(Page 2 of 2)
For example, designing an IGCC plant to run on Texas lignite, a lower-quality coal, adds 37 percent to the cost of the plant, compared with designing it to run on a high-quality coal called Pittsburgh #8. And the resulting plant is 24 percent less efficient. Designing a conventional plant to run on low-quality coal also costs more, but the increase is only 24 percent--less than the 37 percent with IGCC. The hit to efficiency is also less--10 percent versus 24 percent with IGCC. While the added costs for capturing carbon dioxide are greater for conventional coal plants, these can be largely offset if the plant is being designed for use with lower-quality coal.
As a result, it's less clear which technology would really make the most economic sense. For some parts of the world, where high-quality coal is easily accessible, IGCC will probably be the clear winner. But areas using low-quality coal could be better served by pulverized coal plants, especially the new ultra-supercritical coal plants that power turbines with very high temperature steam. Such plants are about 13 percent more efficient than IGCC, and higher efficiency translates into less coal needed to generate a certain amount of electricity, and hence less emission of carbon dioxide.
Given so many uncertainties, the MIT report recommends that, rather than picking one technology to support, the government fund large-scale, carbon-dioxide-capturing demonstration plants using various technologies. These plants would be run as commercial projects to reveal the real-world costs.
The report also says that the Department of Energy should increase funding for research on a new generation of technologies for coal power plants. The MIT researchers singled out a process called chemical looping, which Deutch says "offers a completely different process for getting the energy out of coal." In one version, pulverized coal reacts with particles of metal oxides, such as rust. The reaction converts the oxide into a metal, such as iron, and produces carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide can be compressed for storage. The iron is then exposed to steam. The reaction between the water and the iron produces heat, converts the iron back into rust, and releases hydrogen gas that can power a fuel cell to make electricity.
"Nobody can tell you what the economics are--it's just being explored now," Deutch says. "But it's an example of a different approach to getting energy out of coal to avoid the emissions of greenhouse gases. We think those kinds of completely different approaches ought to be explored."
The DOE's decision to abandon FutureGen could accelerate clean-coal technology.
We should fill every tire on earth with CO2 Hey its a start.
Clint Price
Kamloops B.C,
Sigh. I note that every time I see the global warming pundit sites use the same tired old phrases, such as 'all scientists agree', 'all responsible scientists', and similar trite and basically lying lines about human causes of climate change, they don't bother to consult many (if any) geologists. We, humanity, are adding only around 3-4% of the yearly CO2 budget of the earth. Maybe less. Yes, our machines create CO2, and our breathing does as well. Imagine what the dinosaurs produced.
The more concensus I see from those paid to agree that we are the baddies, the less I buy any of it--and I am a scientist. Too much of the data is ambiguous, and the interpertation left to those focused on a pre-assumed result. Now I'm old enough to remember when plate techtonics was the new, controversial and sexy idea, and it proved itself by an entire earth of unambiguous data and thousands of corraborating studies in many diverse disciplines.
In contrast, global warming is the backstreet boys equivalent fad. It may be, it may not, but I am not going to trash my country to be part of the cheering crowd.
Guest (rhapsodyinglue)
Kitk, what do you mean by the "yearly CO2 budget of the earth"? If you mean the entire amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by all means and reabsorbed by plants, ocean water, etc., then human related CO2 release might be a small percentage. But as people that have educated themselves about the issue of greenhouse gases know, the concern is only in the release of CO2 which has not come from the modern day atmosphere. Eating food and releasing the carbon content into the atmosphere is basically just recycling and doesn't increase the CO2 levels.
So rather than quibble about which scientists are responsible and which are not, lets just say that an overwhelming majority of scientists believe it is highly likely that post industrial use of fossil fuels has contributed to increases in average earth temperature and if trends are not changed there may be moderate to quite severe economic and social consequences.
CO2 is causing global warming: is it?
I question CO2 is causing global warming too. Based on my analysis, some causes of global warning may be: (1) The performance of heat (energy) storage of earth surface has been changed by human activities and/or naturally. For example, less trees and vegetation, concrete structure of buildings and on pavements/roads/highways, and asphalt structure on roofs, etc. also, heat released from nuclear reaction and power plants (heat/energy storage changed), etc. (2) Heat from burning fossil fuels or other fuels, which is more than natural. This is also the change of heat (energy) storage of earth surface. Governments and scientists and all should focus on the programs to increase performance of heat (energy) storage of earth surface, for example, planting trees and vegetation; increasing heat storage capacity of concrete/asphalt etc. structures by changing or adding material properties; using solar energy, wind and hydro power; reducing using fossil fuels; energy use policy should take account of heat (energy) storage of earth surface, etc.
This is amazing. I read about IGCC, and they say there is no technology to sequester the CO2 produced even if it is in concentrated form that is much more amendable to sequestration. Then, when talking about "better" pulverized coal they say “The reaction converts the oxide into a metal, such as iron, and produces carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide can be compressed for storage." Wow! Seems to me CO2 is CO2, unless chemistry has changed in the new Gorescience of global warming debate, the CO2 from IGCC can be compressed. Hey, is this really MIT publishing this double-talk!!!!!!!!
