Skip to comments.GAO Report: Carbon Capture Increases Power Costs up to 80%
Posted on 07/16/2010 2:56:44 PM PDT by Nachum
A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today found that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) schemes favored by Democrats under their proposed cap and trade national energy tax boondoggle would increase electricity costs, reduce electricity output and increase water consumption.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking Republican of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), released the GAO today covering the status, cost, and reliability of current CCS technology for coal-fired power plants.
The release states, Based on GAO's survey of stakeholders, including utilities and state regulators, current CCS technology would increase electricity costs by 30 to 80 percent, reduce electricity output between 15 and 32 percent, and increase water consumption at power plants.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
With their insane victories in destroying the USA, there is absolutely no reason to think that a deadly Cap and Trade scam will not also be soon passed by the democrats.
The list, ping
The Cap 'n Trade is funded on behalf of Large Corporate interests who can raise prices and blame it on the Regulations, while recovering all the costs through the consumers.
ANYTHING this government does is intended to funnel money to lobbyists/supporters who donate millions to the Party, while reaping profits with the new rules through raising prices.
Follow the money, folks.
There is ANOTHER PROBLEM TOO:
Excerpt:”With 4.6 per cent of global population, the US would receive a 35 billion tonne allowance between now and 2050, which it would use up in around six years at current rates. The European Union’s budget would run out in 12 years and China’s in 24. “It is clear that the industrialised countries must carry out rapid and comprehensive decarbonisation if they wish to present themselves as credible advocates of global climate protection,” concludes the council.
The US carbon budget would run out in six years, Europe’s in 12 and China’s in 24 years”
Fair carbon means no carbon for rich countries
* 21 September 2009 by Jim Giles
WHAT might a truly fair and effective solution to climate change look like? One answer to that question has just been released and it makes for disturbing reading. For one thing, the scale and speed of emissions cuts required by developed nations is far greater than the commitments governments are currently willing to make.
The new analysis is based on the idea that each person on the planet has the right to the same carbon footprint. Researchers at the German Advisory Council on Global Change, which advises the country’s government, looked at the impact of this fairness principle on attempts to limit the average global temperature rise to 2 °C, a level that is widely regarded as necessary to avoid disaster, such as high rises in sea level.
Calculations published earlier this year (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature08017) suggested that no more than 750 billion tonnes of carbon can be released between now and 2050 if the world is to have a 2-in-3 chance of staying within the 2 °C rise. If that global allowance was distributed according to population levels, many developed nations would face almost immediate carbon bankruptcy.
With 4.6 per cent of global population, the US would receive a 35 billion tonne allowance between now and 2050, which it would use up in around six years at current rates. The European Union’s budget would run out in 12 years and China’s in 24. “It is clear that the industrialised countries must carry out rapid and comprehensive decarbonisation if they wish to present themselves as credible advocates of global climate protection,” concludes the council.
The US carbon budget would run out in six years, Europe’s in 12 and China’s in 24 years
Big emitters like the US would only be able to meet their target by buying unused emissions from poorer nations that have large populations but low per-capita emissions. For example, India and Brazil’s allowances would last 88 and 46 years respectively at current rates. That imbalance has benefits, says the council, because the money transferred would help poorer nations to improve their living standards using low-carbon technology such as wind and solar electricity generation.
Climate policy researchers say the analysis is a useful framework for evaluating the global challenge, but probably will have little effect on the crucial climate negotiations scheduled for December in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Michael Grubb at the University of Cambridge says that nations will come to the negotiations with emissions reduction targets in mind, based on what they believe is possible domestically. They would not be willing to sign up to a formula that takes that decision out of their hands, even if it is rational and equitable. “This proposal is not grounded in political realities,” adds Elliot Diringer at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Washington DC.
South Africa is one nation that might find the results hard to live with. It relies heavily on coal-fired power plants and so is grouped with rich nations in terms of per-capita emissions, despite having a GDP per capita just below the global average. To meet its allowance it would have to buy emissions credits from abroad. Without overseas support that prospect would be unacceptable in a developing country struggling with poverty.
Some flexibility would be needed to deal with cases like that, says Dirk Messner, vice-chair of the council and director of the German Development Institute in Bonn, probably in the form of aid from richer nations. But even if some countries do not like the allowance that the formula produces, it could still be used to shed light on progress at Copenhagen. “I hope it will bring some transparency to the debate,” Messner says.
Issue 2726 of New Scientist magazine
You are spot on. Every utility bill I receive it tells you how to apply for assitance and I no that I have a charge for it on my bill-public purpose I think is what they call the charge.
Carbon dioxide, the vilified “greenhouse gas”, has nothing to do with “global warming”, except that the latter causes increases in the former. The Gorons have it bass ackwards.
“With their insane victories in destroying the USA, there is absolutely no reason to think that a deadly Cap and Trade scam will not also be soon passed by the democrats.”
.....we ain’t seen nothing yet...just wait til after Nov 2...Obama will ram thru Cap and Trade and Amnesty using Dem lame ducks in Congress...they’ll vote for it because they have no fear of the voters...Obama knows he has til Jan 20 to get it done.
Enjoy your air conditioning as by next summer we will all be sweltering in our darkened homes.
There's at least one promise he kept.
we could all wear sweaters like in the 70s
All that useless, senseless expense to satisfy a series of frauds and lies : a global warming fraud birthing imaginary carbon credits making Al Gore and dozens of other radical progressives gazzilionaires...