Carbonacous sorbents can reduce carbon capture costs to 27 dollars a ton of CO2 captured using activated carbon. That would increase electricity prices from coal by 3 cents a kwh with a 90% capture efficiency for CO2 from flue gases. The main breakthrough seems to be caused by energy savings from not having to pump all of the flue gases through an amine scrubber as the process works at standard atmospheric pressure. Previous estimates found that CCS could cost in the range of 150 dollars a ton of CO2 captured. In any case, I wouldn't recommend the construction of new coal plants based on this study but the technology might save us as it provides a reasonably affordable means to reduce emissions in China and other developing countries that have already build these coal-fueled death machines.
The study which provided the info is:
Radosz, M., X. Hu, K. Krutkramelis, and Y. Shen (2008, May). Flue-gas carbon capture on carbonaceous sorbents: Toward a low-cost multifunctional carbon filter for â greenâ energy producers†. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 47(10), 3783–3794.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Carbon Capture With Biomass
I know what you guys might be thinking. Here Cheney goes again with another technocratic solution to anthropogenic climate change that doesn't deal with the root cause of the problem. I am not going to deny that biomass carbon capture and storage deals with the root cause of excessive resource consumption. However, the climate problem has gotten to the point where we the political viability of science based climate action will require a technological fix given the likely long lead time for social attitudes related to materialism and resource consumption to lead to deep emissions reduction as much of what we consume is for the most part dictated by our capital items. Furthermore, decreasing emissions in the short-term at a global level is politically difficult as evidenced by the disagreement associated with international climate negotiations. Developing countries are likely to continue to increase there energy demand which in the short-term means more coal fired power plants and cars as they continue to attempt to drag themselves out of poverty. We have the solution to climate change... but the earth climate is essentially like a heart attack patient going into cardiac arrest and needs defibrillator and then a nutritionist. This is an emergency and we need an ER doctor, not a naturalpathic doctor.... they should and likely will comes later
The article that the information comes from is
CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE FROM FOSSIL FUELS AND
BIOMASS – COSTS AND POTENTIAL ROLE IN STABILIZING
THE ATMOSPHERE
CHRISTIAN AZAR1, KRISTIAN LINDGREN1, ERIC LARSON2
and KENNETH MO¨ LLERSTEN
Climatic Change (2006)
DOI: 10.1007/s10584-005-3484-7
http://www.environmental-expert.com/Files\6063\articles\6220\w30h4274h130580u.pdf
The great thing about biomass with carbon capture and storage is that it deals with our other liquidity crisis which is the carbon liquidity crisis. Our economic and physical energy has already emitted a dangerous amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and we need to reduce carbon dioxide concentrations to a safe level of 350 parts per million. The current concentration is approaching about 390 ppm which is well in the danger zone. Climate scientist Hans Joachim Schellnuber and climate change advisor to fellow physicist German Chancellor Angela Merkel argue that we need negative emissions by 2070 and a 80 Global reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 to prevent a very dangerous two degrees of warming.
However, using renewable energy by itself to solve the climate crisis by itself in the short term would be a very expensive but otherwise desirable undertaking. The problem with that is that it requires a large amount of infrastructure to be built, something like a one-time, non-discounted cost of 18 Trillion if the US was to replace all its energy with wind power. Such a cost would have to be borne over a period of a decade or two as not all of the economic resources of the US or any other country could go into building wind turbines. Biomass with CCS will make meeting the global target of 350 ppm of CO2 by 2100 about 20 trillion dollars cheaper over the century at a discounted value at 5% a year. 
The graph above shows that the 350 ppm CO2 target can be meet at relatively low cost provided we are able to find 200 Exajoules of bio energy which would be about 3% of the worlds land area in bio energy plantations. This degree of land commitment may be difficult but it is likely far better than other options available to us. Currently, the third world (such asChina) and even developed countries such as the UK are building new coal fired power plants which creates the issue of emissions lock in as those plants will emit carbon dioxide for 40-50 years and thus another generation is unavoidably going to have to clean it up.
