Limiting Coal Targets to Fight Climate Change

The quickest and most effective way to deal with emissions from new coal power plants might be to capture perhaps 60 percent of the gas, and not press for more ambitious targets, according to an analysis presented today at the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies in Washington, D.C.

Howard Herzog, a principal research engineer at MIT (where he manages an industry consortium on carbon capture and storage), explained to me that this route might be akin to the progression we are now seeing in automobiles: from gasoline-powered cars to hybrid versions, enroute to a future full of plug-in hybrid or full-electric cars charged from an electric grid that conveys mainly clean renewable power.

Given that right now none of the 600 U.S. coal power plants--or virtually any other source of greenhouse gas--captures and sequesters CO2, you have to start somewhere, he said. "We are trying to look at it from an energy security viewpoint, an economic viewpoint, and a carbon-capture viewpoint," said Herzog, who co-authored the analysis with Ashleigh Hildebrand, a graduate student in chemical engineering and technology policy.

Herzog went on to explain that coal is a secure American resource that doesn't require importing liquefied natural gas. Partial capture would be cheaper than full capture (which would require extra processing steps). Depending on the type of plant, reducing coal's CO2 emissions by between 45 and 60 percent would mean that it emits as much CO2 as a natural gas power plant. And, because the partial-emission version would be more economical, it could mean faster implementation, which would, in turn, help prove the feasibility of capturing and burying CO2 (in various underground reservoirs, for the most part) on a massive scale. Research is continuing into the optimal capture levels on both coal-burning and coal-gasification designs, he added.

The conference is mainly a technical affair, full of presentations on the suitability of various geologic formations for CO2 storage, how to do seismic analysis of CO2 reservoirs, and the experience of various pilot projects. Ruben Juanes, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineer at MIT, described his new model for calculating how much CO2 a geologic formation can safely hold, for example.

But the critical importance of these various geologic and modeling studies was driven home in a keynote by Susan Solomon, an atmospheric chemist at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, who gave a primer on climate change over lunch. It wasn't new ground, but it's always good to be reminded of some basics, such as: "We have made CO2 [concentrations in the atmosphere] higher than it has been in more than half a million years and that is the predominant cause of today's global warmining."

Solomon reminded everyone that if we are to avert the worst effects of global warming and climate change--the droughts, the species extinctions, the water shortages, the catastrophic sea level rise--we must act now and essentially dial our emissions back to something close to zero over the next few decades. Part of that will mean burying CO2 rather than spewing it into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, we were reminded of these sobering realities while being served steak--that most fuel-intensive source of protein--in a banquet hall lit by hundreds of incandescent light bulbs.

"Get Coal Out of the System"

To reduce greenhouse-gas emissions enough to avert the worst effects of climate change, "we have to get coal out of the system." That succinct bottom line was delivered yesterday by Henry Jacoby, professor of management at MIT's Sloan School and codirector of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, in a keynote talk at a conference in Washington, DC. Jacoby didn't mean that coal can't be used--just that its carbon-dioxide emissions will need to be removed and disposed of by underground burial. The good news, he said, is that although the scale of the enterprise would be massive, there is no apparent technology obstacle: "We can solve the technology. We can solve the storage." But the roadblocks ahead are monstrous: uncertainty over whether the Obama administration and Congress will institute a carbon cap-and-trade policy, unclear economics of installing CO2 capture and storage technologies, and widespread public ignorance.

Jacoby pointed to "coal's catch-22": when it comes to buying the CO2, "you can't have the technology without the price, but you can't have the price without the technology." In other words, you won't drive technology adoption unless there's a cap-and-trade or other disincentive on emitting CO2, but you can't know what it will cost to do this--and thus how to operate under such a policy--until you start installing the needed technologies at huge scale. (Today, coal supplies about half of U.S. electricity, but no U.S. coal plant sequesters its CO2.) And right now, the general public--despite awareness of the benefits of, say, wind and solar power--doesn't have much of a clue what "carbon capture and sequestration" means. In surveys, Jacoby said, Americans ranked it as the least advisable approach to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions--even though it's one of the most important ones. (He thinks some people might be confusing it with pouring toxic waste down the nearest hole.) The industry's recent "clean coal" ad blitz doesn't help much, he said, because the ads gloss over the central importance of CO2 burial and don't spell out what that would entail. "They need to explain what 'clean coal' means in this context. If you want to save the coal industry, explain to the public what is involved in this technology," Jacoby said.

Renewable-Fuels Standard Glitch

Last year's Energy Independence and Security Act, by mandating the use of 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2022, was originally greeted as a boon for the environment and for a new industry that would make biofuel from nonfood sources. But now, some researchers and industry experts say that a provision of the bill could prove disastrous.

The law says, prudently enough, that advanced biofuels must emit 50 percent less greenhouse gas than conventional fuels. In calculating this, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must take into account the emissions produced during the production and consumption of the fuel, which makes sense. But the EPA must also account for indirect emissions, and this is where the problems could start. Here's an example of indirect emissions: suppose a farmer in the United States sets aside some land for growing biofuels that might otherwise have been used to grow hay for cows. That could increase the price of hay, leading another farmer to cut down some trees and use the cleared land to plant some alfalfa for hay. Suppose the trees were burned, releasing carbon dioxide. That would count as indirect greenhouse emissions.

