Can the U.S. phase out coal’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2030?

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es101320m

Can the U.S. phase out coal’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2030?

A new paper by a leading group of scientists, engineers, and architects argues that the U.S. could eliminate CO₂ emissions from coal in 20 years.

Kellyn Betts
Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
DOI: 10.1021/es101320m
Publication Date (Web): April 30, 2010
Copyright © 2010 American Chemical Society

The U.S. could end its global warming emissions from coal in two decades by embracing a collection of proven and promising technologies, according to a new ES&T paper http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es903884a">(Environ. Sci. Technol. DOI 10.1021/es903884a). Climate scientists James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha, together with Charles Kutscher of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and noted architect Edward Mazria, say their paper targets coal because it is the energy source that is most responsible for accumulated fossil fuel CO₂ in today’s atmosphere.

Kharecha and Hansen, both of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Columbia University Earth Institute, and their coauthors argue that fast action is demanded by recent revelations in the field of climate science. For example, a draft of the http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rpts/car5/index.htm">Fifth U.S. Climate Action Report released in mid-April says that current effects of climate change include water cycle disruptions, vanishing mountain glaciers, and extreme weather events. In the new paper, the scientists write, “The ‘safe’ long-term level of atmospheric greenhouse gases is much lower than has been supposed, (and CO₂ concentrations are) already into the dangerous zone.”

The ES&T paper is both noteworthy and valuable for conveying the urgency of changing the mix of technologies used to produce U.S. electricity, says Robert N. Schock, the http://www.worldenergy.org/">World Energy Council’s director of studies. Shock played a key role in developing the climate change mitigation technology recommendations for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He says that the collection of energy efficiency, renewable, and nuclear power technologies discussed in the new paper are consistent with the IPCC’s recommendations.

The mix of technologies is also very similar to the assortment that the electric power industry is investigating to meet future generation needs based on expected regulatory drivers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, says Revis James, director of the Energy Technology Assessment Center run by the nonprofit http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?">Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). He adds that the paper and EPRI’s research agree that “successful decarbonization will require a fairly diverse set of technologies.”

...

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es903884a

Options for Near-Term Phaseout of CO₂ Emissions from Coal Use in the United States

...

Abstract

The global climate problem becomes tractable if CO₂ emissions from coal use are phased out rapidly and emissions from unconventional fossil fuels (e.g., oil shale and tar sands) are prohibited. This paper outlines technology options for phasing out coal emissions in the United States by 2030. We focus on coal for physical and practical reasons and on the U.S. because it is most responsible for accumulated fossil fuel CO₂ in the atmosphere today, specifically targeting electricity production, which is the primary use of coal. While we recognize that coal emissions must be phased out globally, we believe U.S. leadership is essential. A major challenge for reducing U.S. emissions is that coal provides the largest proportion of base load power, i.e., power satisfying minimum electricity demand. Because this demand is relatively constant and coal has a high carbon intensity, utility carbon emissions are largely due to coal. The current U.S. electric grid incorporates little renewable power, most of which is not base load power. However, this can readily be changed within the next 2−3 decades. Eliminating coal emissions also requires improved efficiency, a “smart grid”, additional energy storage, and advanced nuclear power. Any further coal usage must be accompanied by carbon capture and storage (CCS). We suggest that near-term emphasis should be on efficiency measures and substitution of coal-fired power by renewables and third-generation nuclear plants, since these technologies have been successfully demonstrated at the relevant (commercial) scale. Beyond 2030, these measures can be supplemented by CCS at power plants and, as needed, successfully demonstrated fourth-generation reactors. We conclude that U.S. coal emissions could be phased out by 2030 using existing technologies or ones that could be commercially competitive with coal within about a decade. Elimination of fossil fuel subsidies and a substantial rising price on carbon emissions are the root requirements for a clean, emissions-free future.

[Deep13]

1. We don't have that long. nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Well, then I guess we shouldn't even try.

Right?

If James Hansen says this will work, I'm willing to listen.

[Deep13]

3. Didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm simply stating what I think is the fact. We don't have that long. If we were serious, we would have stopped most coal use by about five years ago.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. (The ambiguity of electronic communication)

I read, "We don't have that long" as "We cannot afford to take as long as this plan suggests we take."

(You see my confusion?)

[FBaggins]

4. Can? Certainly.

Will? Almost certainly not.


