From the University of Colorado at Boulder
New study: US power plant emissions down
Power plants that use natural gas and a new technology to squeeze more energy from the fuel release far less of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide than coal-fired power plants do, according to a new analysis accepted for publication Jan. 8 in Earth’s Future, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. The so-called “combined cycle” natural gas power plants also release significantly less nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, which can worsen air quality.
“Since more and more of our electricity is coming from these cleaner power plants, emissions from the power sector are lower by 20, 30 even 40 percent for some gases since 1997,” said lead author Joost de Gouw, an atmospheric scientist with NOAA’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado Boulder. NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
De Gouw, who works at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL), and his NOAA and CIRES colleagues analyzed data from systems that continuously monitor emissions at power plant stacks around the country. Previous aircraft-based studies have shown these stack measurements are accurate for carbon dioxide (CO2) and for nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. Nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide can react in the atmosphere to form tiny particles and ozone, which can cause respiratory disease.
To compare pollutant emissions from different types of power plants, the scientists calculated emissions per unit of energy produced, for all data available between 1997 and 2012. During that period of time, on average:
- Coal-based power plants emitted 915 grams (32 ounces) of CO2 per kilowatt hour of energy produced;
- Natural gas power plants emitted 549 grams (19 ounces) CO2 per kilowatt hour; and
- Combined cycle natural gas plants emitted 436 grams (15 ounces) CO2 per kilowatt hour.
In combined cycle natural gas plants, operators use two heat engines in tandem to convert a higher fraction of heat into electrical energy. For context, U.S. households consumed 11,280 kilowatt hours of energy, on average, in 2011, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency. This amounts to 11.4 metric tons per year of CO2 per household, if all of that electricity were generated by a coal power plant, or 5.4 metric tons if it all came from a natural gas power plant with combined cycle technology.
The researchers reported that between 1997 and 2012, the fraction of electric energy in the United States produced from coal gradually decreased from 83 percent to 59, and the fraction of energy from combined cycle natural gas plants rose from none to 34 percent.
That shift in the energy industry meant that power plants, overall, sent 23 percent less CO2 into the atmosphere last year than they would have, had coal been providing about the same fraction of electric power as in 1997, de Gouw said. The switch led to even greater reductions in the power sector’s emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, which dropped by 40 percent and 44 percent, respectively.
The new findings are consistent with recent reports from the Energy Information Agency that substituting natural gas for coal in power generation helped lower power-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2012.
The authors noted that the new analysis is limited to pollutants emitted during energy production and measured at stacks. The paper did not address levels of greenhouse gases and other pollutants that leak into the atmosphere during fuel extraction, for example. To investigate the total atmospheric consequences of shifting energy use, scientists need to continue collecting data from all aspects of energy exploration, production and use, the authors concluded.
###
Authors of the new paper, “Reduced Emissions of CO2, NOx and SO2 from U.S. Power Plants Due to the Switch from Coal to Natural Gas with Combined Cycle Technology,” are de Gouw (CIRES), David Parrish (NOAA ESRL), Greg Frost (CIRES) and Michael Trainer (NOAA).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why do I care?
Less emissions of what of consequence? ALL plants are so scrubbed as to not matter.
All that really matters is how cheap the power supplied is, when it hits my bill (or the bill of poor folks).
I really don’t care if it is coal, gas, nuclear, or frogs warts. Cheap, reliable, and available are what matters to me, and to industry. That we have a load of gas is nice, but that we also have a double load of coal is nicer.
The higher you climb up the hydration ladder, CH4, CH6, CH12, the more the energy released from combustion is from Hydrogen bonds and the less from Carbon bonds. There seems to be more reserves of methane on our planet than can be accounted for by all the biomass that ever lived here. There is a distinct possibility that much of our crude oil was converted from methane by bacteria.
This amounts to 11.4 metric tons per year of CO2 per household, if all of that electricity were generated by a coal power plant, or 5.4 metric tons if it all came from a natural gas power plant with combined cycle technology.
That means that, by using natural gas, we are deliberately withholding 6 metric tons of CO2 plant food per household-year from the starving flora, planet wide!
Oh, the botany.. and all the plants starving around here.
“. . .During that period of time, on average: . . . Coal-based power plants emitted . . .etc ”
The lowering of particulates and smog is great. But I question the measurements “on average” since coal plants are older and will not have been built with better technology that is available today. That emissions are down is good, but at first glance it looks like an apples-to-oranges comparison.
This amounts to 11.4 metric tons per year of CO2 per household, if all of that electricity were generated by a coal power plant, or 5.4 metric tons if it all came from a natural gas power plant with combined cycle technology.
Will Bill McKibbon and 350.0rg be lobbying the State of California to require a sign to be affixed to every house indicating the house use is one of the leading sources of of greenhouse gases in California according to the California Air Resources Board and that this poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health and environment of California?
Yes, Yes, Yes. Natural Gas is the cleanest possible fossil fuel.
But is burning Natural Gas in a base load power plant its best use?
Just like we could burn oil instead of coal in a powerplane, oil is too valuable for generation power in a facility bolted to the ground.
Coal is a fine fossil fuel if the flue gas can be scrubbed of particulates and major pollutants. That makes it suitable for base load power and little else. Natural Gas, on the other hand is excellent for peaking power plants, rapid load changes, and even transporation.
Making Natural Gas replace coal is a politically questionable, economically silly, and environmentally unnecessary decision. It is long term folly to use Natural Gas and leave Coal in the ground.
I second that. We need the cheapest price to power our economies.
We need consumers with money in their pockets to drive the consumer markets.