Heck, if all the wizards of academia are right and we need to find a way to sequester CO2 DO IT AND QUIT TALKING. I bet they won’t be able to solve that problem by the time any numbers of IGCC plants currently on the drawing boards are built and producing concentrated CO2 that can be sequestered, even if they could start building them today. Because there is no current technology to economically sequester CO2, regardless of its origin, is no reason to block or criticize IGCC, when it hasn’t even been tried on a very large scale. WE NEED TO TRY. Most of us would not be here if our ancestors they didn’t try and fail and try again.
Yes, it is all about context.
1 Context: CO2 is not a local issue, so all these lemmings, including Governor Schwarzenegger and the Mayor of Seattle are going to do something about it, while China and India will build 800 CONVENTIONAL coal plants between now and 2012 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17996839/site/newsweek/). That is why Kyoto was a bad idea, and why people in the U.S. who are blocking vastly improved technologies like IGCC are not thinking rationally. We need to use our coal in the best way we know how.
2 Context: There are no good short or medium term alternatives to fossil fuels. We need to develop the best we know now while accelerating other technologies like solar, geothermal, wind, improved efficeincy, and other technologies including enhanced geothermal and geo-exchange (heat pump) heating, etc., etc. We need to do all of these things, including improved, responsible development of coal, domestic gas and oil.
3 Context: I’ve seen projections that indicate if we could ramp up and improve solar and wind capacity as much as feasible, it cannot meet even a fraction of a much-reduced future energy demand.
4 Context: unless we want to radically increase the cost of our energy, reduce our standard of living and also have all the “clean-energy zealots” screaming about high costs of energy and need for government assistance, we will not meet or overall energy needs with only alternative energy.
5 We need to stop looking at solar and wind through rose-colored glasses and at new, clean coal with broken glasses or with blindfolds.
Question - Which is better "Sequestration" or "Gasification" techology to capture Carbon Dioxide in terms of efficiency and capacity? What are the state of the art by comparing with other similar technologies)?
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
neovask
6 Comments
CO2 is causing global warming: is it?
Is there any scientifically validated evidence that CO2 is causing global warming? Or is it just a hypothesis which has not been subjected to scientific scrutiny because it appears to be so very obvious and everybody seems to be agreeing to it? Please note that the 'Green-house effect' of CO2 is not being questioned here, the question is on the real time contribution of this effect on global warming, keeping in mind that CO2 concentration in atmosphere ranges between 0.04% and 0.06% only.
Reply
Guest (bdixon)
Re: CO2 is causing global warming: is it?
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just released its latest report. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
Since this report has the support of over 95% of the scientists knowledgeable on Climate change (Global warming), and meticulous methods to analyse available research (peer reviewed).
On the issue of global warming and its causes, the IPCC fourth report states that:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human caused) greenhouse gas concentrations."
Footnotes on page 4 of the summary indicate very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement", are over 90% and 66% respectively.
For an overview on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Like Neovask, there are some that still question the research and challenge the causes of global warming. For an overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy . However the credibility and the evidence marshalled by the naysayers is, to my thinking, very weak. (For example: Says Ronald Bailey, one time author of Global Warming and Other Eco Myths, "Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now.... as the new IPCC Summary makes clear, climate change Pollyannaism is no longer looking very tenable" (see Wikipedia article for quote citations).
I hope that you will take some time to review the data for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. The number of people that are still sceptics is rather small (<120 on Wikipedias lists) compared to the number of those that have publically endorsed the IPCC conclusions (>5-10,000).
The data is pretty overwhelming, the science is fairly clear and robust. Humans have released green house gases, and they have caused global warming. The only area that remains fuzzy, in my view, is what do about it.
Reply
bmn
75 Comments
Re: CO2 is causing global warming: is it?
funny how every time this comes up, there is a statement like "the scientists knowledgeable on Climate change" as part of the statement that "everyone agrees". basically, you are saying that the club of climate change true believers all believe. no shit. those in dissent are generally those in other scientific disciplines who understand the processes - geologists, oceanographers, meteorologists, etc. these experts are not being consulted or listened to, and they are in large part trying to tell the world that the politically motivated pseudo-scientists of the climate change clique are selling us a sack of worms. climate change may be occurring, but it is by no means certain the cause or the rate. both of those are fabrications of the clique.
Reply
neovask
6 Comments
Re: CO2 is causing global warming: is it?
Well put. Touche.
Reply
Guest (bdixon)
Re: CO2 is causing global warming: is it?
One small note to neovask's question on whether CO2 (and other green house gases) are causing a "real-time effect" on climate.
Worse, I'm afraid. It is delayed. That is, even if by some miracle a technology was invented that could eliminate all the green house cases (CO2 et al) from the air, the climate would still suffer from the gases that have been released in the preceeding decades.
The issue is, how high will the spike go before it gets better. The recent data is showing the accepted Climate change models (IPCC) to be conservative.
So the more we can do to reduce greenhouse gases (and CO2 is the first choice due to its superordinate place in climate change greenhouse gases), the sooner the better.