The article that the information comes from is
CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE FROM FOSSIL FUELS AND
BIOMASS – COSTS AND POTENTIAL ROLE IN STABILIZING
THE ATMOSPHERE
CHRISTIAN AZAR1, KRISTIAN LINDGREN1, ERIC LARSON2
and KENNETH MO¨ LLERSTEN
Climatic Change (2006)
DOI: 10.1007/s10584-005-3484-7
http://www.environmental-expert.com/Files\6063\articles\6220\w30h4274h130580u.pdf
Friday, June 26, 2009
The Ghost of James Hansen's Alternative Scenario
With the need to keep climate change simple enough for the average person, the focus has been on CO2. However, considering the need for immediate reductions in emissions and that methane will cause 25 times more warming than CO2 over a 100 years means that we can reduce the atmospheric concentration of methane more quickly than CO2. Including methane reductions as a core short-term climate action strategy yields quick results whereas CO2 reductions take 100 years before it is removed from the atmosphere assuming natural means of carbon removal. Here is a great article from New Scientist by Kirk Smith at UC Berkeley
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227146.000-methane-controls-before-risky-geoengineering-please.html
And here is James Hansen's amazing work "The Alternative Scenario."
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/18/9875
CO2 seems to be easier to beat but we need to throw all we have at this problem. Assuming a 450 ppm CO2 peak concentration, focusing on non-CO2 GHG's become of critical importance as we should really be reducing our CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm from the 383 ppm they are at now.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227146.000-methane-controls-before-risky-geoengineering-please.html
And here is James Hansen's amazing work "The Alternative Scenario."
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/18/9875
CO2 seems to be easier to beat but we need to throw all we have at this problem. Assuming a 450 ppm CO2 peak concentration, focusing on non-CO2 GHG's become of critical importance as we should really be reducing our CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm from the 383 ppm they are at now.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
A Danish Conservative's Statement
This is the Danish Minister of Climate and Energy Connie Hedegaard speaking at Kobenhaven's Universitet to a climate change conference This what the Danish right sounds like on climate issues , I wish Alberta would just join the United States, and Harper would be stuck languishing in a Triple-E Senate seat.
Here is the speech
"IARU Climate Change Congress
10-03-2009
Opening Remarks by H.E. Connie Hedegaard Denmark’s Minister for Climate and Energy
Your Royal Highness. Excellencies. Distinguished participants.
When the World gathers in this very hall in December to forge an ambitious and truly global
climate deal which will be the culmination of years of negotiations and talks since Kyoto.
Hopefully, it will reflect the new reality of today – and be a defining moment in World Politics.
Mans impact on the Planet is increasing – and so are the costs of our inaction. The World needs a
climate agreement that charts a common course for a new beginning; an agreement that adheres to
the rationale of the New World Economy – the Green Economy.
If we are to succeed here in Copenhagen – AND WE HAVE TO! – then science must inform us and
guide our decisions. Or rather: YOU have to tell US what you know – LOUD AND CLEAR.
What did KatherineJThis is no easy task – certainly not for scientists… Richardson just say: The
relationship between media and science is naturally “complicated”. But I urge you: Bring your best
game. Make your cases compellingly to all decision makers – and indeed to every citizen.
Everybody must understand the urgency of this matter - AND the potential costs if we don’t act
now.
In no uncertain terms science has made it clear that we are part of the problem; that we must act on the science before us – before our generation; that we must mend our ways – for the generations to come.
Therefore it is ironic that with such scientific clarity, we are still sensing doubt and uncertainty in
our midst. AND it is worrying that in this year of international resolution, the authority of science is fading in the shadows of serious economic crisis.
Dear friends: We must not let fear delay action. Certainly: The economic crisis is no excuse for
inaction. On the contrary, it is a chance to set a new course and steer our economies towards great opportunities. How often do we get a chance to rethink business as usual. In fact: The policies needed to address climate change and revitalise our core infrastructure are the very same policies that can help rebalance and revitalize our economies.
Denmark has seen the positive effects of enhanced energy efficiency and increased use of
renewable energy. In thirty years, we have gone from being almost completely dependent on
foreign sources of energy to being a net energy exporter. And we have become one of the most
energy efficient countries in the World.
Over the past 25 years Denmark has registered almost 80 percent of accumulated economic growth - with almost no increase in our total energy consumption. Today, clean tech and renewables account for some 10 percent of our total exports – and remains one of our fastest growing export areas. We have created an abundance of clean tech jobs largely in remote areas of the country that were previously hit by consecutive waves of outsourcing.
