No. Two new Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) plants are demonstrating that CCS is extremely expensive.
The first is in Saskatchewan. It's expected to cost $1.2B, and have a nominal capacity of 110MW. The second, in Mississippia, is called Boundary Dam. Bounday Dam will cost about $5 (up from the initial estimate of $2.4B) for a capacity of 565MW.
If we assume an average utilization of 75% (a little higher than the industry average) we get an overall cost per average Watt of $12.25. If we assume 7% interest and a 30 year life, that gives us a cost for capital alone of 11.3 cents per kWh.
These plants are selling their CO2 output for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), but that's not scalable to a large number of plants: the market for EOR could absorb only two or three percent of coal CO2, and long distance movement of CO2 for this purpose would be very expensive.
The article suggests that the IPCC is pushing for biomass with CCS, but I strongly suspect it makes much more sense just to grow biomass and bury it, rather than trying to capture the carbon with CCS. That's after we move to low-CO2 generation first, of course - it's always easier to just not emit CO2 than it is to capture and sequester it.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/527036/two-carbon-trapping-plants-offer-hope-of-cleaner-coal/
May 9, 2014
April 29, 2014
Would a renewable grid provide power in the night, or when wind is slow?
Sure. At a point when we're approaching a grid 100% powered by wind and sun, we'd also be approaching 100% use of electric vehicles.
EV owners are already using something called demand-side-management: their cars can charge when power is cheap. This doesn't cost the grid anything at all.
If the 230M vehicles in the US had 50kWh of storage each (more than a Leaf, but less than a Tesla), that would be 11.5 TwHrs of storage, all provided by vehicle owners. That's about 24 hours of grid output. There's enormous potential for absorbing diurnal variance in wind & solar (and nuclear) output, with large savings to drivers: they have to charge sometime, so the large variation in prices during the day would be more than enough to cause owners to program their cars to automatically arbitrage between different times of the day.
It may be hard to imagine an all-electric fleet with that much storage, but that's where Tesla's planning to go.
EV owners are already using something called demand-side-management: their cars can charge when power is cheap. This doesn't cost the grid anything at all.
If the 230M vehicles in the US had 50kWh of storage each (more than a Leaf, but less than a Tesla), that would be 11.5 TwHrs of storage, all provided by vehicle owners. That's about 24 hours of grid output. There's enormous potential for absorbing diurnal variance in wind & solar (and nuclear) output, with large savings to drivers: they have to charge sometime, so the large variation in prices during the day would be more than enough to cause owners to program their cars to automatically arbitrage between different times of the day.
It may be hard to imagine an all-electric fleet with that much storage, but that's where Tesla's planning to go.
March 26, 2014
If Climate Change is uncertain, should we wait to address it?
No, that would be a mistake.
The unspoken assumption here is that the proposed remedies are materially damaging to human economy or society, so we should wait.
That is misinformation, which comes primarily from the industries that are resisting change. In fact, the proposed remedies (efficiency, electrification of transportation, etc.) would have both short term and long term economic benefits. For instance, car makes have fought desperately against increases in the CAFE regulation, when such improvements would save consumers enormous amounts of money over the lifetimes of their vehicles.
Oil is very expensive compared to the alternatives. New land-based windpower is cheaper than new US coal plants (because they scrub sulfur, mercury, etc). The UK is finding windpower expensive only because they’re not willing to install land based wind turbines – apparently they’d rather spend a lot more money putting turbines out to sea. Of course, if fossil fuel interests weren’t encouraging such astroturf, the UK would have a more sensible policy.
The problem is that the cost falls on a narrow part of society (investors and workers in industries that emit CO2), and the benefits are much more widely spread. If you’ve invested your life’s work (or your money) in oil or coal (or internal combustion engines, etc.) then you’re going to fight the transition away from fossil fuels. That’s easy to understand, and one can have compassion for those who are caught in such a bind. Still, the larger society can’t avoid the transition. Ideally, the larger society would find a way to soften the blow. But, the blow must come, and the sooner the better.
The cost of a transition away from fossil fuels is, in fact, much smaller than the cost of staying with them. Even the immediate, obvious costs of fossil fuels are higher than the costs of alternatives. But, those who benefit from fossil fuels wish to misinform us on this topic, purely to protect themselves.
