Getting to 17%
The Waxman-Markey bill requires a 17% drop in carbon emissions by 2020. Joe Romm explains how we can get there:
Clean energy deployment from the stimulus....carbon dioxide emissions will be some 2% lower in 2020 than in 2005....Obama’s recent fuel economy deal....Let’s call that another 2% emissions drop....Then we have Waxman-Markey itself. It achieves huge energy efficiency savings....That’s another 5% drop.
....Let’s say 1% of the target will be met with domestic offsets....Let’s say 1% of the target will be met with international offsets....cofiring biomass....2% of the 2020 target.
That's about 13% already, and the rest of the reduction
can be met simply by utilizing existing gas-fired electric plants at a higher rate than we do now:
It now appears likely that, thanks to unconventional supplies, natural gas alone could meet a great deal of the Waxman-Markey CO2 target for 2020 — without requiring gobs of new power plants to be sited and built or thousands of miles of new transmission lines.
....Today, dirty coal plants are being “dispatched” (or utilized) to provide electricity by grid operators first, while natural gas plants that could provide electricity with far lower emissions of carbon dioxide remain unutilized or underutilized — even though their electricity costs are only slightly higher. This is occurring in at least two regions of the country, according to a major under-reported May study by the Energy Information Administration, “The Implications of Lower Natural Gas Prices for Electric Generators in the Southest.” A cap on CO2 emissions and even a low price of CO2 will switch the dispatch order, generating large emissions savings at low cost (if the gas is available, as now seems likely).
Joe suggests that a carbon price of around ten bucks a ton — which is pretty low — is all that we'd need to motivate utilities to change the dispatch order of their plants enough to meet the rest of the 17% target.
Bottom line: meeting the Waxman-Markey targets for 2020 is pretty easy. We'll have over a decade to start getting ready for the harder measures it takes to make serious cuts. Doom mongers, take note.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Sounds reasonable
Sure. I still expect fainting spells, hysterical accusations of socialism, and most certainly of all, a demand for some 99-year tax breaks for the utilities and related industries since they're being required to take these unprecedented steps.
Wanna bet?
5% of all US electricity through wind power by 2012 because of the Stimulus spending? In this stimulus spending package? You know actually it probably is true but not in the way you're thinking. The stimulus package is such a dud that the recession will linger and linger so that electricity demand will continue to fall and achieve that goal without building one new windmill. Except off the coast of Hyannis Port, of course, oh that's right....
It takes 5 years of CO2 emissions by humanity in order to add just 1 molecule of CO2 to each 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. This obviously gives a very different impression than “billions of tons of CO2″ dispensed into the atmosphere.
Look, there's no need to use smoke, if you'll pardon the expression, and mirrors here, just have your $10 a ton carbon tax, the better to pay for those social programs that keeps the Liberals, I mean Progressives in office.
"It now appears likely that,
"It now appears likely that, thanks to unconventional supplies, natural gas alone could meet a great deal of the Waxman-Markey CO2 target for 2020"
Oh boy. Unconventional supplies... I suspect that, whatever Joe Romm may think, somewhere in some energy exec's mind, this means methane hydrates...
I would counter with the following
(1) It's not like the rest of the world is ignorant of gas. From Thailand to South Africa to Dubai(!) vehicles are being converted to use natural gas rather than diesel. The engine conversion is easy. The tank and refueling are more of a hassle, but for commercial vehicles with standard routes (buses, taxis, trucks, even boats) it's not just feasible, it's very much worth doing. This means the price of gas today tells us little about the price of gas tomorrow.
(2) We are all aware, are we not, that methane is a substantially more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2? 20x more powerful over a 100 year period, 70x more powerful over a 20 year period! (Different numbers for different periods, because methane is flushed from the atmosphere much faster than CO2).
So consider that 70x number. Yes, no-one wants to waste their methane by deliberately spilling it to the atmosphere, but a methane economy as large as the existing coal/oil economy, and leaking only 1% of its fuel is generating a warming effect as large as the coal/oil effect, even BEFORE you take into account the CO2 generated by its burning.
Going down the methane path strikes me as a perfect example of what we're going to get when scientifically illiterate idiots write legislation. The goal, let's remember, is to limit global climate change; limiting CO2 is only a MEANS to that end. Switching wholesale to methane, with the result that CO2 emissions go down quite a bit, but warming continues on the exact same trend, may strike some financial engineer as a marvelous trick to pull off, but it is NOT SOLVING THE PROBLEM.
CH4 (natural gas) + 2O2 -->
CH4 (natural gas) + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O
What's the diff in CO2 emissions for the same amount of electricity produced by coal or gas?
"What's the diff in CO2
"What's the diff in CO2 emissions for the same amount of electricity produced by coal or gas?"
(1) The amount of energy you get per amount of CO2 released is higher for methane than for coal. This is because the coal is (basically) pure carbon, so you only get energy from burning the C. With CH4, you get energy from burning the C, and a little more energy from burning the H (which gives H20 which no-one cares about).
(2) For technical reasons you can run gas turbines a little hotter, and thus a little more efficiently, than coal plants.
These are real effects, but they're also pretty minor. Maybe a big deal in the context of trying to reduce emissions by 10%, but after this one-time reduction they're used up --- it's the end of that particular road.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.