In short: We don’t just claim that green growth pays off. We have proven it in clean, cold numbers. We have proven that green growth can deliver the millions of new jobs that the World needs; that it can diversify economic development; and that it can make us all less dependent on fluctuating energy prices. And on a Planet of soon to be nine billion people - all wanting the commodities of modern life – the already solid business case for sustainable growth only becomes all the more apparent by the day. Reaching an ambitious and truly global climate change agreement here in Copenhagen in December is not just about saving our climate. There is much more to the equation – and yet it is in fact quite simple, because:
If we don’t act now, we won’t sustain economic growth. If we don’t act now, we will stay hostage to outdated energy systems. If we don’t act now, we risk catastrophic changes to our climate causing destabilising conflicts and massive migration of refugees due to water and food shortage in many parts of the World. And consequently if we don’t act now, we ultimately bring our national security in danger. In other words: We simply cannot afford not to invest in a green future. And we cannot afford not to rethink the way we shape our societies and economies. And for this we also call on you – on science. We need all the expertise gathered in this room – and even more. We need your innovative findings for a low carbon future that is full of fun, ashionable, exciting, smart and intelligent solutions – a low carbon tomorrow that is not dull and grey, but bright and green.
YOU – the scientists - have identified the problem before us – and you can also provide us with the research leading to new generations of technologies to help fix it. It is then up to us – the
politicians, the companies and citizens – to make it happen. I strongly believe that future politics must be guided by science – also when it requires tough political decisions. When it comes to climate change, science is unambiguous: To avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable we must take immediate action and keep global warming below two degrees centigrade.
With every day of delay, we waste precious time.
With every month of delay, the costs of inaction continue to rise.
With every year of delay, our efforts must be even more ambitious.
Science plays a monumental role in defining our level of ambition. It is vital that our targets and
goals are set in accordance with the widest possible scientific consensus. We must acknowledge the immense work of the IPCC – and the guidance of the assessment reports.
In many capitals around the globe, governments are now calculating how they can best contribute to our future global climate architecture.
The IPCC has set a yard stick for us all to measure our efforts against: To stay below the two
degrees centigrade threshold, developed countries must reduce emissions to 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 – and 80-95 percent below 1990 by 2050. And large developing economies must reduce their emissions with 15-30 percent below a business as usual scenario for 2020. True commitments by the developed countries will inspire confidence in the developing world – also financially – that the rich world seriously will live up to its responsibilities. With his clear determination to tackle global warming and take on international leadership, President Obama has received the World’s undivided attention. AND the President’s pledge to reduce emissions to . BUT we also need theJ80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 is a start United States to listen to science and deliver real reductions in the short to medium term. That will be the key to make others, also China, move their positions. The clock is ticking. In just nine months the World must reach a truly global climate change agreement here in Copenhagen. The deal must be ambitious enough to reverse the path that we are on – and it must have full commitment from all major emitters. Signing on to a global deal is no free lunch. It requires political responsibility – putting a price on carbon and setting reduction targets to be reached within our time. This is not the time to get shaky and doubtful. It is the time to reaffirm our commitment to an ambitious global deal and contribute with our level best.
As we progress towards December, we count on your clear guidance. This Congress will help
illuminate our path to Copenhagen. I’m sure it will emphasise the sense of urgency – and so I wish you all the best in your deliberations and look forward to receiving your input and advice.
Thank you!"
Here is the speech
"IARU Climate Change Congress
10-03-2009
Opening Remarks by H.E. Connie Hedegaard Denmark’s Minister for Climate and Energy
Your Royal Highness. Excellencies. Distinguished participants.
When the World gathers in this very hall in December to forge an ambitious and truly global
climate deal which will be the culmination of years of negotiations and talks since Kyoto.
Hopefully, it will reflect the new reality of today – and be a defining moment in World Politics.
Mans impact on the Planet is increasing – and so are the costs of our inaction. The World needs a
climate agreement that charts a common course for a new beginning; an agreement that adheres to
the rationale of the New World Economy – the Green Economy.
If we are to succeed here in Copenhagen – AND WE HAVE TO! – then science must inform us and
guide our decisions. Or rather: YOU have to tell US what you know – LOUD AND CLEAR.
What did KatherineJThis is no easy task – certainly not for scientists… Richardson just say: The
relationship between media and science is naturally “complicated”. But I urge you: Bring your best
game. Make your cases compellingly to all decision makers – and indeed to every citizen.
