On April 8, Bloomberg Philanthropies announced that it will invest an additional $30 million in the Sierra Club to secure the replacement of half the nation’s coal fleet by 2017 with clean energy.
How feasible is the goal of replacing coal with renewable energy? How necessary is the move?
John Miller, writing in The Energy Collective notes that “Coal electric power generation is under enormous regulatory pressure to substantially reduce stack emissions. The EPA requires huge reductions in most coal plant emissions including carbon dioxide (CO2). As a result, most new coal power plant projects are being cancelled and many existing coal plants are expected to shutdown prematurely… Analysis of DOE/EIA evaluations of proposed Clean Energy regulations find extremely complex solutions involving expansion of all types of clean energy. In addition, the Federal solutions to replacing coal include very complex systems of emissions/clean energy credits, establishing a carbon credit system (cap-and-trade) and purchasing substantial world market carbon credits. My personal review and analysis of these proposed Clean Energy regulations and Government Agency’s evaluations finds the claimed compliance costs to be significantly underestimated.”
Armond Cohen, Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force, wrote on the Penn energy site: “Coal will be central to economic modernization in the developing world, where most energy supply will be built in the next three decades. Coal will also have a significant residual role in much of the OECD. Coal is not going away. We need to begin to use it without emitting significant carbon dioxide, and quickly. If we don’t, the risk to global climate is immense, and likely irreversible. It’s that straightforward. People who wish otherwise, and simply hope for the demise of coal, are not facing the facts.”
Can coal be replaced by renewables?
Christopher Helman, writing in Forbes, points out the challenges: “ Even after a decade of rampant growth solar energy still barely moves the needle in the U.S. energy mix. In fact, solar merely equals the amount of electricity that the nation generates by burning natural gas captured from landfills. And it’s only slightly more meaningful than the 7.3 million Mwh we get from burning human waste strained out of municipal sewer systems.
“Indeed, when you factor in all the sources of energy consumed in this country, captured solar power amounts to well less than 1 quadrillion Btu out of an annual total of 96.5 quadrillion.
“The biggest sources are the old standbys. Oil still reigns supreme at 36 quadrillion Btu, natural gas at 26 quads, nuclear 8. Hydropower and biomass bring up the rear at 2.6 and 2.7 quads. Wind is just 1.5 quads. And coal — the great carbon-belching demon of the global energy mix — its contribution is 19 quads. That’s nearly 8 times all the nation’s wind and solar generation combined.
“The assumption, by policy makers like President Obama, is that the country can cut carbon emissions by closing coal plants, while making up for the lost electricity by burning more natural gas and building more solar and wind. Indeed, natural gas has taken a bite out of coal. In 2013,coal production from U.S. mines fell to 995.8 million short tons. The last time it was that low was in the late 1980s. Coal production peaked in 2008 at 1.17 billion short tons…
“Natural gas prices have already jumped three-fold in two years. And coal-to-gas switching has already reversed. From making up 40% of the national electricity mix in the first quarter of 2013, coal’s share rose to 41.4% in the first quarter of 2014. Natural gas dipped from 25.6% of total power generation a year ago, to 23.8% in the first quarter of 2014.
Alyson Kenward, writing in climatecentral.org, Notes that “Ignoring the costs, here are some of the ways the U.S. could replace enough coal power to meet an 80 percent clean energy sources target by 2035.
“Build 243 hydroelectric dams that have Hoover Dam’s generating capacity(that’s 10 new dams a year, on average). Mind you, that means we would also need 243 mighty rivers like the Colorado that don’t already have dams on them. There aren’t enough rivers left in the U.S. to support that number of large dams, and smaller dams alone can’t generate enough electricity to replace coal power plants.
- We could build 194,900 wind turbines, each having 2 megawatts (MW) of capacity (a typical size). That would mean building more than 8,000 new turbines each year, or 22 turbines a day, every day, for 24 years. Even if this is doable, we’d also have to overhaul the U.S. electrical grid, and add a way to store electricity, in order to safely and reliably use the intermittent flow of electricity that comes from wind turbines.
- We could build 64 new nuclear power plants the size of New York’s Indian Pointpower station. Since theFukushima disaster in Japan last spring, however, that kind of construction rate, with nearly four nuclear plants being built each year, no longer seems realistic. And keep in mind, the U.S. hasn’t built a new nuclear plant in over 20 years.
- We could build 10,200 solar energy farms — but each one would have to be the size of Nevada’s Copper Mountain solar array, which is currently the country’s largest. The amount of space needed for this number of solar panels: an area about three times the size of Delaware.”
Erectile buy viagra in stores discover now dysfunction is indicated when an erection fall short considering mental thoughts or feelings. Most infertility cases are pfizer viagra 100mg treatable, let us now check out the causes and treatment options. The condition of cheap sildenafil india robertrobb.com Erectile Dysfunction can cause situations such as divorce, breakup and problems in relationships. Being spontaneous and funny buy generic levitra http://robertrobb.com/2018/05/page/2/ is so sexy because you not only convey having a sense of well-being.
How urgent is the problem? A study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute earlier this year questions the depths of the issue:
“In the 1970s and 1980s, expert commentary often depicted air pollution as an ever-worsening problem that could be solved only by replacing carbon fuels with nonemitting alternatives. Technology falsified that narrative as well. Since 1980, U.S. consumption of coal has increased 31.6 percent; oil, 10.6 percent; and natural gas, 32.3 percent—even as emissions of the six most common air pollutants have decreased by 62 percent, according to EIA and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data. Even without additional regulation, U.S. air quality would keep improving as newer vehicles and capital stock replace older models and equipment.”
The U.S. Energy Information Administration describes how coal can be made cleaner:
“Industry has found several ways to reduce sulfur, NOx, and other impurities from coal. They have found more effective ways of cleaning coal after it is mined, and coal consumers have shifted toward greater use of low sulfur coal.
Power plants use flue gas desulfurization equipment, also known as scrubbers, to clean sulfur from the smoke before it leaves their smokestacks. In addition, industry and the U.S. government have cooperated to develop technologies that can remove impurities from coal or that can make coal more energy-efficient so less needs to be burned.
Equipment intended mainly to reduce SO2, NOx, and particulate matter can also be used to reduce mercury emissions from some types of coal. Scientists are also working on new ways to reduce mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants.
Research is underway to address emissions of carbon dioxide from coal combustion. Carbon capture separates CO2from emissions sources and recovers it in a concentrated stream. The CO2 can then be sequestered, which puts CO2into storage, possibly underground, where it will remain permanently.
Reuse and recycling can also reduce coal’s environmental impact. Land that was previously used for coal mining can be reclaimed and used for airports, landfills, and golf courses. Waste products captured by scrubbers can be used to produce products like cement and synthetic gypsum for wallboard.”