23,969
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
SW: fixed typos; deleted unreferenced sentence
While it is possible to remove most of the sulfur dioxide (SO<sub>2</sub>), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate (PM) emissions from the coal-burning process, carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) emissions and radionuclides
will be more difficult to address.<ref>[http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger], ORNL Review Vol. 26, No. 3&4, 2003.</ref> Technologies do exist to capture and store CO<sub>2</sub>, but they have not been made available on a large-scale commercial basis due to the high economic costs.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4468076.stm Clean coal technology: How it works], BBC News, November 28, 2005.</ref> For this reason renewable energy sources may be a more cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternative.
==Potential cost of carbon capture and storage==
A 2007 assessment by Standard & Poor's estimated the cost of building an [[IGCC]] plant without carbon capture and storage to be $2,795 per kW for eastern coal and $2,925 per kW for Powder River Basin Coal. A comparable system that ''captures'' carbon was estimated at an additional $450 per kW."<ref>"Which Power Generation Technologies Will Take the Lead in Response to Carbon Controls?" S&P Viewpoint, May 11, 2007, cited in [http://www.khoslaventures.com/presentations/CoalThinkOutsidethePits.pdf cited in "The War on Coal: Think Outside the Pits"], "Which Power Generation Technologies Will Take th eLead in Response to Carbon Controls?" S&P Viewpoint, May 11, 2007 Khosla Ventures white paper (Pdf)</ref>
Capturing and compressing CO<sub>2</sub> requires much energy, significantly raising the running costs of [[Carbon Capture and Storage|CCS]]-equipped power plants. In addition there are added investment or capital costs. The process would increase the energy needs of a plant with CCS by about 10-40%. The costs of storage and other system costs are estimated to increase the costs of energy from a power plant with CCS by 30-60%, depending on the specific circumstances.
| With capture and storage || 12.0 || 10.1 - 10.2 || 7 - 11
|-
| class="tNote" colspan="7" | All figures are from "Which Power Generation Technologies Will Take the Lead in Response to arbon Carbon Controls?" S&P Viewpoint, May 11, 2007, cited in [http://www.khoslaventures.com/presentations/CoalThinkOutsidethePits.pdf "The War on Coal: Think Outside the Pits,"]Khosla Ventures white paper.
|}