Everybody must understand the urgency of this matter - AND the potential costs if we don’t act
now.
In no uncertain terms science has made it clear that we are part of the problem; that we must act on the science before us – before our generation; that we must mend our ways – for the generations to come.
Therefore it is ironic that with such scientific clarity, we are still sensing doubt and uncertainty in
our midst. AND it is worrying that in this year of international resolution, the authority of science is fading in the shadows of serious economic crisis.
Dear friends: We must not let fear delay action. Certainly: The economic crisis is no excuse for
inaction. On the contrary, it is a chance to set a new course and steer our economies towards great opportunities. How often do we get a chance to rethink business as usual. In fact: The policies needed to address climate change and revitalise our core infrastructure are the very same policies that can help rebalance and revitalize our economies.
Denmark has seen the positive effects of enhanced energy efficiency and increased use of
renewable energy. In thirty years, we have gone from being almost completely dependent on
foreign sources of energy to being a net energy exporter. And we have become one of the most
energy efficient countries in the World.
Over the past 25 years Denmark has registered almost 80 percent of accumulated economic growth - with almost no increase in our total energy consumption. Today, clean tech and renewables account for some 10 percent of our total exports – and remains one of our fastest growing export areas. We have created an abundance of clean tech jobs largely in remote areas of the country that were previously hit by consecutive waves of outsourcing.
In short: We don’t just claim that green growth pays off. We have proven it in clean, cold numbers. We have proven that green growth can deliver the millions of new jobs that the World needs; that it can diversify economic development; and that it can make us all less dependent on fluctuating energy prices. And on a Planet of soon to be nine billion people - all wanting the commodities of modern life – the already solid business case for sustainable growth only becomes all the more apparent by the day. Reaching an ambitious and truly global climate change agreement here in Copenhagen in December is not just about saving our climate. There is much more to the equation – and yet it is in fact quite simple, because:
If we don’t act now, we won’t sustain economic growth. If we don’t act now, we will stay hostage to outdated energy systems. If we don’t act now, we risk catastrophic changes to our climate causing destabilising conflicts and massive migration of refugees due to water and food shortage in many parts of the World. And consequently if we don’t act now, we ultimately bring our national security in danger. In other words: We simply cannot afford not to invest in a green future. And we cannot afford not to rethink the way we shape our societies and economies. And for this we also call on you – on science. We need all the expertise gathered in this room – and even more. We need your innovative findings for a low carbon future that is full of fun, ashionable, exciting, smart and intelligent solutions – a low carbon tomorrow that is not dull and grey, but bright and green.
YOU – the scientists - have identified the problem before us – and you can also provide us with the research leading to new generations of technologies to help fix it. It is then up to us – the
politicians, the companies and citizens – to make it happen. I strongly believe that future politics must be guided by science – also when it requires tough political decisions. When it comes to climate change, science is unambiguous: To avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable we must take immediate action and keep global warming below two degrees centigrade.
With every day of delay, we waste precious time.
With every month of delay, the costs of inaction continue to rise.
With every year of delay, our efforts must be even more ambitious.
Science plays a monumental role in defining our level of ambition. It is vital that our targets and
goals are set in accordance with the widest possible scientific consensus. We must acknowledge the immense work of the IPCC – and the guidance of the assessment reports.
In many capitals around the globe, governments are now calculating how they can best contribute to our future global climate architecture.
The IPCC has set a yard stick for us all to measure our efforts against: To stay below the two
degrees centigrade threshold, developed countries must reduce emissions to 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 – and 80-95 percent below 1990 by 2050. And large developing economies must reduce their emissions with 15-30 percent below a business as usual scenario for 2020. True commitments by the developed countries will inspire confidence in the developing world – also financially – that the rich world seriously will live up to its responsibilities. With his clear determination to tackle global warming and take on international leadership, President Obama has received the World’s undivided attention. AND the President’s pledge to reduce emissions to . BUT we also need theJ80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 is a start United States to listen to science and deliver real reductions in the short to medium term. That will be the key to make others, also China, move their positions. The clock is ticking. In just nine months the World must reach a truly global climate change agreement here in Copenhagen. The deal must be ambitious enough to reverse the path that we are on – and it must have full commitment from all major emitters. Signing on to a global deal is no free lunch. It requires political responsibility – putting a price on carbon and setting reduction targets to be reached within our time. This is not the time to get shaky and doubtful. It is the time to reaffirm our commitment to an ambitious global deal and contribute with our level best.
