A new study claims that the U.S. could be free of emissions from coal-fired power plants in 20 years using only technologies that currently exist or could be ready in the next decade. The one thing holding us back, according to the authors, is political will.
The study, published in the latest issue of Environmental Science and Technology, lays out a plan to erase coal emissions that includes cutting fossil fuel subsidies, applying a substantial fee on carbon emissions, developing a smart grid, increasing energy efficiency, some carbon capture and storage, and, of course, replacing coal with clean energy alternatives and new (hopefully safer) nuclear technologies.
What's most important about this study, regardless of whether we could realistically drum up the support to make this massive overhaul so quickly, is that we already have the technology at our disposal to make coal almost obsolete in just 20 short years. Think of the impact that would have on our ability to mitigate the effects of climate change.
via Mongabay
Hits: 10753
Comments (12)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Elemental LED staff, May 03, 2010
Is it naive to think that the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and similar ongoing problems created by fossil fuels will help shift political will?
-
- +4
-
-
written by Fred, May 03, 2010
Other countries subsidize oil - we do not. Fuel taxes are $0.45/gallon here. That's a lot of money going to our state and federal governments.
Fees on carbon emissions? Once again, the only thing these people ever suggest is jacking up the prices and making everybody poorer. You want political support for that? When's the last tie you voted to make yourself substantially poorer? You gotta do better than that.
The last suggestion did make sense, though - we should be building thorium-based nuclear power plants. Thorium produces less than 1% of the long-lived radioactive waste of today's nuclear power plants. Existing nuclear power plant waste can be consumed. One ton of plentiful thorium costing $100,000 provides 1 GW-year of electric energy, enough for a city. And the the thorium nuclear plants are much simpler to build than current uranium-fueled designs.
Drawback? Can't use thorium for nuke weapons!
Fees on carbon emissions? Once again, the only thing these people ever suggest is jacking up the prices and making everybody poorer. You want political support for that? When's the last tie you voted to make yourself substantially poorer? You gotta do better than that.
The last suggestion did make sense, though - we should be building thorium-based nuclear power plants. Thorium produces less than 1% of the long-lived radioactive waste of today's nuclear power plants. Existing nuclear power plant waste can be consumed. One ton of plentiful thorium costing $100,000 provides 1 GW-year of electric energy, enough for a city. And the the thorium nuclear plants are much simpler to build than current uranium-fueled designs.
Drawback? Can't use thorium for nuke weapons!
-
- -3
-
-
written by dialtone, May 04, 2010
September 2004 - Wired magazine article on the Chinese building pebble bed nuclear reactors - supposedly melt down proof - wonder how that is going?
-
- +1
-
-
written by BruceMcF, May 04, 2010
... Fred, and of course $0.45/gallon is (1) not on all of our use of fossil fuels and (2) usage taxes to fund road repair, that cross-subsidizes highways and country roads with taxes paid by urban motorists and STILL does not even cover the cost of the highways that it funds.
Even if the gas tax was raised to the amount necessary to fully fund all road maintenance ... which would be more than $1/gallon ... that would just be the roads. Its not general revenue to offset the other subsidies of fossil fuel.
And Fred, if you are trying to suggest that "other countries" tax gasoline less than the United States, you are just making stuff up to fit your desired conclusion without bothering to check the facts.
Even if the gas tax was raised to the amount necessary to fully fund all road maintenance ... which would be more than $1/gallon ... that would just be the roads. Its not general revenue to offset the other subsidies of fossil fuel.
And Fred, if you are trying to suggest that "other countries" tax gasoline less than the United States, you are just making stuff up to fit your desired conclusion without bothering to check the facts.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Joe, May 04, 2010
This fact of the matter is that even if the US completely stopped producing CO2 today, it would not change the outcome of the current planetary warming cycle one iota!
If China and India completely stopped producing CO2 tomorrow in sympathy with the USA it would not change the outcome of the current warming one iota.
If China and India completely stopped producing CO2 tomorrow in sympathy with the USA it would not change the outcome of the current warming one iota.
-
- -4
-
-
written by Thirdcoastkites, May 04, 2010
I think putting a price on our earth makes perfect sense given that we have accepted the predominance of capitalism and the market economy. I think that as this happens, the economic as well as mental transition toward green can happen rapidly.
Get in touch with wind energy - fly a kite: http://www.thirdcoastkites.com
Get in touch with wind energy - fly a kite: http://www.thirdcoastkites.com
-
- +1
-
-
written by Robert Halvarsson, May 04, 2010
Joe:
I humnly disagree. Leading by example is a force to be reckoned with. Currently the global situation is ridden with tu quoque arguments. Basically, "we" don't have to change because "the other" have to change first.
I humnly disagree. Leading by example is a force to be reckoned with. Currently the global situation is ridden with tu quoque arguments. Basically, "we" don't have to change because "the other" have to change first.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Joe, May 05, 2010
I think you "humnly" don't understand what I was saying. CO2 is not the cause of the planetary warming.
All of these CO2 reduction measures are magical.
All of these CO2 reduction measures are magical.
-
- -2
-
-
written by badfaith, May 05, 2010
With regard to Elemental's comment, (first comment)
Didn't gov Schwarzennegger say he's revising his decision to drill for oil off California as a direct result of the spill?
Didn't gov Schwarzennegger say he's revising his decision to drill for oil off California as a direct result of the spill?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sweetness Organic, May 06, 2010
Motor vehicle emissions are one of the leading causes of air pollution.China, United States, Russia, Mexico, and Japan are the world leaders in air pollution emissions. Principal stationary pollution sources include chemical plants, coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, petrochemical plants, nuclear waste disposal activity, incinerators, large livestock farms (dairy cows, pigs, poultry, etc.), PVC factories, metals production factories, plastics factories, and other heavy industry. Agricultural air pollution comes from contemporary practices which include clear felling and burning of natural vegetation as well as spraying of pesticides and herbicides ..... and more sadly .... http://www.sweetnessorganic.com/
-
- +0
-
-
written by Thermal Efficiency, May 10, 2010
An electric power plant dumps 60% or more of the heat energy into the air or water, with just 40% turned into electricity. If that heat could be put to use as hot water, space heating, greenhouses, or some other purpose, the fuel currently used would be saved and combined efficiency could go from 40% to 90% or more. If 50 million homes generated 10,000 watts of electricity from natural gas and used the waste heat, those homeowners would generate as much power for the grid as all the coal-fired electric plants. Businesses could also get involved too with bigger generators. In 5-to-20 years "regular" gas furnaces and water heaters could be rare, with cogenerators taking over. Paying 20 cents per kilowatt-hour would go far in encouraging this.
-
- +0
-
-
written by JasonK, September 03, 2010
this video is a hilarious parody of coal's history in the US: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XueFGbvwiSE
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
MAY 03
"this video is a hilarious parody of coal's history in the US: http://w..."
View all Comments