The developed world’s most greenhouse-intensive power station, Hazelwood, began construction in 1964, was completed in 1971, and is licensed to continue operating until 2030. Assuming at least a couple of years in the planning, the decision to build Hazelwood will have an impact over 70 years. Given a similar lifetime (and there’s no reason to think otherwise) Any new coal-fired power stations on the drawing board now could still be dumping crap into the atmosphere in 2080. Given that, it strikes me as irresponsible to be planning new coal-fired power stations, with no guarantee that the emissions can be efficiently captured and stored out of harm’s way.
Which makes the Clean Coal Act, a bill proposed by 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry, a potentially highly significant piece of legislation. According to the bill, there are 150 new coal-fired power stations currently proposed in the United States. Kerry’s bill proposes that any new coal-fired power station would be permitted to emit into the atmosphere no more than 285 pounds (130 kilograms) per megawatt-hour of electricity production. By comparison, Hazelwood emits about 1550 kilograms per megawatt hour, a modern black coal-fired power plant somewhere around 860 kilograms, and a natural gas fired power plant around 500 kilograms.
Economists have been arguing for some time now that the best method for reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a carbon tax, and, indeed, with a sufficiently high carbon tax such legislation would not be necessary. For instance, the legislation as written might encourage the deployment of natural gas fired plant with emissions of 500 kg/MWh, instead of a coal plant with sequestration, but one that doesn’t meet the target and emits 300 kg/MWh. Furthermore, the legislation would not count the transformation of carbon dioxide into biodiesel (using algae) by companies like this one as equivalent to sequestration.
But, as an interim measure until carbon trading is established, legislation - or simply ministerial policy - along these lines seems like a no-brainer, for Australia as well as the United States.
Robert, the notion of longevity of capital stock is taken up in the Stern Review (Chapter 8, Box 8.4, page 205) where he quotes a table from the document Facts and trends to 2050: energy and climate change (pdf - Figure 9, page 6) put out by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. They give coal stations 45 years plus and building, for example, 45 plus, plus, plus. I’m sure that’s conservative, but it’s certainly a worry. Motor vehicles are put at 12-20 years.
In an article I can’t find I read the claim that many of the US coal power stations planned to use gasified coal so that carbon capture could be retrofitted later. I saw somewhere else that 15 stations in China, which is not many, were going to do the same thing. I know very little about gasification of coal and wondered whether you had heard about plans in the US and what it means for emissions.
Honestly, Brian, I don’t know.
As I understand it, most of the Chinese power stations are just your regulation pulverized coal plants, if the latest high-thermal-efficiency supercritical jobbies. Dunno about the US situation.
Interesting comment on Hazelwood but I am curious as to where you got the information that it is the worst. If it is why aren’t all the “progressives” on this site kicking the boot into the Bracks Labor government on this…
John Kerry should get rid of the family Gulfstream V jet before he starts telling everyone else to clean up their act…it carries 34t of jet fuel…
Why is it that Democrats such as Kerry and Edwards continually think they can ask one thing of the public in relation to the environment and do something else?
Matt if you follow the links in Robert’s post you come to this WWF report:
Matt, aviation is the most difficult application to find replacements for fossil fuels. Even if you wanted to, it’s illegal to jet planes on biofuels, for instance.
If Kerry offsets the emissions (taking into account an appropriate allowance for the extra forcing from the ice crystals at high altitude in the exhaust) that’s about as good as he can realistically do at this point.
Robert Merkel Says:
Biodiesel is pretty much indistiguishable from kerosene, which is what jet fuel is. That should tell you that the only barrier is an artificially created one.
SJ: at the moment, biodiesel is a drop in the ocean in terms of meeting our total demand. Given that there are unique safety concerns with changing fuels in a plane compared to any other mode of transportation, it makes much more sense to be pouring biodiesel into non safety critical applications first.
Robert Merkel Says:
You really should look up the meaning of the term “non sequitur“.