> In 2006 the US had 842 GWe of fossil-fueled generating capacity (335 from
> coal; 443 natural gas; 64 from oil). With three trillion dollars to work
> with, the replacement cost for 842 GW fossil-fueld capacity would be about
> $3500 per kilowatt.
...
> The web site says conservation and efficiency can reduce electricity
> consumption by one third.
25-30% of generation (measured in kWh) is already carbon free
(nuclear, hydro, wind). Knocking a third of demand (1350 out of 4050
billion kWh) leaves 2700 billion kWh to be generated carbon free, and
the US already generates some 1200 billion kWh C free. Add some 800
billion kWh from wind and carbon sequestration needs to do 700 billion
kWh, or 80 GWe at 100% load factor, or 400 GWe at 20% load factor. I
suspect the cheapest approach would be to convert nat gas generation
by putting in a hydrogen shift step, or use oxyfuel with CO2 recycle
(ie burn with oxygen instead of air, and dilute down the oxygen with
recycle CO2 to avoid flame temperatures of 3000K plus that would melt
the turbines), and get rid of coal altogether. Essentially coal would
be phased out through demand reduction and extra wind turbines, and
nat gas generation would be decarbonised.
Peak capacity (in GWe) could come from extra efficiency / conservation
(ie less airconditioning), ice making at night (to move daytime peak
airco demand to the night), increasing the peak capacity of hydro
(extra turbines in hydro reservoirs, you can't increase production in
kWh given a fixed amount of water behind the dam, but it is possible
to increase peak output in GWe) in the US and Canada, and by putting
in extra transmission lines (some regional capacity is necessary so
that on the hottest day of the year with 5 power plants out the
regional demand can be met; when imports from other regions are
feasible, less of a cushion is required).
I think it could probably be done with 20 cents per kWh in taxes, out
of which maybe 5 cents would pay for the carbon sequestration bit, 5
cents for the wind turbines, extra hydro turbines and HVDC lines, and
the rest would be necessary to achieve the 33% demand reduction over
10 years.
It would require a big ramp in wind turbine manufacturing capability
with domestic installation going from 5 GWe per annum now to 60 GWe
per annum or so in 5 years, with a sharp slow down in 10 years when
complete decarbonisation is achieved (maybe the wind turbine
manufacturers could then export to China and India, or instead nuclear
and nat gas could be phased out).
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