The problem is, there is no way to measure these indirect effects. Who is to say that a farmer in Indonesia cut down some trees because another farmer in the United States planted switchgrass for making ethanol? The connection is tenuous--a result of complex market forces. The only way to calculate indirect emissions is to develop a simulation, a model that predicts how changing land use will affect the market, and how market changes will affect the behavior of farmers. Many guesses have to be fed into these models. For example, do we assume that farmers will cut down trees? Maybe they'll drain swamps. Maybe they'll just start using land that was already cleared, but hadn't been planted because the market wasn't good. Even if they do cut down trees, what they then do with the trees makes a big difference. If they burn trees, that increases emissions. If they use the trees for fuel instead of using another carbon-emitting fuel, the increased emissions will be less. If in cutting down those trees, other trees that would have been cut down are spared, then there might be no net increase in emissions, especially if farmers use the best land-management techniques.

The way that models are made could ultimately determine whether a given company's biofuels will be labeled "advanced," and therefore come under the umbrella of the mandates. The model's assumptions can make or break companies that depend on the mandates to attract investment. Tens of billions of dollars could be on the line. What's more, real environmental benefits could be squandered.

The EPA is expected to issue its rules for determining indirect emissions soon. In anticipation, seven scientists wrote an open letter to Stephen Johnson, the administrator of the EPA, warning that much work remains to be done to develop accurate models of indirect emissions. The scientists wrote that "EPA should delay rulemaking until the science is ready."

If Johnson listens, the scientists will have to hurry. Too long of a delay, especially in the current economic climate, could also spook investors, delaying the funding required for biofuels plants, which will need to be built at a rapid pace between now and 2022 to meet the mandates.

Holding Back the Wind

Credit: American Wind Energy Association

Stock market aside, there's one area with possible 750 percent growth in the next 10 years: wind power. While lower oil prices and tight credit are hurting alternative energy investments in the short term, today the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)--a nonprofit established by the electric utility industry--predicted the huge growth of wind power in the United States and Canada through 2007. But it also warned that the transmission system to bring wind power to market is lagging. While more transmission investments are expected, they'll be outpaced by the growth of new power plants, including wind farms, according to NERC's new report on the state of the nation's transmission system. In a statement, Rick Sergel, the CEO of NERC, put it simply: "We need more transmission resources to maintain reliability and achieve environmental goals." He added, "Faster siting, permitting, and construction of transmission resources will be vital to keeping the lights on in the coming years." Today, less than 1 percent of U.S. electricity comes from wind. But projects are planned for Texas, the Midwest, the mid-Atlantic, and western states and Canadian provinces.

Financial Crisis Zaps Electric-Car Startup

Speedy electric: Tesla's Roadster, an electric car that reaches 60 miles per hour in less than four seconds. Credit: Tesla Motors

Tesla Motors, a Silicon Valley startup that sells a high-performance electric sports car, is feeling pressure from the ongoing financial crisis. It announced on Wednesday that it is closing an engineering facility in Michigan, laying off an unspecified number of workers, and delaying its next vehicle, a long-anticipated luxury sedan, while it waits on government loans to provide new funding. In addition, Tesla's CEO is being replaced by Elon Musk, Tesla's chairman and a leading investor, whose money nearly single-handedly got the company off the ground. Now the company, instead of pushing full speed ahead on developing new cars, will focus on making itself profitable by selling its sports car and motor and battery technology.

That's bad news for people who had hoped that the company would eventually produce an electric car they could afford. Tesla got attention because of its sports car, a powerful car that is fun to drive and helped change the image of electric vehicles. But the $109,000 vehicle is beyond the reach of most people. Much of the appeal of the company has been its long-term goal of making electric vehicles affordable. The proposed luxury sedan, with a price tag of $60,000, would be a significant step in that direction, but the cutbacks at the company raise questions about whether it will be able to meet its long-term goal. Tesla's sedan was originally to have gone into production in 2009. But that's been pushed back to mid-2011 at the soonest. That's after GM is to come out with an electric sedan of its own, the Volt, which is supposed to cost about $40,000. And several other automakers will be launching electric vehicles in roughly the same time frame. With a late start on a production sedan, will Tesla be able to go toe-to-toe with the big carmakers? Will it become "one of the great car companies of the 21st century," as Musk hopes? Or will it, as now seems likely, remain a boutique car company, selling specialty vehicles to the relative few?

To be sure, this isn't the first time that Tesla has seen sharp cutbacks. The company, founded in 2003, is already on its fourth CEO. At the beginning of this year, it reportedly laid off about 10 percent of its workforce in what former CEO Martin Eberhard is said to have called a "bloodbath." It's also faced delays before, particularly when it had problems with the transmission on its sports car. And yet the company continues to plug along. The late-coming sports car has nevertheless sold out and has a long waiting list. And Musk, who has considerable personal financial resources, has said he will do whatever it takes to ensure that the company will have enough capital. It's certainly far too early to write the company off.

Credit: Tesla Motors

What Credit Crunch?

The severe credit crisis rippling through the markets didn't stop GridPoint--an Arlington, VA, startup that makes software for smart management of the power grid--from securing $120 million in equity financing, announced yesterday. "Really high quality deals will continue to get funded, despite the current turmoil," Peter Corsell, the company's president and CEO (and a member of this year's TR35), told me at a smart-grid conference in Washington, D.C. He said the money will be used to acquire other startups, starting with V2Green, a company that makes smart-grid software for recharging plug-in hybrids and other electric vehicles. GridPoint is a key player in an effort to upgrade the power grid in Boulder, CO, working with utilities including Duke Energy and Xcel Energy. GridPoint's software provides utilities and consumers a Web-based portal to manage and control electrical demand; it can do things like shut off electric water heaters and pool pumps temporarily in times of high demand. To date, GridPoint has raised more than $220 million.