The cartoon in this reputable economist's blog is worth a 1,000 words:
http://econbrowser.com/archives/2014/02/a-random-thought-on-the-scientific-method
The unspoken assumption here is that the proposed remedies are materially damaging to human economy or society, so we should wait.
That is misinformation, which comes primarily from the industries that are resisting change. In fact, the proposed remedies (efficiency, electrification of transportation, etc.) would have both short term and long term economic benefits. For instance, car makes have fought desperately against increases in the CAFE regulation, when such improvements would save consumers enormous amounts of money over the lifetimes of their vehicles.
Oil is very expensive compared to the alternatives. New land-based windpower is cheaper than new US coal plants (because they scrub sulfur, mercury, etc). The UK is finding windpower expensive only because they’re not willing to install land based wind turbines – apparently they’d rather spend a lot more money putting turbines out to sea. Of course, if fossil fuel interests weren’t encouraging such astroturf, the UK would have a more sensible policy.
The problem is that the cost falls on a narrow part of society (investors and workers in industries that emit CO2), and the benefits are much more widely spread. If you’ve invested your life’s work (or your money) in oil or coal (or internal combustion engines, etc.) then you’re going to fight the transition away from fossil fuels. That’s easy to understand, and one can have compassion for those who are caught in such a bind. Still, the larger society can’t avoid the transition. Ideally, the larger society would find a way to soften the blow. But, the blow must come, and the sooner the better.
The cost of a transition away from fossil fuels is, in fact, much smaller than the cost of staying with them. Even the immediate, obvious costs of fossil fuels are higher than the costs of alternatives. But, those who benefit from fossil fuels wish to misinform us on this topic, purely to protect themselves.
The cartoon in this reputable economist's blog is worth a 1,000 words:
http://econbrowser.com/archives/2014/02/a-random-thought-on-the-scientific-method
February 24, 2014
Are anti-Climate Change arguments are just part of group/follower thinking?
Yes, I think so.
First, because Climate Change really is the scientific consensus, and it's the international consensus: even oil exporters like Russia and Saudi Arabia concede that it's valid. China concedes it too, and they're working harder on it than the US. China has more than enough scientific expertise to independently review climate science, and plenty of motive to disagree, yet they don't.
2nd, there's a really obvious difference between political parties in the US: the Democrats follow the scientific and world consensus, and Republican's don't. There aren't any leaders of the Republican party that are willing to support Climate Change.
3rd, the republican rank and file generally agree with their leadership. Now, you can't really argue that those republican followers have all read all of the Climate Change science and come to an independent opinion - it's quite obvious that most of those who hold anti-Climate Change opinions are doing so because of they identify as part of a group that holds that idea. There's a striking correlation with other anti-science ideas as well: most republicans don't believe in evolution.
So, ask yourself, Do I hold this idea just because I belong to a group that believes it? Do *any* of my friends disagree with me? Do any of the websites I like to read disagree with me?
February 21, 2014
Climate Change - the Tribal debate
There's a fascinating debate about Climate Change going on over at Econbrowser.com (their 1st post for 2/17/14) – it’s like watching warring tribes in Papua New Guinea.
Climatology is relatively new – not like astronomy or biology – but it seems to provide a new intellectual litmus test. In the past, one could identify someone who was unable to rise above their tribe's beliefs to think scientifically by asking them if they thought the earth was round, or if evolution was valid. Now, one can identify them by their inability to agree that Climate Change is a serious problem.
In the future, if I read a comment on Econbrowser by someone who appears to be guided by ideology, I can confirm (or disprove) my suspicion by referring back to these comments and seeing where they stood.
Climatology is relatively new – not like astronomy or biology – but it seems to provide a new intellectual litmus test. In the past, one could identify someone who was unable to rise above their tribe's beliefs to think scientifically by asking them if they thought the earth was round, or if evolution was valid. Now, one can identify them by their inability to agree that Climate Change is a serious problem.
In the future, if I read a comment on Econbrowser by someone who appears to be guided by ideology, I can confirm (or disprove) my suspicion by referring back to these comments and seeing where they stood.
December 17, 2013
Why does the "ever growing size of government" meme live on, when it should have died, long ago?
Because people like the Koch brothers want to cripple government, to prevent regulation.
The Kochs know that their oil refining business would be hurt by proper accounting for the cost of pollution (and pigovian taxes based on those costs). Proper accounting can only be forced by government.
Polluters fund think tanks and media outlets that spread the idea that government, regulation and taxes are inherently bad, because those things threaten their business model.
