solar is much lower and so is the price of batteries because of EVs; so we shift the balance of where the power is generated from the remaining natural gas to distributed generation oriented around homes and communities where local smaller scale storage is part of the package.

You are carbon free.


(Added)This is a critical point you may not be aware of - a coal plant runs and all other generation conforms to its generating profile. This profile is one where the coal turbine runs virtually 24/7 whether it is generating needed power or not. The move to renewables augmented initially by natural gas creates a totally different machine (it is helpful sometimes to think of the grid as a single machine), one in which the individual elements conform more directly to user needs than to the efficiencies associated with large scale centralized thermal generation.

It is the creation of this machine (much of it from the existing elements of the current grid) that will place the economic emphasis on noncarbon sources for all future decision related to delivering power to users. By sending these strong signals to grid managers, it will act to lower prices for the components and that enables the community level power planning and development that you claim you want.

[joshcryer]

27. You build the storage capacity as you build the renewable generation. Wow. Amazing. No waiting.

Idiocy.

[kristopher]

29. Tell me something...

Why don't you go out and buy everything you've ever wanted tomorrow?

Probably because you don't have the money. ETA: You remind me the little kid who, when told by Mom that they don't have the money to buy what the child wants says, "You can just write a check!"


Getting the most and earliest bang for our buck is the aim of what I'm teaching you, little frog.

[joshcryer]

31. Yep, market considerations rather than policy and people considerations.

It's all about big dollar signs to you. Unfortunately this "market based approach" doesn't have a chance in fucking hell of keeping us below 3.0C, potentially allowing us to go as far as 4.0C. This is a big deal. But because it's about money, oh well.

If the Afgan/Iraq wars weren't waged, and the bailouts weren't paid the fucking government could have paid for the overhaul. We're talking trillions of dollars here.

[kristopher]

34. I'm in agreement with your priorities but that don't mean squat.

If I wrote policy we'd do just what you want, a balls to the wall, full frontal assault with everything in our carbon neutral arsenal - including nuclear.

However we don't have the luxury of acting like a spoiled brat that throws a temper tantrum when those around him don't give him what he wants. You do the best you can with what you have.

[joshcryer]

36. Then you have given up and you have decided that we as a species should be in for some bad shit.

Such as displacement and death.

Oh well.

[kristopher]

37. No, I haven't given up

You've just never gotten started. You are a vessel of ignorance drifting around shouting meaningless nonsense.

[joshcryer]

38. We'll see how things pan out.

Too bad you'll be dead to see you fail.

[kristopher]

39. "Too bad you'll be dead to see you fail."

Are you related to Sarah Palin? I mean, is there a sentence in there somewhere?

[kristopher]

14. Oh yeah, on your second paragraph

What I'm describing to you IS the shift in the "dominate (sic) paradigm" you feel jacobson is talking about. It this redesign of the machine and the inevitability of its nature that is most meaningful in the elimination of fossil fuels.

Here is another quote for you from Jacobson that you might not have noticed in your zeal to find something to support your foolishness. I'm sure that if you'd been reading for understanding it would have made a bit more of an impression, " Building such an extensive infrastructure will take time. But so did the current power plant network. And remember that if we stick with fossil fuels, demand by 2030 will rise to 16.9 TW, requiring about 13,000 large new coal plants..." p61


When he says "stick with fossil fuels" he is referring to the design of the machine, large scale centralized thermal generation.

[joshcryer]

16. Where is the redesign? Most new power plants in the US are natural gas anyway.

I am typing on power provided in part by a natural gas station here in my city (the main plant is coal though). That's what bugs me about this plan, it doesn't change the paradigm, and it relies too much on variables that can go either way. If your "storage capacity" relies on, for instance, millions of BEVs, then you are going to be delayed significantly in your ability to move off of fossil fuels. Sure, 1,100 million metric tonnes of CO2 reduction is pretty good, but when natural gas (heating+cooking) and petroleum release 6,000 million a year, it doesn't seem all that much.

[kristopher]

17. Maybe you're sober by now. (then again, maybe not)

The conceptualization is widely used and refers to the entire grid, here is a sample from google:

"Our power grid, the world’s largest interconnected energy machine, consists of more than 9,200 electric generating units with more than 1 million MW of capacity, connected to more than 300,000 miles of transmission lines and countless electrical distribution substations.
Because of the grid’s aging infrastructure, however, electric utilities and their customers are facing an increasing risk of blackouts and brownouts, costly unplanned maintenance, security threats to remote facilities and rising costs.
As part of the government and industry’s smart grid initiative, utilities and researchers are looking for ways to address these issues and improve the reliability of electric power delivery while reducing expense.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has been charged with coordinating grid modernization. Heading this effort is the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability...."
-IR Thermography in the Smart Grid Initiative
http://www.elp.com/index/display/article-display/5620186187/articles/utility-automation-engineering-td/volume-14/issue-11/features/ir-thermography_in.html



you wrote "That's what bugs me about this plan, it doesn't change the paradigm, and it relies too much on variables that can go either way."