As we progress towards December, we count on your clear guidance. This Congress will help
illuminate our path to Copenhagen. I’m sure it will emphasise the sense of urgency – and so I wish you all the best in your deliberations and look forward to receiving your input and advice.
Thank you!"
Wind Can Meet All Energy Desires
Hi All,
I have great news today, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that wind energy alone could provide more than 5 times the world's energy use and 40 times its current electricity demand. That said, we likely will never exploit more than half of that because of a range of other sources such as Geothermal, Biomass and Hydro... oh and my favorite Solar. Oh, by the way China seems to have enough wind potential to meet its energy needs (just desires?) and Canada is Number #2 in potential for Wind Energy. My generation may have to make some small sacrifices to stop climate change, but it sure is beginning to look that energy use is not going to be the pit fall of industrial civilization if we move away from fossil fuels or at least capture the carbon dioxide that they emit. I am not buying in to the whole energy decent idea, I think we are looking at a wind/solar/lithium battery/hydrogen/biofuels economy with some sort of affulent lifestyle for the vast maajority of the world's people rather than the 19th century druggery suggested by some in the environmental movement. Solving climate change will mean less change and more investment. Like the sound of increase capital turn-over due to climate mitigation? I do, I am buying Vestas shares, and hopefully I someday can afford an electric bike (I don't like hills), Bullfrog Powered, of course.
Here is the link:
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0622-hance_global_wind.html
I have great news today, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that wind energy alone could provide more than 5 times the world's energy use and 40 times its current electricity demand. That said, we likely will never exploit more than half of that because of a range of other sources such as Geothermal, Biomass and Hydro... oh and my favorite Solar. Oh, by the way China seems to have enough wind potential to meet its energy needs (just desires?) and Canada is Number #2 in potential for Wind Energy. My generation may have to make some small sacrifices to stop climate change, but it sure is beginning to look that energy use is not going to be the pit fall of industrial civilization if we move away from fossil fuels or at least capture the carbon dioxide that they emit. I am not buying in to the whole energy decent idea, I think we are looking at a wind/solar/lithium battery/hydrogen/biofuels economy with some sort of affulent lifestyle for the vast maajority of the world's people rather than the 19th century druggery suggested by some in the environmental movement. Solving climate change will mean less change and more investment. Like the sound of increase capital turn-over due to climate mitigation? I do, I am buying Vestas shares, and hopefully I someday can afford an electric bike (I don't like hills), Bullfrog Powered, of course.
Here is the link:
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0622-hance_global_wind.html
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Global Electrical Grid
Here is an organization that is proposing a global electric grid(http://www.geni.org) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The transmission losses with High Voltage Direct Current are only 10% for 5000 Kilometers of power transmission which are not so bad. Although transmission lines do have an impact it does allow us to move to 100% renewable energy with existing commercial technologies and no batteries according to European research and at a lower cost than fossil fuels.
One important thing is that transmitting power long distance allows society use the most cost effective resources which reduces the cost even considering the cost of transimitting power) of reducing carbon emissions as well as practically eliminating intermittency concerns.
One important thing is that transmitting power long distance allows society use the most cost effective resources which reduces the cost even considering the cost of transimitting power) of reducing carbon emissions as well as practically eliminating intermittency concerns.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Great News for Hot Dry Rock
Becoming a climate policy analyst is one of the world's most depressing careers because in the midst of the probable global collapse there is widespread apathy and lack of concern about the problem in Canada and most of the rest of the world, and the debate centers around the impact that saving future generations lives means in dollars. It is funny, when my generation has grandchildren and someone put a gun to their grandkid's head, people would be willing to pay a large ransom in order to save them, but if it means having 3% less money than one would have had otherwise in 2050... well... Yawn. It is very interesting how human evolution makes us so ill-suited to deal with issues of long-term environmental sustainability as evolution favoured those who could get the most resources compared to those who could manage resources for the long-term.