The Kochs know that their oil refining business would be hurt by proper accounting for the cost of pollution (and pigovian taxes based on those costs). Proper accounting can only be forced by government.
Polluters fund think tanks and media outlets that spread the idea that government, regulation and taxes are inherently bad, because those things threaten their business model.
August 13, 2013
Are Electric Vehicles better?
Yes. The Tesla Model S is much better, and much cheaper than it's luxury competitors.
For $70k you get 0-60 in 4.2 seconds, and better handling and luxury.
And, the gas savings can reduce the effective price of the car from $70k to well below the $30k price tag for all new cars. That's because most luxury cars get terrible MPG - one owner profiled below is saving $5k per year.
The new status car: Tesla
It's happening in the parking structures at Gold Coast high-rises, in front of the Lycee Francais school in Buena Park, in suburban garages and in the reserved spaces at hospital parking lots: The usual suspects—BMW, Audi and Lexus—are being replaced by the Tesla Model S.
The Model S, which began delivery late last year and lists for about $70,000, comparable with other luxury sports cars, is a sleek, all-electric sedan that blends sports car zip (0 to 60 in 4.2 seconds) with a luxury car feel. The motor is three times as efficient as a gasoline engine and produces zero emissions.
This isn't your father's midlife crisis car. “It's a game-changer,” says Joel Baer, a 44-year-old commodities trader from Deerfield. “Forget that it's electric, it's still the best car I've ever driven—the best handling, the fastest, the quietest and with the most storage.”
Local owners—Tesla says there are about 100—say it lives up to the hype. Many have become evangelists for the brand.
“It isn't just for the nutty environmentalist like me,” says Ron Saslow, 47, chairman and CEO of Chicago-based dental instrument manufacturer Hu-Friedy Mfg. Co. LLC. He's a Model S owner and an early adopter—he bought Tesla's debut car, the Roadster, for $100,000 in 2008.
“This car can substitute for virtually any car in (the luxury) category,” he says. “The people who have BMWs or Audis or Mercedes sedans are the ones who are starting to switch over.”
Illinois Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, bought the car “totally based on the fact that there are no emissions,” he says. For him, the luxury styling was a bonus.
“It's the fastest golf cart I've ever driven,” says Gold Coast resident Mark Ladd, 43, CEO of Chicago-based mobile-gaming startup LyteShot LLC. “You depress the accelerator and it automatically speeds up. You don't have to wait for a passing gear or for the engine to catch up. Within the first 10 days of owning the car, I managed to get myself a ticket.”
A CAR THAT KEEPS EVOLVING
Environmental concern motivated Jason Ebel, 41, co-owner of Warrenville-based Two Brothers Brewing Co., to buy the car. He received his Model S, No. 88, in October. Vehicle identification numbers are low for this relatively new company, and there's a sense of pride among owners with low numbers. “It is certainly the best all-around car I have ever owned,” says Mr. Ebel, who installed a free public charging station at the brewery.
Robert Tseitlin, 31, vice president of operations at Chicago's Zeit Fine Jewelry and a city resident with two small children, uses the Tesla as a recreational vehicle. “It's definitely a head-turner,” he says. “It kind of looks like a Maserati.”
The elimination of the combustion engine and transmission tunnel means more cargo space, including a second trunk under the hood, and an oversized back seat without the hump.
A 17-inch dashboard touch screen controls navigation and Web browsing—there are almost no buttons in the car. It allows Tesla to push software upgrades to the vehicle without a visit to the shop. “It's like a car that keeps evolving,” Mr. Ladd says.
Mr. Baer drives downtown from Deerfield every weekday and shuttles his kids to activities. He did the math on his Model S, which cost $78,000 with the options he chose. After the $7,500 federal tax credit and the $4,000 tax credit from the state, the car was $67,500.
“I had a (Porsche) Cayenne before this that got maybe 15 miles to the gallon—so I'll save myself about $6,000 a year in gas,” he says. “It will cost me about $3,000 to charge the car for six years. It's not really as expensive as people think it is.”
Tesla, based in Palo Alto, Calif., reported an operating profit in the second quarter and revenue of $405 million, up from $26.6 million a year ago.
The Model S starts at $69,900, with a $10,000 price difference between two battery options—a 60 kilowatt-hour battery earns 208 miles to the charge and an 85 kwh battery earns about 265 miles.
