Next Generation Energy is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them How do we devise a global plan for energy transition? Rather than a whole plan, let's start with the crucial first step:
We need an immediate moratorium on the construction of new traditional coal plants. That is a higher priority than a cap & trade bill, although such a bill is also a high priority. If the West cannot stop building such coal plants and quickly show the world that multiple alternatives -- particularly efficiency and renewables -- are practical and affordable, then how will we be able to convince the developing world, especially China and India, to stop building such coal plants within the decade?
It is the coal without carbon capture and storage that poses the greatest threat to humankind:
So that means the first major climate policy we should adopt is not a cap & trade, but
Requiring all new coal power plants to meet an "emission performance" standard that limits CO2 emissions to levels achievable with CCS systems.
This is the 2007 recommendation of Ken Berlin and Robert M. Sussman in a Center for American Progress Report, Global Warming and the Future of Coal: The Path to Carbon Capture and Storage (summary here). It is also the goal of a bill introduced last month by Waxman and Markey, "Moratorium on Uncontrolled Power Plants Act" (see here).
A climate policy that does not start by achieving at least the first goal, a moratorium on coal without CCS, must be labeled a failure. By that measure, the cap and trade system currently being employed by the Europeans looks to be a failure. Even with a serious price for carbon dioxide of $40 a ton, Italy, Germany, the Czech Republic, and even Great Britain are pursuing new traditional coal plants, as the New York Times reported in May.
This why James Hansen recently reported finding a "sobering degree of self-deception" in Germany, UK, Japan in a recent trip, and reiterated his statement that the "Phase-out of coal emissions is the sine qua non for climate stabilization" and "Countries cannot be allowed to "buy out" of coal phase-out via supposed reforestation or reduction of non-CO2 forcings."
The good news is that a combination of energy efficiency, wind power, solar baseload, solar PV, cogeneration, and other alternatives can avoid the need to ever build another traditional coal plant in the industrialized world. The bad news is that the industrialized world has not taken the necessary steps to begin to clean energy transition in a serious fashion.
Again, until the rich countries show the rest of the world you can maintain economic development without building traditional coal plants, nothing else we do will really matter.
Comments
There is no need to ban new coal plants. The goal of reducing carbon emissions can be achieved without bans. Instead, new generating capacity could have each ton of carbon emissions taxed at a rate equal to the cost of removing that carbon from the atmosphere. In practice this will ensure that new coal fired capacity will either sequester carbon dioxide or at least be highly efficient combined cycle plants, and the revenue from the carbon tax can be spent on removing any carbon that is released.
Posted by: Ronald Brak | August 7, 2008 8:38 PM
A quick reading the Hansen document seems to suggest that he is not dismissive of Nuclear power and rather enjoyed driving a fossil/hydrogen fueled BMW.
Any observations about those points?
Also Hansen points out clearly that the scales of some of the graphs you display in your article (linked from above) are different for different countries and I think it would be appropriate to label your extraction in the same way to help people understand the differences if they are merely doing a visual check and not ready the scale information.
Indeed re-scaling might be a great idea.
Considering your proposal; it seems likely that at least two related experiments could soon be under way.
The current Australian government is, reportedly, very keen to continue it's rejection of Nuclear and at the same time emaciate its coal fired electricity generation as quickly as it can. If it also smothers its economy by preventing coal exports (mainly to China it seems) the Aussies could be offering up two real world experiments at the same time.
Meanwhile the UK stands to suddenly cut about 40% of current electricity generation by shutting off its ageing nuclear plants (through age and planned obsolescence) and some older coal plants (because the EU says they must be closed) by 2016 or thereabouts. Coincidentally close to recently called for target dates. It seems a brave experiment perhaps but more likely it is driven by reticence and inaction related to making plans for replacement.
Conversely it seems the coal slack that would create is being taken up by the Germans. Having headed off in the Nuclear direction a few decades ago and then veered into wind as their "green spot" sensitivities came to the fore, they are now of a political mind-set to close nuclear plants early and start building more coal fired capacity. At least they have the option ask France for help from its nuclear sites if national generating capacity fails to keep up with demand.
(This was about the time they re-absorbed the rather filthy industries of East Germany and realised that by s the simple act of closing them all down and getting other countries to invest in new plants with new technology they would not only gain economically but could also present a virtuous image on all things 'polluting' to anyone who did not look to closely.)
So that will be two direct reduction experiments and the Germans showing what can happen with the latest (presumably) coal technology.