Real-Time change, alas, I wish we were so lucky... we could maybe halt climate change to a level close to today's, but it seems things will get worse before they get better... (That is, assuming we start actually taking action).
Reply
neovask
6 Comments
Re: CO2 is causing global warming: is it?
Thanks for your contribution, bdixon. I take it that you agree that CO2 as the causative factor towards global warming is a 'hypothesis' with a 'widely accepted consensus', but all the same it is NOT a scientific fact. But is it that very difficult to prove or disprove it by conducting a controlled and standardised scientific experiment? Or is it that what we are dealing with is just not science; may be it is politics. I am a physician (cardiologist) by profession, and am therefore constrained regarding the technology part of it. You seem to be quite knowledgeable on the topic. Kindly enlighten
Reply
Guest (rhapsodyinglue)
Re: CO2 is causing global warming: is it?
Neovask... being a cardiologist you should be well familiar with the scientific process, it's limitations and it's application. I assume that you advise patients to eat reasonable diets, get some degree of exercise and abstain from smoking. While there are epidemiological studies that may give strong indication that this advice is the right advice, there certainly are many areas where there is dispute about direct causality. Further, for any individual there may be genetic traits that would change the "facts" for that individual. Some people can stuff themselves with fats and sugars and yet live long lives free of heart disease. Still, the science that has been done, while not perfect, is good enough to tell people that a particular course of action will reduce the probability of doing damage to their body.
Unfortunately, in climate science we do not have the luxury of doing population studies, for we have but one earth. We cannot say that out of a hundred populated planets that filled their skies with excess carbon 10% had no ill effects and 80% had seas rise 1 meter, while the final 10% set off a chain reaction with methane being released from previously frozen tundra resulting in entire melting of the planets ice with mass extinctions and population dislocations.
If you are looking for science to prove exactly when and what will happen if we continue to produce CO2 at the current rate, that is simply out of the scope of what science can do. The same way that for an individual patient sitting in front of you, you could not prove or state as fact that smoking will make them get cancer or heart disease.
However, what scientific understanding we do have of the processes is enough to convince a lot of very smart people that the range of probable climate responses we are looking at is serious enough to warrant intervention and change of behavior.
A majority of people have now realized that they don't want to be the global equivalent of the nicotine addict who puffs away all day long while saying "there's no way to prove this will kill me."
Reply
ggeorge
4 Comments
Re: CO2 is causing global warming: is it?
I have similar concerns which conspicuously do not seem to be addressed in most publications on the subject. For example, perhaps the largest contributor to carbon dioxide from human activity is human respiration (people breathing). According to my rough calculations, this source may contribute half to three-quarters of all human-generated CO2.
Also, while I don't doubt that the Earth may be warming, I don't just assume it is because of us. The geological record shows many past times when the Earth warmed (most of which were before humans existed). Some of those warming periods appear to display a regularity, suggesting a completely different conclusion.
Finally, I'm not convinced that the level of CO2 (just under 400 ppm - about 0.04%) can generate the degree of warming that is being proposed. I haven't seen any thermodynamic data to even show how it's possible. But, let me illustrate with an example most people can relate to. 0.04% is the same as 4 parts in 10,000. If we take something that is hot or cold and add it to water, how much heating or cooling would we observe in the water? An ice cube occupies about 2cc and 2cc is 0.04% of just over 5 quarts. Intuitively, how much temperature change would we really expect to see?
Well, I see I'm starting to rant again. Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to state my concerns.
Reply
dexter
1 Comment
Re: CO2 is causing global warming: is it?
the argument "the geological records show much higher temperature peaks than you worry about today" is very often cited by people spreading skepticism when it comes to human influences on the climate. and yes, they are right - about the absolute figures. the problem is: these fluctuations never took place at the pace we see today. back then it was a few degrees rise over thousands of years, today it is a couple of hundred. evolution is a slow process (where's that intelligent designer when you need him?), nature can't keep up, have a look around you.
about people breathing as a source of CO2: eating, breathing, and as a result emitting CO2 is carbon-neutral. it only emits as much as was taken out of the atmosphere by the plants we ate (maybe detouring via animal). but you're right, there are too many people on this planet.
one more thing - the CO2 level being under 400ppm doesn't mean it has negligible effects. there's gases that would kill you within seconds at less than that. plus: the average content tells you nothing about the distribution. the CO2 accumulates in certain atmospheric layers.
and even if all that was highly debatable: just the chance that we might be sawing the branch on which we sit should stop us sawing until we know more. too many people today want to keep sawing until there's overwhelming evidence that it's wrong (like: us falling down with the branch). pretty stupid, don't you think?
Reply
gsphifer
1 Comment
Re: CO2 is causing global warming: is it?
Given that ice core samples from the arctic once used to show that CO2 levels precede warming are now believed to follow warming, why do we continue to beat our heads against this hypothesis. Further, the complexity of global climate systems should lend itself to an extremely wide variety of interdependent variables. So how can anyone look into the black box spitting out 1-degree warmer temperatures on one end and assume a single variable input?
Reply