“It's like a phone,” says Mr. Saslow, who commutes from Highland Park to his Avondale office. “If you really don't pay attention to it you can run out of charge, but you don't because when you have a chance you plug it in.”
Like many Tesla owners, Mr. Baer had a 220-volt outlet installed in his garage, which offers about 30 miles per hour of charge. The battery takes about seven hours to charge fully. The car also can charge, more slowly, on a regular 110-volt plug. But that's adequate for city dwellers like Mr. Tseitlin, who uses the Tesla as a second car.
In any case, superchargers, which can juice up a battery halfway in 30 minutes, are becoming more common. In late June, Tesla put the first Midwest supercharger in downstate Normal, unveiled with a press conference featuring Mr. Cullerton and his Tesla.
A second supercharger will open in northern Illinois later this year, and by the fall, Tesla plans to have nearly a dozen Midwest stations. By the end of the year, the company says it will have enough free superchargers for Tesla owners to drive cross-country.
Tesla sells direct to consumers rather than through dealerships, much to the chagrin of traditional car dealers, who have sued the company in some states. Showrooms with just a few models on display are in Old Orchard Mall and Oakbrook Mall; a service center is on Grand Avenue in West Town. “It's kind of like going into an Apple store and buying an iPhone or iPad,” says Mr. Tseitlin, who ordered his in March.
Every car is made to order in Fremont, Calif., with buyers customizing everything from paint color to sound system upgrades. The cars are delivered about 60 days later, either to the customer's house, to a Tesla showroom or to the service center, where an employee spends up to three hours going over features with the owner.
The service center also offers house calls, but since electric cars have fewer parts, this translates into less maintenance. There's no carburetor, muffler, fan belt, spark plug or oil changes.
Mr. Saslow already has put down a deposit on the Model X, an SUV making its debut in 2014. It has third-row seating that can be accessed through the back and falcon-wing doors that, unlike the DeLorean—whose doors opened out and up—open up and then stretch out like a wing. That allows drivers to park in tight spots and still open the door.
The Model X price tag has not yet been released, but Tesla’s plans to debut a sedan at $30,000 by 2016 might just push the electric car into the mainstream. Mr. Saslow hopes so. “I want everyone in the world to have a car similar to this,” he says. “It's mind-boggling how great the performance is, and it eliminated my gas usage.”
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130810/ISSUE03/308109994/the-new-status-car-tesla?r=2772E0130356F3W
For $70k you get 0-60 in 4.2 seconds, and better handling and luxury.
And, the gas savings can reduce the effective price of the car from $70k to well below the $30k price tag for all new cars. That's because most luxury cars get terrible MPG - one owner profiled below is saving $5k per year.
The new status car: Tesla
It's happening in the parking structures at Gold Coast high-rises, in front of the Lycee Francais school in Buena Park, in suburban garages and in the reserved spaces at hospital parking lots: The usual suspects—BMW, Audi and Lexus—are being replaced by the Tesla Model S.
The Model S, which began delivery late last year and lists for about $70,000, comparable with other luxury sports cars, is a sleek, all-electric sedan that blends sports car zip (0 to 60 in 4.2 seconds) with a luxury car feel. The motor is three times as efficient as a gasoline engine and produces zero emissions.
This isn't your father's midlife crisis car. “It's a game-changer,” says Joel Baer, a 44-year-old commodities trader from Deerfield. “Forget that it's electric, it's still the best car I've ever driven—the best handling, the fastest, the quietest and with the most storage.”
Local owners—Tesla says there are about 100—say it lives up to the hype. Many have become evangelists for the brand.
“It isn't just for the nutty environmentalist like me,” says Ron Saslow, 47, chairman and CEO of Chicago-based dental instrument manufacturer Hu-Friedy Mfg. Co. LLC. He's a Model S owner and an early adopter—he bought Tesla's debut car, the Roadster, for $100,000 in 2008.
“This car can substitute for virtually any car in (the luxury) category,” he says. “The people who have BMWs or Audis or Mercedes sedans are the ones who are starting to switch over.”
Illinois Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, bought the car “totally based on the fact that there are no emissions,” he says. For him, the luxury styling was a bonus.
“It's the fastest golf cart I've ever driven,” says Gold Coast resident Mark Ladd, 43, CEO of Chicago-based mobile-gaming startup LyteShot LLC. “You depress the accelerator and it automatically speeds up. You don't have to wait for a passing gear or for the engine to catch up. Within the first 10 days of owning the car, I managed to get myself a ticket.”
