Combating global warming is an enormous and nebulous task, but a few good folks over at Energista have decided to enlighten the rest of us on how we could achieve the Kyoto targets of 1990 carbon emissions in the United States by 2025, almost entirely through the electric sector. Energy efficiency gets the largest chunk, but nuclear, cleaner coal and renewable generation also contribute a substantial portion (there's a nifty chart showing how each technology could help).
The most challenging strategy might be the use of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) - grabbing the CO2 from emissions and storing it underground - which is theoretically possible, but to date practically infeasible. The problem isn't getting the carbon, it's figuring out how and where store it (my vote is for Yucca Mountain...)
Overall, scientists suggest that a reduction in emissions of 80% is going to be required to stabilize the climate, and that might take even more action than suggested here. However, it's a good start and is achievable by 2025.
Showing posts with label carbon capture sequestration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carbon capture sequestration. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Why coal is as dirty as ever
If you listen to public radio, you've probably heard one of the "clean coal" interludes. There's a bunch of hooey about domestic energy and then a lovely line about "increasingly clean" coal. Well, my good friend Chris over at Energista had something to say about "clean" coal.
No amount of technological improvement on the consumption end - scrubbers or electrostatic particulate removers - will improve the mining process. Terms like "sludge dam," "hilltop removal," and "black lung" come up frequently in a discussion of coal mining, an "ongoing dirty" technology.
Even the promised technologies to make coal "increasingly clean" on the back-end haven't really reached fruition. The biggest liability of coal in a global warming world is that it's the most carbon-intensive method of producing energy and technologies such as carbon capture sequestration - where we theoretically bottle up the CO2 and inject it underground - aren't even commercialized.
The Energista analysis also points to a discussion of local justice in energy production, as wind projects are springing up in the same Appalachians that the coal mining has ravaged. While wind promises to have a significantly smaller impact on the environment, practically and aesthetically, the wind farms are all developments of energy companies from outside the area. The locals, screwed over so long by the coal mining, are naturally suspicious of someone else taking advantage of their local resource at their expense.
No amount of technological improvement on the consumption end - scrubbers or electrostatic particulate removers - will improve the mining process. Terms like "sludge dam," "hilltop removal," and "black lung" come up frequently in a discussion of coal mining, an "ongoing dirty" technology.
Even the promised technologies to make coal "increasingly clean" on the back-end haven't really reached fruition. The biggest liability of coal in a global warming world is that it's the most carbon-intensive method of producing energy and technologies such as carbon capture sequestration - where we theoretically bottle up the CO2 and inject it underground - aren't even commercialized.
The Energista analysis also points to a discussion of local justice in energy production, as wind projects are springing up in the same Appalachians that the coal mining has ravaged. While wind promises to have a significantly smaller impact on the environment, practically and aesthetically, the wind farms are all developments of energy companies from outside the area. The locals, screwed over so long by the coal mining, are naturally suspicious of someone else taking advantage of their local resource at their expense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)