However, then there are somedays where even my most cynical jaded side says that we might just be able to solve this problem (Politically, I mean, the technological solutions to climate change are quite easy, they just cost slightly more money than the status quo) . One thing that has made climate action difficult is that much of it depends on non-conventional renewables such as wind and solar which face market barrier of intermittency and transmission constraints in the case of wind and cost and intermittency in the case of solar (See my upcoming post on Solar Baseload) make renewables a less attractive option for utilities as their penetration level is restricted if not combined with backup plants or supergrids and seems to be limited to around 30% of electricity generated if we don't build continental grids (Another future post).
However, we need very substantial emissions reductions that go far beyond 30% (Another post). Therefore what we need is a carbon-free, baseload, dispachable electrical source. One option is nuclear but is essentially politically unacceptiable, and there are some concerns about the safety although all energy sources including wind and solar inflict casualities. This essentially leaves us with Hydro (Dams not run of the river which is not dispatchable), some natural gas and yes, geothermal. Hot Dry Rock Geothermal is my favourite as it is a vast resource that would provide enough energy for the world at least a 100 generations. What it essentially does is injects water or liquid carbon dioxide into hot granite up to several kilometers deep. However, this requires deep drilling of up to 10 kilometers which is expensive. A technology from Potter Drilling called hydrothermal spallation may to change that. What it essentially does is shoot hot water at rock in order to fracture it prior to the drill bit hitting it which reduces wear. This will cut the cost of drilling hot-dry rock geothermal wells in half. One issue with HDR is that the fields only last 20 to 30 years until they need a 300 year period to renew themselves.
Here is some info on the MIT study on Enhanced Geothermal Systems (the boring engineering term for Hot Dry Rock) from Wikipedia:
However, then there are somedays where even my most cynical jaded side says that we might just be able to solve this problem (Politically, I mean, the technological solutions to climate change are quite easy, they just cost slightly more money than the status quo) . One thing that has made climate action difficult is that much of it depends on non-conventional renewables such as wind and solar which face market barrier of intermittency and transmission constraints in the case of wind and cost and intermittency in the case of solar (See my upcoming post on Solar Baseload) make renewables a less attractive option for utilities as their penetration level is restricted if not combined with backup plants or supergrids and seems to be limited to around 30% of electricity generated if we don't build continental grids (Another future post).
However, we need very substantial emissions reductions that go far beyond 30% (Another post). Therefore what we need is a carbon-free, baseload, dispachable electrical source. One option is nuclear but is essentially politically unacceptiable, and there are some concerns about the safety although all energy sources including wind and solar inflict casualities. This essentially leaves us with Hydro (Dams not run of the river which is not dispatchable), some natural gas and yes, geothermal. Hot Dry Rock Geothermal is my favourite as it is a vast resource that would provide enough energy for the world at least a 100 generations. What it essentially does is injects water or liquid carbon dioxide into hot granite up to several kilometers deep. However, this requires deep drilling of up to 10 kilometers which is expensive. A technology from Potter Drilling called hydrothermal spallation may to change that. What it essentially does is shoot hot water at rock in order to fracture it prior to the drill bit hitting it which reduces wear. This will cut the cost of drilling hot-dry rock geothermal wells in half. One issue with HDR is that the fields only last 20 to 30 years until they need a 300 year period to renew themselves.
Here is some info on the MIT study on Enhanced Geothermal Systems (the boring engineering term for Hot Dry Rock) from Wikipedia:
-
- Resource Size: The MIT report calculated the United States total EGS resources from 3–10 km of depth to be over 13,000 zettajoules, of which over 200 ZJ would be extractable, with the potential to increase this to over 2,000 ZJ with technology improvements — sufficient to provide all the world's current energy needs for several millennia.[5] The report found that total geothermal resources, including hydrothermal and geo-pressured resources, to equal 14,000 ZJ — or roughly 140,000 times the total U.S. annual primary energy use.
- Development Potential: With a modest R&D investment of $1 billion over 15 years (or the cost of one coal power plant), the report estimated that 100 GWe (gigawatts of electricity) or more could be installed by 2050 in the United States. The report further found that the "recoverable" resource (that accessible with today's technology) to be between 1.2–12.2 TW for the conservative and moderate recovery scenarios respectively.
- Cost: The report found that EGS could be capable of producing electricity for as low as 3.9 cents/kWh. EGS costs were found to be sensitive to four main factors: 1) Temperature of the resource, 2) Fluid flow through the system measured in liters/second, 3) Drilling Costs, and 4) Power conversion efficiency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)