Comments on: Celia on CCS http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4555 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Mark Bahner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4555&cpage=1#comment-10956 Mark Bahner Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:17:15 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4555#comment-10956 Some additional calculations: 1) Assuming 90% removal efficiency, CCS for all coal-fired plants would remove about 1.7 billion metric tons of CO2 every year. 2) The cost per metric ton of CO2 would therefore be about $71. 3) In 10 years, the cost would be $1.2 trillion, and 17 billion metric tons of CO2 would have been removed. 4) Assuming that doubling CO2 from 380 to 760 ppm raises the global temperature by 2.5 degrees Celsius (i.e., a climate sensitivity of 2.5 degrees Celsius), and given that 1 ppm is about 2.1 GtC... 5) The 17 billion metric tons of CO2 would be 17 times 12/44 = 4.6 GtC. 6) That would be about 4.6/2.1 = 2.2 ppm of CO2. 7) So that $1.2 trillion dollars would buy a reduction in temperature of 2.2 ppm/380 ppm times 2.5 degrees Celsius = 0.014 degrees Celsius temperature reduction. So...why not simply pile the $1.2 trillion in a big pile of bills and set fire to it? At least it would be a swell bonfire. Some additional calculations:

1) Assuming 90% removal efficiency, CCS for all coal-fired plants would remove about 1.7 billion metric tons of CO2 every year.

2) The cost per metric ton of CO2 would therefore be about $71.

3) In 10 years, the cost would be $1.2 trillion, and 17 billion metric tons of CO2 would have been removed.

4) Assuming that doubling CO2 from 380 to 760 ppm raises the global temperature by 2.5 degrees Celsius (i.e., a climate sensitivity of 2.5 degrees Celsius), and given that 1 ppm is about 2.1 GtC…

5) The 17 billion metric tons of CO2 would be 17 times 12/44 = 4.6 GtC.

6) That would be about 4.6/2.1 = 2.2 ppm of CO2.

7) So that $1.2 trillion dollars would buy a reduction in temperature of 2.2 ppm/380 ppm times 2.5 degrees Celsius = 0.014 degrees Celsius temperature reduction.

So…why not simply pile the $1.2 trillion in a big pile of bills and set fire to it? At least it would be a swell bonfire.

]]>
By: Mark Bahner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4555&cpage=1#comment-10955 Mark Bahner Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:14:23 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4555#comment-10955 Some back-of-the-envelope calculations: 1) Coal generates approximately 2 trillion kilowatt hours per year in the U.S. 2) The average price of electricity from coal is probably about 7 cents a kilowatt hour. So that's about $140 billion a year. 3) If CCS adds about 6 cents a kilowatt hour, that would be about $120 billion a year more in electricity costs to do CCS for all coal-fired plants. 4) That's about $390 a year for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. That's a lot of money. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations:

1) Coal generates approximately 2 trillion kilowatt hours per year in the U.S.

2) The average price of electricity from coal is probably about 7 cents a kilowatt hour. So that’s about $140 billion a year.

3) If CCS adds about 6 cents a kilowatt hour, that would be about $120 billion a year more in electricity costs to do CCS for all coal-fired plants.

4) That’s about $390 a year for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.

That’s a lot of money.

]]>
By: Mark Bahner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4555&cpage=1#comment-10948 Mark Bahner Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:14:17 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4555#comment-10948 "He observed that he understood the costs of CCS to add about $0.06 kW/hr..." And... "When asked about costs, he said that the cost is a 'non issue' (though he said that his response was a bit flippant)." "A bit flippant"? As they would say on The West Wing, "Ya think?!" A cost addition of 6 cents per kilowatt hour to coal-fired power would be huge. That would essentially double the cost...or even more (assuming he's talking about the cost to produce electricity with coal increasing by 6 cents per kWh). Wonderful Wikipedia says that a pulverized coal plant without CCS costs 4-5 cents/kWh, and a pulverized coal plant with CCS and geological "storage" (really disposal!) costs 6-10 cents/kWh. So Wikipedia doesn't necessarily have the same absolute cost increase value...but it's definitely a substantial increase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage “He observed that he understood the costs of CCS to add about $0.06 kW/hr…”

And…

“When asked about costs, he said that the cost is a ‘non issue’ (though he said that his response was a bit flippant).”

“A bit flippant”? As they would say on The West Wing, “Ya think?!”

A cost addition of 6 cents per kilowatt hour to coal-fired power would be huge. That would essentially double the cost…or even more (assuming he’s talking about the cost to produce electricity with coal increasing by 6 cents per kWh).

Wonderful Wikipedia says that a pulverized coal plant without CCS costs 4-5 cents/kWh, and a pulverized coal plant with CCS and geological “storage” (really disposal!) costs 6-10 cents/kWh. So Wikipedia doesn’t necessarily have the same absolute cost increase value…but it’s definitely a substantial increase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

]]>
By: stan http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4555&cpage=1#comment-10947 stan Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:49:58 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4555#comment-10947 So if CCS is effective, wouldn't that support a policy of doing nothing at all for the next half century (since the overall benefit/cost analysis of a warmer climate is cacluated as a net positive). Then, at the point that the analysis begins to tilt negative, only then implement CCS. ;) So if CCS is effective, wouldn’t that support a policy of doing nothing at all for the next half century (since the overall benefit/cost analysis of a warmer climate is cacluated as a net positive). Then, at the point that the analysis begins to tilt negative, only then implement CCS. ;)

]]>
By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4555&cpage=1#comment-10945 Roger Pielke, Jr. Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:20:51 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4555#comment-10945 Good point, now updated. Carbon capture and storage. Good point, now updated. Carbon capture and storage.

]]>
By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4555&cpage=1#comment-10943 David Bruggeman Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:08:06 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4555#comment-10943 I know I'm the token non-climate science person around here, but I'm also a bit of a jargon hater. CCS means what, exactly? I know I’m the token non-climate science person around here, but I’m also a bit of a jargon hater. CCS means what, exactly?

]]>