That leaves the door open for the USA to try the 'replace with wind and solar' experiment with Mr. Pickens leading the way.
Presumably the next generation would then have all the answers in about 20 years from now, some answers perhaps sooner.
Posted by: Grant | August 7, 2008 9:11 PM
Just a couple of points from an Australian. Australia has no plans to prevent the export of coal. The carbon trading scheme that Australia plans to introduce will reduce the attractiveness of coal as an energy source within Australia. Japan is it's single largest importer of Australian coal (44% of Australian coal exports) not China. China is a major coal exporter and only purchases about 5% of Australia's coal exports.
Posted by: Ronald Brak | August 7, 2008 11:23 PM
Thanks for another great post, Joe. You keep hammering on the critical yet overlooked issues of efficiency and cogeneration -- which, one hopes, will be turned to if we put a halt to new coal plants as you're suggesting. I'm associated with Recycled Energy Development, a company that increases industrial energy efficiency by turning manufacturers' waste heat into clean power and steam. Over two-thirds of our nation's greenhouse emissions come from the generation of electricity and heat. That means the real action in fighting climate change is in improving efficiency in the electric sector. Improving gas mileage in cars is nice, but it's strange that it's virtually the only thing that gets talked about when it won't make much difference.
Posted by: miggs | August 7, 2008 11:41 PM
Ronald Brak,
I stand corrected in the detail as things are in Australia.
However since these matters are undoubtedly subject to differences between projected results and actual results as evolved over time the effects of the proposed carbon trading scheme are still likely to make for an interesting observational experiment.
Making coal an unattractive fuel for electricity generation when, as far as I know, most electricity in Australia is produced that way and Nuclear is very much frowned upon as an option under any circumstances, suggests that a huge reliance on wind ans solar will result. Under a carbon trading scheme natural gas would also be affected presumably, if not the scheme would be meaningless. Given Australia's limitations and variability in respect of water availability the options for locally produced bio-fuels seem to be limited unless new and different technologies can be harnessed.
In terms of exports one might anticipate that, in a free market, with greatly reduced local demand (absent which the entire scheme is no more than a tax grab) the producers either get out of the business or produce and export. If the price of production allows it one might see relatively low cost Australian coal on the world market and that in turn could tempt China, with likely much more future demand expectation than Japan, to take the output. However the reports about the Australian scheme that I have read point out that from a moral standpoint there is no intention to simply export the point of CO2 release. If that position is held, fitting in with Mr. Romm's recommendations, it would suggest that the existing coal industry will be significantly reduced and perhaps eliminated.
Whichever way one looks at it and no matter what the current details are regarding exports such a move would be an interesting experiment.
No doubt things will become clearer later this year once the politicians have had a chance to work out the details and the sales pitch to the voters.
Posted by: Grant | August 8, 2008 5:21 AM
There seems to be a great deal of work in creating ethanol from various vegetation sources for use as a gasoline replacement. I would have thought it would be much easier just to bundle up corn stalks, husks and cobs, dry them out, and throw them into a (formerly) coal-fired furnace. This would use the abundant cellulose material to replace fossil carbon emissions without diverting food and not much research would be required. Why are they more focussed on replacing what goes in the car?
Posted by: BAllanJ | August 8, 2008 3:24 PM
Good question BAllanJ. In short, (1) there aren't enough corn stalks and (2) the stalks contribute valuable organic matter to the soil. Removing them would lead to a gradual decrease in the productivity of the land. See my previous posts on the properties that make an ideal energy crop.
Posted by: Sam Hazen | August 8, 2008 5:02 PM
Note that the problems with burning corn stalks/etc are equally present if you're using them for biofuel. There's something to be said for just planting carbon sinks, ignoring their potential for energy production, and just working on maximizing carbon sequestration; the net CO2 production isn't actually much different.
Posted by: Anthony | August 8, 2008 5:35 PM
Australia's coal exporting industry will no doubt cease to exist one day, however, many existing coal plants have expected life spans of over 20 years and steel making is dependant upon coking coal. Also, sequestring carbon from coal power plants may be economically feasible. For these reasons it seems unlikely that Australian coal exports will end anytime soon, however they may go into a decline. These sorts of changes are nothing new in Australia, however. Gold, wool and sugar are all exports that have suffered major declines in relative terms and to which we reluctantly adapted.
Posted by: Ronald Brak | August 9, 2008 8:04 AM