Currently I think that the latest concept is to replace the old power stations with more efficient new ones. This probably needs to be done - I think that they also have an ageing fleet. Coal makes up 50% of US electrical supply, so there are big gains to be made.
McIlvaine Company has published an argument for the replacement of old coal fired power stations with new ones as part of the US governments economic stimulus package.
They point out that by doing this they can meet America's 2020 CO2 emissions reduction requirement instantly. Of course it will cost money, but the plants need replacing anyway.
They then look at the options for coal, and how it can be used to reduce CO2 emissions:
They're claiming CO2 reductions for electric cars here - which I'm not sure is completely fair. I would perhaps have given the CO2 reduction by not using petrol / diesel to the consumer rather than the power station.
This of course costs money:
Yes, the cheapest is without carbon capture and storage - and I've no idea where on earth they got the costs for CCS+Co-firing / Wind / Solar / Nuclear and how the hell they came out equal - but it's nice to see that McIlvaine think they do.
...which makes an interesting claim - Coal+CCS+Biomass is a cheaper way of making large emission reductions than wind. I've not looked at the figures myself, but I suppose in a market without the Renewables Obligation it could be true...
No comments:
Post a Comment