<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: U.S. Energy Secretary Orders Burying of Coal-Produced CO2 – What Are the Implications?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/10/u-s-energy-secretary-orders-burying-of-coal-produced-co2-%e2%80%93-what-are-the-implications/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/10/u-s-energy-secretary-orders-burying-of-coal-produced-co2-%e2%80%93-what-are-the-implications/</link>
	<description>Business, Better. Since 2005</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:29:26 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Richard Levangie</title>
		<link>http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/10/u-s-energy-secretary-orders-burying-of-coal-produced-co2-%e2%80%93-what-are-the-implications/comment-page-1/#comment-18458</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Levangie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:48:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.triplepundit.com/?p=16250#comment-18458</guid>
		<description>A small correction: Chu set a date of 2019, but even that&#039;s highly ambitious.

The problems with CCS are huge. 

1) It comes with a 20-30 percent energy premium, so we need to burn much more coal to produce the same amount of energy. 

2) It&#039;s only been successful under very limited conditions, so we don&#039;t know if it will work. (Early tests have been mixed, with some good results, and a couple of unexpected disappointments). 

3) It&#039;s expensive, adding more than $1 billion to the price of most coal-fired power plants.

4) It&#039;s difficult to retrofit on existing plants.

5) And here&#039;s the killer... Most analysts suggest that Chu&#039;s timetable is unrealistic, and 2030 is a more likely date for wide implementation. And that&#039;s too late... if we don&#039;t cut emissions well before then, then we&#039;ll blow right through 2°C (3.6°F).

I think putting our faith in CCS is keeping us from making tough decisions we need to make.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A small correction: Chu set a date of 2019, but even that&#8217;s highly ambitious.</p>
<p>The problems with CCS are huge. </p>
<p>1) It comes with a 20-30 percent energy premium, so we need to burn much more coal to produce the same amount of energy. </p>
<p>2) It&#8217;s only been successful under very limited conditions, so we don&#8217;t know if it will work. (Early tests have been mixed, with some good results, and a couple of unexpected disappointments). </p>
<p>3) It&#8217;s expensive, adding more than $1 billion to the price of most coal-fired power plants.</p>
<p>4) It&#8217;s difficult to retrofit on existing plants.</p>
<p>5) And here&#8217;s the killer&#8230; Most analysts suggest that Chu&#8217;s timetable is unrealistic, and 2030 is a more likely date for wide implementation. And that&#8217;s too late&#8230; if we don&#8217;t cut emissions well before then, then we&#8217;ll blow right through 2°C (3.6°F).</p>
<p>I think putting our faith in CCS is keeping us from making tough decisions we need to make.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/10/u-s-energy-secretary-orders-burying-of-coal-produced-co2-%e2%80%93-what-are-the-implications/comment-page-1/#comment-18444</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:46:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.triplepundit.com/?p=16250#comment-18444</guid>
		<description>Another possibility is that Chu is laying the groundwork for EPA regulation of carbon over the long term.  If CCS is available by 2017, that would make it the &#039;best available&#039; pollution control technology.  Under the clean air act, then, polluters would be required to put CCS technology on all power plants, regardless of cost. 

On the other hand, if Congress implements a cost on carbon, it becomes in the interest of those polluters to develop CCS, without some unfunded mandate from the Secretary of Energy.

Also -- don&#039;t you love how political leaders convienently make targets for when they will no longer be in office?  Why choose 2016, not 2017?  Because there is no way an Obama administration is in power in 2017.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another possibility is that Chu is laying the groundwork for EPA regulation of carbon over the long term.  If CCS is available by 2017, that would make it the &#8216;best available&#8217; pollution control technology.  Under the clean air act, then, polluters would be required to put CCS technology on all power plants, regardless of cost. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if Congress implements a cost on carbon, it becomes in the interest of those polluters to develop CCS, without some unfunded mandate from the Secretary of Energy.</p>
<p>Also &#8212; don&#8217;t you love how political leaders convienently make targets for when they will no longer be in office?  Why choose 2016, not 2017?  Because there is no way an Obama administration is in power in 2017.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William J. Broderick</title>
		<link>http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/10/u-s-energy-secretary-orders-burying-of-coal-produced-co2-%e2%80%93-what-are-the-implications/comment-page-1/#comment-18439</link>
		<dc:creator>William J. Broderick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:58:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.triplepundit.com/?p=16250#comment-18439</guid>
		<description>Agree that one needs to start somewhere, and technology is often prodded by government led initiatives.  Ideally, the market will develop its own solutions prior to 2017. 

Last October was National Energy Awareness Month, too!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agree that one needs to start somewhere, and technology is often prodded by government led initiatives.  Ideally, the market will develop its own solutions prior to 2017. </p>
<p>Last October was National Energy Awareness Month, too!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wk</title>
		<link>http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/10/u-s-energy-secretary-orders-burying-of-coal-produced-co2-%e2%80%93-what-are-the-implications/comment-page-1/#comment-18427</link>
		<dc:creator>wk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:26:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.triplepundit.com/?p=16250#comment-18427</guid>
		<description>Learn from Germany: 50% solar, Diesel engines around 75 mpg and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Learn from Germany: 50% solar, Diesel engines around 75 mpg and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kathryn Blume</title>
		<link>http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/10/u-s-energy-secretary-orders-burying-of-coal-produced-co2-%e2%80%93-what-are-the-implications/comment-page-1/#comment-18425</link>
		<dc:creator>Kathryn Blume</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:03:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.triplepundit.com/?p=16250#comment-18425</guid>
		<description>Not to be grammatically picky, but I don&#039;t think the phrase &quot;a whole nother issue&quot; belongs in serious journalism.  &quot;Nother&quot; isn&#039;t a real word!

Other than that, good reporting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not to be grammatically picky, but I don&#8217;t think the phrase &#8220;a whole nother issue&#8221; belongs in serious journalism.  &#8220;Nother&#8221; isn&#8217;t a real word!</p>
<p>Other than that, good reporting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
