The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Harvard University researchers have issued a new report that confirms what many experts already feared: Stopping greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants is going to cost a lot of money. Electricity costs could double at a first-generation plant that captures and stores carbon dioxide emissions, according to the report from energy researchers at the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center. Costs would drop as the technology matures, but could still amount to an increase of 22 to 55 percent, according to the report, "Realistic Costs of Carbon Capture," issued this week. These projections "are higher than many published estimates," but reflect capital project inflation and "greater knowledge of project costs," wrote researchers Mohammed Al-Juaied and Adam Whitmore. Coal is the nation's largest source of global warming pollution, representing about a third of U.S. greenhouse emissions, equal to the combined output of all cars, trucks, buses, trains and boats.
Electricity costs could double at a first-generation plant that captures and stores carbon dioxide emissions, according to the report from energy researchers at the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center.
Costs would drop as the technology matures, but could still amount to an increase of 22 to 55 percent, according to the report, "Realistic Costs of Carbon Capture," issued this week.
These projections "are higher than many published estimates," but reflect capital project inflation and "greater knowledge of project costs," wrote researchers Mohammed Al-Juaied and Adam Whitmore.
Coal is the nation's largest source of global warming pollution, representing about a third of U.S. greenhouse emissions, equal to the combined output of all cars, trucks, buses, trains and boats.
Or... we could stop using coal, since Coal Is Carbon Captured™. Why take it out the ground, capture the carbon, and then stick it back in the ground. Wouldn't it be simpler, cleaner, and less destructive to simply just not take coal out of the ground in the first place?
by gmoke - Aug 14 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 12 8 comments
by Oui - Aug 12 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 1 20 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 3 4 comments
by Oui - Jul 12 48 comments
by gmoke - Aug 1
by gmoke - Jul 31 3 comments
by Oui - Aug 151 comment
by gmoke - Aug 142 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 128 comments
by Oui - Aug 128 comments
by Oui - Aug 940 comments
by Oui - Aug 716 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 34 comments
by Oui - Aug 31 comment
by Oui - Aug 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 120 comments
by gmoke - Jul 313 comments
by Oui - Jul 3016 comments
by Oui - Jul 30
by Oui - Jul 261 comment
by Oui - Jul 253 comments
by Oui - Jul 239 comments
by Oui - Jul 1971 comments
by Oui - Jul 1932 comments
by Oui - Jul 1693 comments