You are wrong. The problem isn't that it doesn't change the paradigm, the problem is that you don't have a clue what the "paradigm" is. Your ignorance isn't a failure of the plan, it is your personal failure (you've had ample opportunity to change your condition and have chosen to scramble you brains instead - don't deny it it is obvious).


If your "storage capacity" relies on, for instance, millions of BEVs, then you are going to be delayed significantly in your ability to move off of fossil fuels.
No, we aren't. The V2G equipped PHEVs are a large part of the storage that makes it possible to build more generation with a greater level of intermittency (wind and solar). They also address another significant source of emissions - petroleum.


Sure, 1,100 million metric tonnes of CO2 reduction is pretty good, but when natural gas (heating+cooking) and petroleum release 6,000 million a year, it doesn't seem all that much.
WHAT???? You MUST be kidding. First it is dishonest - you just wrote the falsehood in your last sentence that EVs will "delay" the move away from fossil fuels, now you ignore them and the contribution they make to eliminating petroleum?
The amount of natural gas we use for cooking and home heating will be addressed in time and as part of the federally mandated carbon management strategy (charging for the carbon).

The typical coal plant in the US produces about 1000g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Natural gas combined cycle produces about 450g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with no storage produces about 15g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with CAES natural gas backup to replace "baseload" coal produces about 80g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.

As I've repeatedly said, natural gas is the best immediate way to fully utilize renewable energy sources currently being deployed. The electricity sector emitted 2,000 million metric tons of CO2 in 2007. If we had replaced that with natural gas we would have avoided 55% of that for an immediate reduction of 1,100 million metric tons if CO2.

If we were able to match wind or solar with that then the amount of renewable would reduce the amount of gas by the full capacity of the renewable - whatever that is.

So let's say we take a 1GW coal pant and shut it down in favor of more complete utilization of existing natgas plants. We can do that right now, we don't have to wait for anything to be built. This is a realistic possibility for much of our grid that would reduce CO2 in each affected coal plant by 55%.

We then build a 1 GW wind farm with a 33% capacity factor.
We have now reduced the carbon footprint of the coal plant by a further 15% which leaves us with 30% of original emissions.
The area gets serious about efficiency and reduces demand by 30%.
We have now essentially eliminated the coal plant.

By now, the price of solar is much lower and so is the price of batteries because of EVs; so we shift the balance of where the power is generated from the remaining natural gas to distributed generation oriented around homes and communities where local smaller scale storage is part of the package.

You are carbon free.

[joshcryer]

20. BEV load balancing is not proven and there's no telling how it will go.

You know it and I know it. BEV / V2G load balancing is *just as concept* as utilizing on site (or at community) storage. So your desire to stick with V2G / BEV load balancing is *only* because you believe Jacobson's earlier plan that utilizes natural gas is the "only* way to achieve zero emissions.

[kristopher]

21. My conclusions have nothing to do with Jacobson.

They are a product of 5 years of my own post graduate research which paralleled what he and many others have done. Jacobson just decided to publish what is a standard analysis.

It is obvious you have nothing worthwhile to say except "no". You have no data, no rationale, no logic, no plan, no vision, no understanding and lack even the most basic analytic skills.

Will you please stop smoking dope so that your posts are at least comprehensible?

Here study this when you are sober. I've added a couple of points of clarification.
... renewable generation can't wait...

We will be working on deploying what you suggested, however renewable generation shouldn't have to wait for that future, not yet built, storage capacity to be put into place *before* they perform their full role in decreasing carbon emissions from coal.

The typical coal plant in the US produces about 1000g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Natural gas combined cycle produces about 450g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with no storage produces about 15g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with CAES natural gas backup to replace "baseload" coal produces about 80g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.

As I've repeatedly said, natural gas is the best immediate way to fully utilize renewable energy sources currently being deployed. Coal used in the electricity sector emitted 2,000 million metric tons of CO2 in 2007. If we had replaced that with natural gas we would have avoided 55% of that for an immediate reduction of 1,100 million metric tons if CO2.

If we were able to match wind or solar with that then the amount of renewable would reduce the amount of gas by the full capacity of the renewable - whatever that is. Coal can't do that.

So let's say we take a 1GW coal pant and shut it down in favor of more complete utilization of existing natgas plants. We can do that right now, we don't have to wait for anything to be built. This is a realistic possibility for much of our grid that would reduce CO2 in each affected coal plant by 55%.