But heavens... don't let kristopher see you post an article that says it's possible, but "requires... advanced nuclear power"

[bananas]

6. The pdf is free at Kharecha's NASA website

Pushker Kharecha's website is http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/pkharecha.html
Click on "bibliography" to go to a list of his publications http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/pkharecha.html
This abstract and pdf are currently the first items
A direct link to the abstract is http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=kh04000r
and the direct link to the pdf is http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/inpress_Kharecha_etal.pdf

Frankly, they parrot a lot of the hype about third and fourth generation reactors while ignoring the reality that, for example, France is considering going back to second generation reactors because it's third generation model is much more expensive and difficult to build than expected.

Their emphasis on efficiency and renewables as a first priority is correct.

Here are the conclusions from the report:

7. Conclusions

Tax policy, energy efficiency regulations, and utility profit
motives must be altered to achieve rapid phaseout of coal
emissions. Large-scale efficiency improvements and conservation
measures are deployable the soonest. The building
sector - by far the dominant user of coal - could be carbon
neutral by 2030, with appropriate policies and existing
technologies. We believe a rising fee for carbon emissions is
needed, along with rigorous, enforceable building design
standards, increased government investment in efficiency
measures, and restructuring of utility profit motives. A rising
carbon fee would likely have greater success at reducing
emissions than the “cap-and-trade” approach, as concluded
by the Congressional Budget Office (88) and others (e.g. refs
3, 89, and 90). We emphasize that such a fee does not imply
increased cost for those consumers who minimize their
carbon footprint - indeed, their costs may decline.

Geothermal and biomass energy could displace much of
the base load electric power now provided by coal in the
near term. Federal and private-sector investment in research,
development, and demonstration of enhanced geothermal
systems should be given high priority. Biomass power,
properly designed to account for full life-cycle impacts, has
special attraction because, combined with CCS, it has the
potential to draw down atmospheric CO2. Biomass power
should employ inedible or waste-derived feedstocks.

Wind and solar energy could be deployed to a much larger
degree via addition of new transmission lines and improvements
to the national electric grid. CSP generated in the arid
Southwest combined with at least 12 h of thermal storage
(typically using molten salt storage tanks) could become a
large, commercially viable source of base load power. Solar
PVs are well suited for rooftop deployment in which
transmission issues are avoided and they compete against
the retail cost of electricity. PV power does not lend itself to
low-cost storage and typically displaces electricity from
natural gas plants that provide power in the peak and
intermediate load markets. Windpower also tends to displace
natural gas and not coal. However, both solar and wind power
can be enabled to a much greater extent by the use of batteries
in PHEVs or EVs as well as by a smart grid. They could then
displace some base load coal plants and substantial gasoline
use.

Energy efficiency, renewable energy technologies, and a
smart grid deserve first priority, but it would be unwise to
simply assume that these alone will meet all near-term electric
power demand. Third-generation nuclear power can substantially
contribute to base load power in the near-term.
High-priority development and demonstration of fourth generation
nuclear technology (including breeder reactors)
is needed to provide a solution to nuclear waste disposal and
eliminate the need to mine more uranium for many centuries.
The time required for these advanced nuclear technologies
to be proven is debatable, but they warrant rapid development
given the need to dispose of existing nuclear waste,
and growing national and global electricity demand.

CCS technology development also warrants investment
for large-scale demonstration. It can then be one of the
elements in the competition among different energy technologies,
and it can be deployed at both biomass plants and
remaining coal plants. However this investment should not
be an excuse to simply continue building new coal plants
(including “capture-ready” ones), given that near-term
potential of widespread CCS deployment seems questionable,
and as others (80) have pointed out, retrofits at coal plants
will probably be impractical.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Thanks

I'd looked for it at Hansen's (silly me.)

[bananas]

8. I was disappointed to see the hype about IFR in there

Sad to see Hansen falling for this. Apparently he first read about the IFR a couple of years ago in a right-wing Republican pro-nuke anti-Democrat book and fell for the hype.

Some previous discussion of the topic here at DU:

From November 2009:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=217701&mesg_id=217876
100. Irreverence! Blasphemy!
<snip>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=217701&mesg_id=218115
112. Congressional Record: June 30, 1994
Some excerpts from John Kerry:
<snip>

From February 2009:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=186339&mesg_id=186534
23. You keep talking gibberish.
<snip>

From August 2008:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=165820&mesg_id=165965
7. IFR's would be even more expensive than LWR's
<snip>