EnergyBiz - November/December 2007 - (Page 24)

HEr zog We feel the most critical things are some large-scale demonstrations. The technology exists in some form or another but we need to put it all together. We know how to inject CO2 in the ground. The question is can we keep it there for thousands of years? Through modeling we think we can, but until you go out and do it, you don’t really know. Our money is going to have to come from the government in sheer terms of R & D programs. There’s some recognition in Washington by a lot of players that this is a big problem we need to make some investments in. One of the key things going forward that’s going to be limiting us in how we control greenhouse gas emissions is lack of technology or lack of deployable technology. There’s a lot of technology, but how do we deploy it and at different levels? Everybody thought the coal age has passed, but we use more coal now than we ever have before. It’s continuing to grow and it’s going to continue to be an incredibly important fuel. It’s foolish to think that the technologies we have to deal with the problem today are going to be able to deal with the problem in the 2020s and 2030s. We need new technologies and new things in the pipeline. both sides of the aisle dislike that. But there are other people who like that. ENERGYBIZ now? What are you working on HEr zog One of the most important things is figuring out how to get some of these demonstrations going. It’s been really slow. Costs have shot up. The central message of our study is that demonstration of technical, economic, and institutional features of carbon capture and sequestration at commercial-scale coal combustion and conversion plants, will (1) give policymakers and the public confidence that a practical carbon mitigation control option exists, (2) shorten the deployment time and reduce the cost for carbon capture and sequestration should a carbon emission control policy be adopted, and (3) maintain opportunities for the lowest cost and most widely available energy form to be used to meet the world’s pressing energy needs in an environmentally acceptable manner. —from the MIT study, “The Future of Coal – Options For a Carbon-Constrained World.” ENERGYBIZ In the publicity the MIT study received, what key points were ignored or under-appreciated? howard herzog HEr zog When we talk about 2050, PhOTO by sTePhen cOnnOrs people just aren’t urgent about it. But what we were saying is that it is urgent to act now. Otherwise the door is closing on 2050. Here we are 43 years ahead of time and we’re saying, listen. These are big systems. There are only so many shortcuts you can take, and time is already running short to take action to impact 2050. People are starting to understand the enormity of the climate change problem, but we are nowhere near understanding the enormity of the climate change solution. That’s the next biggest hurdle to overcome. ENERGYBIZ There are scientists who are skeptical about global warming. How big is that group and how do you respond to their arguments? HEr zog They have got a lot more visibility and press than their numbers or their credentials. There are serious questions that mainstream scientists ask on the uncertainty about the magnitude of global warming, about what are right responses. I don’t think we understand what the right response is yet. I certainly don’t have a strong opinion except that we’re not doing enough now. But how much do we really need to do and how fast do we need to do it is the question. There’s room for uncertainty. But what the skeptics do is use uncertainty as a reason for not taking action. What’s a no-brainer is you need to invest in options. Investments in developing options are fairly expensive. But if we spend $1 billion a year for 10 years to develop options and we don’t need it in the future, is that going to really matter in the scheme of things as opposed to not spending that money and needing it? It’s just like buying insurance. No one ever complains when they never have to use their fire insurance on their house. Where does MIT fit in? At MIT, we have this new energy initiative that was announced. MIT has made a commitment from the top to deal with energy. The people who are leading this laboratory are also leading the energy initiative. When you talk about energy in the future you must talk about climate change. But energy is bigger than just climate change. MIT has had strong research programs into different aspects of climate change for quite a while now. We have a lot of bright people here and who knows what discoveries will be made. We are very good at inter-disciplinary work. Our coal report is a good example of it. We had engineers working on it. We had political scientists working on it. We had economists working on it. We had scientists working on it. It was a good mixture of disciplines coming together to look at the problem and it comes naturally here. ENERGYBIZ HEr zog ENERGYBIZ Will the political scientists involved tell you if it makes a difference if we have a Democrat or a Republican in the White House? HEr zog Well, they could if we actually asked that question. We try to be objective. In the climate change area we have been dealing with both parties. There’s a lot of Democrats who hate coal. There’s a lot of Republicans who hate climate change. Working on a way to use coal, but deal with climate change – The united states produces about 1.5 billion tons per year of cO2 from coal-burning power plants. if all of this cO2 were transported for sequestration, the quantity would be equivalent to three times the weight and, under typical operating conditions, one-third of the annual volume of natural gas transported by the u.s. gas pipeline system. if 60 percent of the cO2 produced from u.s. coal-based power generation were to be captured and compressed to a liquid for geologic sequestration, its volume would about equal the total u.s. oil consumption of 20 million barrels per day. —from the MIT study, “The Future of Coal – Options For a Carbon-Constrained World.” 24 E n E rgyB i z November/December 2007

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of EnergyBiz - November/December 2007

EnergyBiz - November/December 2007 Contents Continental Grid Vision Needed Readers’ Views and Opinions Next for National Grid Clearing the Air The Need for Nuclear Energy Trade Status Report The Innovators California On The Leading Edge FERC Sparks Change Getting Coal Right Leadership in Times of Turmoil Innovation Delivers Return A Tale of Two IPOs LNGs Bright Prospects Generation Techologies The Age of Superconductors Leaders with Vision Get Ready for Plug-in Hybrids Betting on Batteries Cost of Decarbonizing Nuclear Helmsman – A chat with Dale Klein, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Global Energy Snapshot; Low-Income Energy Help; IT Spending Robust; The Greening of State Regulators; Generating Support Simplifying Offshore Wind Regs Chasing Construction Costs Energy Agency Sets New Course Deregulation Means Higher Rates Go-To Staffer Nightmare in Manhatten

EnergyBiz - November/December 2007

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.