--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Apr 14, 2007, at 1:13 PM, wayback71 wrote: > > > A terrific article in the 4/15 NYTImes Sunday Magazine by Thomas > > Friedman on the entire > > issue. He explains it beautifully, gets into specifics, has some > > doable ideas, and presents > > the Green thing as clearly and intelligently as I have ever read. I > > think we've reached the > > tipping point on global warming. > > > Great article: The Power of Green (printable) > > There is probably no one in the media I consistently agree with and > share opinion than Sri Sri Thomas Friedman. > > Thanks for the article Wayback71, I'll pass this out at work. I > needed something to pass out after a friend, a very literary friend, > also an independent, insisted I read this article: > > Fuzzy Climate Math > > Don't crush your Prius with that new Hummer just yet...
Friedman has had good essays on carbon-based energy over the years, and I applaud his efforts. Not to diminish his efforts, but his points and examples too are at times top-view simplistic and subject to Will's "fuzzy thinking" criticism. Citing some academics, he reviews that "Here are seven wedges we could chose from: "Replace 1,400 large coal-fired plants with gas-fired plants; increase the fuel economy of two billion cars from 30 to 60 miles per gallon; add twice today's nuclear output to displace coal; drive two billion cars on ethanol, using one-sixth of the world's cropland; increase solar power 700-fold to displace coal; cut electricity use in homes, offices and stores by 25 percent; install carbon capture and sequestration capacity at 800 large coal-fired plants." And the other eight aren't any easier. They include halting all cutting and burning of forests, since deforestation causes about 20 percent of the world's annual CO2 emissions." "Replace 1,400 large coal-fired plants with gas-fired plants;" -- can't be done, there is not enough natural gas reserves to sustain that long term. Nor the pipeline infrasturcture to deliver it if it were. And natural gas while cleaner, is still a major source of CO2, albeit about 1/2 of coals carbon / kwh. Sequestering CO2 at coal fired electric generation plants is more viable. And he points to this "install carbon capture and sequestration capacity at 800 large coal-fired plants." But there is no viable technology today to retrofit existing coal plants for sequestration. New coal-to-gas conversion plants, IF designed and built to do so, can be retrofitted to sequester carbon -- in concept. Though this has not been demonstrated at scale -- and currently is very costly -- possibly adding 50-100% to the price of electricity. (Though the goal is 10%). And it would mean decommissioning 800+ existing, not fully paid for existing coal plants -- and constructing 800 new ones. Consumers, investors and/or government would need to pay for BOTH the old plants and the new plants. And the conversion would take 10-20 years plus, even assuming no opposition to the idea (like that is going to happen). "increase solar power 700-fold to displace coal" Solar photvotaics (PV) are up to 2-5 times as costly per kwh as coal fired plants (energy and capital). Large solar thermal plants (sun heated steam turbines) are more cost effective, but far from competitive with coal if carbon costs are not priced. And solar is not "base-loaded" it does not work at night or (as well) on cloudy days). it can't replace base-loaded high load factor coal plants. Internalizing the social and economic cost of carbon into fuels would make alternatives more cost effective. At $300 / ton of carbon, the price of electricity from a coal plant increases about 6 cents -- about double the current costs / kwh (minus transmission, distribution and customer costs which will remain constant). Or about 50-60% higther than total costs /kwh. 16 cents vs 10 cents. Going solar and or require complete carbon sequestration of coal plants might push costs up towards 20-25 cents / kwh, 2-3 times current levels. Mitigating factors are this will drive heroic efforts in energy efficiency technologies, driving total energy costs down. And the efforts may reduce energy costs from current levels with new supply technologies discovered by this massive new funding. And to work, the whole globe will have to play this same game. No free-riders. The issues are, is this cheaper than bearing the consequnces of global warming. Probably, -- what is the cost of loss of 25% of global species, and 100 millionto a billion lives? And of all the ills of the world, is the carbon problem the most pressing and most dserving of being fixed? Is the money spent on carbon reduction reduce more pain and suffering than say plowing all that money into eductation?