A CAR THAT KEEPS EVOLVING
Environmental concern motivated Jason Ebel, 41, co-owner of Warrenville-based Two Brothers Brewing Co., to buy the car. He received his Model S, No. 88, in October. Vehicle identification numbers are low for this relatively new company, and there's a sense of pride among owners with low numbers. “It is certainly the best all-around car I have ever owned,” says Mr. Ebel, who installed a free public charging station at the brewery.
Robert Tseitlin, 31, vice president of operations at Chicago's Zeit Fine Jewelry and a city resident with two small children, uses the Tesla as a recreational vehicle. “It's definitely a head-turner,” he says. “It kind of looks like a Maserati.”
The elimination of the combustion engine and transmission tunnel means more cargo space, including a second trunk under the hood, and an oversized back seat without the hump.
A 17-inch dashboard touch screen controls navigation and Web browsing—there are almost no buttons in the car. It allows Tesla to push software upgrades to the vehicle without a visit to the shop. “It's like a car that keeps evolving,” Mr. Ladd says.
Mr. Baer drives downtown from Deerfield every weekday and shuttles his kids to activities. He did the math on his Model S, which cost $78,000 with the options he chose. After the $7,500 federal tax credit and the $4,000 tax credit from the state, the car was $67,500.
“I had a (Porsche) Cayenne before this that got maybe 15 miles to the gallon—so I'll save myself about $6,000 a year in gas,” he says. “It will cost me about $3,000 to charge the car for six years. It's not really as expensive as people think it is.”
Tesla, based in Palo Alto, Calif., reported an operating profit in the second quarter and revenue of $405 million, up from $26.6 million a year ago.
The Model S starts at $69,900, with a $10,000 price difference between two battery options—a 60 kilowatt-hour battery earns 208 miles to the charge and an 85 kwh battery earns about 265 miles.
“It's like a phone,” says Mr. Saslow, who commutes from Highland Park to his Avondale office. “If you really don't pay attention to it you can run out of charge, but you don't because when you have a chance you plug it in.”
Like many Tesla owners, Mr. Baer had a 220-volt outlet installed in his garage, which offers about 30 miles per hour of charge. The battery takes about seven hours to charge fully. The car also can charge, more slowly, on a regular 110-volt plug. But that's adequate for city dwellers like Mr. Tseitlin, who uses the Tesla as a second car.
In any case, superchargers, which can juice up a battery halfway in 30 minutes, are becoming more common. In late June, Tesla put the first Midwest supercharger in downstate Normal, unveiled with a press conference featuring Mr. Cullerton and his Tesla.
A second supercharger will open in northern Illinois later this year, and by the fall, Tesla plans to have nearly a dozen Midwest stations. By the end of the year, the company says it will have enough free superchargers for Tesla owners to drive cross-country.
Tesla sells direct to consumers rather than through dealerships, much to the chagrin of traditional car dealers, who have sued the company in some states. Showrooms with just a few models on display are in Old Orchard Mall and Oakbrook Mall; a service center is on Grand Avenue in West Town. “It's kind of like going into an Apple store and buying an iPhone or iPad,” says Mr. Tseitlin, who ordered his in March.
Every car is made to order in Fremont, Calif., with buyers customizing everything from paint color to sound system upgrades. The cars are delivered about 60 days later, either to the customer's house, to a Tesla showroom or to the service center, where an employee spends up to three hours going over features with the owner.
The service center also offers house calls, but since electric cars have fewer parts, this translates into less maintenance. There's no carburetor, muffler, fan belt, spark plug or oil changes.
Mr. Saslow already has put down a deposit on the Model X, an SUV making its debut in 2014. It has third-row seating that can be accessed through the back and falcon-wing doors that, unlike the DeLorean—whose doors opened out and up—open up and then stretch out like a wing. That allows drivers to park in tight spots and still open the door.
The Model X price tag has not yet been released, but Tesla’s plans to debut a sedan at $30,000 by 2016 might just push the electric car into the mainstream. Mr. Saslow hopes so. “I want everyone in the world to have a car similar to this,” he says. “It's mind-boggling how great the performance is, and it eliminated my gas usage.”
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130810/ISSUE03/308109994/the-new-status-car-tesla?r=2772E0130356F3W
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)