We then build a 1 GW wind farm with a 33% capacity factor.
We have now reduced the carbon footprint of the coal plant by a further 15% which leaves us with 30% of original emissions.
The area gets serious about efficiency and reduces demand by 30%.
We have now essentially eliminated the coal plant.

By now, the price of solar is much lower and so is the price of batteries because of EVs; so we shift the balance of where the power is generated from the remaining natural gas to distributed generation oriented around homes and communities where local smaller scale storage is part of the package.

You are carbon free.


(Added)This is a critical point you may not be aware of - a coal plant runs and all other generation conforms to its generating profile. This profile is one where the coal turbine runs virtually 24/7 whether it is generating needed power or not. The move to renewables augmented initially by natural gas creates a totally different machine (it is helpful sometimes to think of the grid as a single machine), one in which the individual elements conform more directly to user needs than to the efficiencies associated with large scale centralized thermal generation.

It is the creation of this machine (much of it from the existing elements of the current grid) that will place the economic emphasis on noncarbon sources for all future decision related to delivering power to users. By sending these strong signals to grid managers, it will act to lower prices for the components and that enables the community level power planning and development that you claim you want.


What I'm describing to you IS the shift in the "dominate (sic) paradigm" you feel jacobson is talking about. It this redesign of the machine and the inevitability of its nature that is most meaningful in the elimination of fossil fuels.

Here is another quote for you from Jacobson that you might not have noticed in your zeal to find something to support your foolishness. I'm sure that if you'd been reading for understanding it would have made a bit more of an impression, " Building such an extensive infrastructure will take time. But so did the current power plant network. And remember that if we stick with fossil fuels, demand by 2030 will rise to 16.9 TW, requiring about 13,000 large new coal plants..." p61


When he says "stick with fossil fuels" he is referring to the design of the machine, large scale centralized thermal generation.

[joshcryer]

24. It is obvious you *can't* answer the question so you just *cut and paste* like some old fool.

[kristopher]

26. Your "question" was already addressed

.. renewable generation can't wait...

We will be working on deploying what you suggested, however renewable generation shouldn't have to wait for that future, not yet built, storage capacity to be put into place *before* they perform their full role in decreasing carbon emissions from coal.

The typical coal plant in the US produces about 1000g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Natural gas combined cycle produces about 450g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with no storage produces about 15g. of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.
Wind with CAES natural gas backup to replace "baseload" coal produces about 80g of CO2e/kwh of electricity generated.

As I've repeatedly said, natural gas is the best immediate way to fully utilize renewable energy sources currently being deployed. Coal used in the electricity sector emitted 2,000 million metric tons of CO2 in 2007. If we had replaced that with natural gas we would have avoided 55% of that for an immediate reduction of 1,100 million metric tons if CO2.

If we were able to match wind or solar with that then the amount of renewable would reduce the amount of gas by the full capacity of the renewable - whatever that is. Coal can't do that.

So let's say we take a 1GW coal pant and shut it down in favor of more complete utilization of existing natgas plants. We can do that right now, we don't have to wait for anything to be built. This is a realistic possibility for much of our grid that would reduce CO2 in each affected coal plant by 55%.

We then build a 1 GW wind farm with a 33% capacity factor.
We have now reduced the carbon footprint of the coal plant by a further 15% which leaves us with 30% of original emissions.
The area gets serious about efficiency and reduces demand by 30%.
We have now essentially eliminated the coal plant.

By now, the price of solar is much lower and so is the price of batteries because of EVs; so we shift the balance of where the power is generated from the remaining natural gas to distributed generation oriented around homes and communities where local smaller scale storage is part of the package.

You are carbon free.


(Added)This is a critical point you may not be aware of - a coal plant runs and all other generation conforms to its generating profile. This profile is one where the coal turbine runs virtually 24/7 whether it is generating needed power or not. The move to renewables augmented initially by natural gas creates a totally different machine (it is helpful sometimes to think of the grid as a single machine), one in which the individual elements conform more directly to user needs than to the efficiencies associated with large scale centralized thermal generation.

It is the creation of this machine (much of it from the existing elements of the current grid) that will place the economic emphasis on noncarbon sources for all future decision related to delivering power to users. By sending these strong signals to grid managers, it will act to lower prices for the components and that enables the community level power planning and development that you claim you want.

[joshcryer]

28. It wasn't answered. Given that you don't plan to answer it, I will ignore further copy-pastes.

You are a fucking psychopath incapable of having a constructive discussion.

[kristopher]

30. You are the person who can't read the answer when it is put in front of them repeatedly.

That's on you.

[joshcryer]

32. No, actually, you only gave a credible answer just up thread. Finally. You take a position.

The position that is incapable of mitigating AGW to any significant extent in our lifetimes.

[kristopher]

35. Your opinion is worthless.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=216536&mesg_id=216641

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!