Climate Discussion Group 2024, CDG2024
Discussion – Policy Recommendations P5
October - November 2024
P5 Economic impact of Net Zero on individuals and countries
Nov. 8, 2024
Samuel Furfari
European Unnion
Central Thesis: Enhance EU competitiveness through continued Investment in green technologies and decarbonization.
Dilute, not always available green technologies and decarbonization will not improve the European Union’s competitiveness. These policies will significantly weaken Europe economically.
See Samuel Furfari’s Irish Climate Science Forum presentation at link below.
The Draghi Report: A Mistaken Vision of the EU’s Energy Future.
When Climate Priority Drowns Out Energy Reality
Oct. 22, 2024
Gregory
Wrightstone
CO2 Coalition USA CO2 Coalition: Don’t Waste Money on CO2 Removal
Submitted by Gregory Wrightstone, Executive Director
Frits Byron Soepyan, Research and Science Associate CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia
October 22, 2024 to the Wyoming Energy Authority
We recommend against the expenditure of Wyoming tax revenues to study or implement the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or from the effluents of power plants and other industrial facilities for the
purpose of effecting change in Earth’s temperature now or in the future.
In representing the CO2 Coalition, our qualifications to make such a recommendation are extensive. Established in 2015 as a 501(c)(3), the Coalition comprises a membership of approximately 200 scientists and researchers engaged in educating thought leaders, policy makers and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy. We engage in informed and dispassionate discussions of climate change, humans’ role in the climate system, the limitations of climate models and the consequences of mandated reductions in CO2 emissions.
Our analysis of costs and benefits of CO2 removal find that it is exceedingly expensive, provides no environmental benefit and ignores the enormous benefits of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide to plants and life in general.
By way of context, in April 24, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) passed a rule that would require coal power plants that plan to continue operating after January 1, 2039, and new natural gas power plants that plan to begin operation on or after 2035 to capture at least 90% of their CO2 emissions.
So, the natural question for us were how much would this cost and is it worth it?
Well, as they say, we ran the numbers. Thankfully, researchers from the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) have provided the cost and performance estimates for retrofitting an existing coal power plant with Shell’s CANSOLV CO2 capture system.
For the performance and cost estimates, we used the NETL estimates for 90% carbon capture. (Here, we are
using the term “carbon capture,” rather than “CO2 capture,” because NETL uses the mass of carbon, rather than the mass of CO2, in its calculations.)
Before the retrofit, NETL’s baseline coal power plant had a net output of 650 megawatts (MW). But after retrofitting it with the CO2 capture system, the power output was reduced by 24% to 495 MW. In terms of money, the retrofit cost is about $988 million, or about $2 million/MW of net power output.
What do these numbers mean for the United States?
Based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration, as of March 2024, the United States has 148 coal power plants in operation in the electric utility sector, with an average capacity of about 139,000 MW. Of these, 36 plants plan to retire completely on or before December 2040 and 8 plan to retire at least one steam turbine on or before December 2034, but not entirely. Taking the difference of 148 and 36, there are 112 coal power plants in the United States without any planned retirement year, having a total average capacity of about 96,000 MW.
Using the NETL estimates, if we were to retrofit these 112 coal power plants to enable 90% carbon capture, the 24% net power output reduction would bring electricity production down to about 73,000 MW. Applying the retrofit cost of about $2 million/MW of net power output to the plants’ reduced power output, we arrive at a projected cost of about $146 billion.
Keep in mind, these estimates are only for coal power plants. We haven’t even gotten to retrofitting natural gas power plants, nor have we addressed the cost of replacing the tens of thousands of megawatts lost in the 24% production decrease of converted plants.
And what about constructing brand new natural gas
power plants? How much would that cost?
Again, we turn to NETL for the estimates.
Using NETL’s baseline natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant, the numbers provided by NETL include a cost of about $1.05 billion to construct a new 992 MW plant without CO2 capture and a cost of about $1.87 billion to construct a new 883 MW plant with 90% carbon capture. In other words, the 78% plant cost increase comes with an 11% net power output reduction.
So, we clearly are talking about a lot of money to remove most of the carbon dioxide from our American power plants fueled by fossil fuels. But is spending the extra money to capture CO2 worth it?
Based on the analysis performed using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC), theoretically, if the United States ceased all CO2 emissions in 2010, the amount of warming averted would be only about 0.07 °F by 2050 and 0.19 °F by 2100. Such a temperature difference is negligible and can hardly be felt or measured.
Furthermore, in the United States in 2022, the CO2 emissions from coal and natural gas amounted to about 0.93 and 1.74 billion metric tons, respectively, for a total of 2.67 billion metric tons. However, the total CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industrial processes amounted to 5.06 billion metric tons. This means that the CO2 emissions from coal and natural gas contributed to only about 53% of the total emissions. Therefore, the temperature rise averted by stopping all CO2 emissions from burning coal and natural gas becomes even smaller compared to the above estimates from MAGICC.
Finally, besides being expensive and futile, keep in mind: Plants need CO2, along with sunlight, water, and nutrients from the soil to produce oxygen and food, both
Oct. 19, 2024
Armando Cavanha
Ronald Stein
John Shanahan
of which are essential for all living beings.
In fact, higher concentrations of CO2 have enabled an increase in the growth, food production, water-use efficiency and drought resistance of plants, as well as the greening of Earth, as confirmed by NASA. According to NASA, 70% of this greening is attributed to “fertilization” by CO2.
Given the critical role CO2 plays in driving plant and crop growth, is spending billions of dollars to remove it from the air sensible? We think not.
Gregory R. Wrightstone Executive Director CO2 Coalition Arlington,
VA, USA
The Democrats have sounded a false alarm about manmade global warming from use of fossil fuels. They have convinced their voters to leave oil in the ground. But oil produces almost everything we use in the modern world. Leaaving oil in the ground will stop the modern world dead in its tracks and Ronald Stein points out in all of his articles.
It is hard to imagine a more determined and serious enemy than the policies of the Democrats.
Many thanks to Ronald Stein in California and Armando Cavanha in Brazil for including me in your podcast about the differences in Energy Policy between Democrats and Republicans in the 2024 presidential Election and for the past 55 years. November 8, 2024
Oct. 17, 2024
Terigi Ciccone
Gerald Ratzer
Steve Koonin
Here is the link to the interview about the differences between Democrats and Republicans on Wind, Solar, Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power Eolicies.
I watched all 42 minutes of the Steve Koonin video presentation to the Hoover Institute. Gerald Ratzer
It is excellent.
The slides are top-notch from a variety of different sources.
He speaks very clearly and the arguments presented are above reproach.
The Context for Climate and Energy Policy, Aug 15, 2023, Highly recommended for explaining the status of the real CO2 science of climate change to non-technical 6policymakers. Asks and then answers the question of why are we wasting $1.5 Trillion per year to solve a non-existing climate change problem with a nonexisting and unnecessary solution
Steve Koonin bio