We need cheap energy for our industries and businesses to remain competitive.
The entire Co2 emission BS must be dumped because it’s freaking plant food.
The more Co2 in the atmosphere, the bigger the crops.
Any policy directed at increasing the price of energy and reduce CO2 emissions should be regarded as an criminal act against humanity and all life on the planet.
And here we have arrived at the core of the climate scam, the role out of UN Agenda 21.
We can’t underline and explain this objective often enough.
The objective of Agenda 21 is to manage and control humanity not only like any other species on the planet but as a pestilence, just like we control rats and and cockroaches.
Sounds harsh but it’s as close to the truth as it can get.
Stand up, resist, it’s them or us.
http://green-agenda.com
So what?
Its just another add for the global warmists in an attempt to justify their collective fraud and keep the funding rolling in.
CO/2 is not the problem the frausdsters made it out to be .
FACT
Their own flawed models are telling them that.
What’s it at now? 400+ ppm. and still no corresponding temperature rise.
They now know the game is up.
To “add” a couple of more gases to CO/2 in an attempt to justify the useless billions in cost incurred by the power suppliers. Who in turn wack those increased costs on my bills is a sick joke.
You could reduce C0/2 by as much a you like.
Its not going o lower the planets temperature.
So why continue with this part of the fraud or for that,any part?
For all the billions spent before this waste and for all the billions more on more waste that will be spent.
What’s changed in anybody’s life that the global warmists/alarmist said would?
I did learn last week that some sea snail may have trouble jumping of one foot to evade predators because of the high concentration of, wait for it CO/2 in the water.
That little ditty probably secured the wizard lady’s funding for another year.
I really am over this crap and just wish we could get a government to put these global fraudsters on trial.
The truth will set them free. After they’ve done a bit of jail time.
…. of course we will need more fracking to get the natural gas we need to fuel these power plants ….. what’s an environmentalist to do
/sarc
And THIS is what its all about…….
And why the anti-coal AGW lobby is so heavily funded by BIG GAS !!!
@gymnosperm
January 10, 2014 at 8:34 pm
I agree, there may be other processes in play that we don’t understand.
I remember a Russian research paper that proposed hydrocarbons are created deep within the Earth under high pressures, unrelated to organic inputs from the crust layer. Who knows? If true, hydrocarbons could be harvested from the planet for an extended period of time.
This is the beauty of science. We think we’re so smart but we really don’t know what’s happening on the scale of climate.
I say to visitors at my door selling their brand of religion: thank you.
Don’t call me. I’ll call you.
Leigh says:
January 10, 2014 at 8:57 pm
So what?
……………………
Well that is just about my reaction Leigh. Taking away the monetary reward for employment, gaining grants, the desired result seems to be artificially elevate the price of energy, and especially outlaw cheap coal power generation, this will cripple some economies and cause pain as users adjust to higher prices.
Coal power generation of electricity in Victoria, Australia used to deliver power at 6 cents a Kwh at your meter. I noticed in one of the links in the comments on the cleantech issue from a person with oil industry background, that in some areas of the USA you are now paying 40 cents a KwH for electricity generated with cleaner gas??. My thoughts on all this, is who or what group of investors eventually gets their product/process into dominant place in the energy marketplace.!!
The only real and significant electricity generation process is Nuclear once the market place and users adjust to pay the price.
I have nothing against nuclear powered energy generation, though I favour small thorium reactor development as that can have a huge benefit to make electricity available to even the poorest country if that factor is even on any real agenda, instead of chest beating.!!
If Nuclear generation is the eventual goal, stuff all this C02 nonsense and those governments that can still afford to invest in the future, dump the unreliable subsidized power generation and go straight to nuclear power, subsidize the building of competitive designs and may the best most efficient win.
Otherwise the agenda 21 stealth way, is stifle economies, bring on a ruling elite and hide behind platitudes and wails about future generations, that for the life of me, they could not care less about as they seek to reap the rewards and control others.
The best thing we can do is build our economies and continue helping others less fortunate. Australians are very generous people but we have a faux green movement who want to remove any capacity private individuals have to invent, employ, manufacture and market in the most efficient way possible, for a centralized control system under their green hand of regulation.
It seems that is a common agenda.
I agree with E.M.Smith on this.
USA coal is being shipped to other countries and wood chips to the UK, so globally thermal power seems to be increasingly fungible. Meanwhile, oil in trains moves across North America with consequences. I do wonder about the net effect of human attempts to control carbon dioxide.
Not that it matters much when Earth seems to have a different agenda? Below are linked photos of Mount Sinabung, in eruption, on and off, since September, and 24 times on Friday.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/09/world/asia/indonesia-volcano-erupts/index.html
I’ve not come across any numbers for the emissions of current volcanic eruptions – haven’t looked very hard either.
AndyG55 says:
January 10, 2014 at 9:20 pm
And THIS is what its all about…….
“And why the anti-coal AGW lobby is so heavily funded by BIG GAS !!!”
Karl Marx is back: http://www.acting-man.com/?p=27920#
UNFCCC, Agenda 21 etc..have been set up to give us international Marxism trough a climate treaty that creates global government.
They will continue nagging about the end of the world until they get their international Marxism. So the nagging is a good thing?
On the other hand Germany is pumping out more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere due to its increasing burning of lignite for electricity generation. France is against the use of fraccing and is thus denying job opportunities to its youth. The world is wondrously strange!
Humor me; I’m not a chemist.
What the blazes (pun intended) are CH6 and CH12.
I always thought that Methane gave you the highest hydrogen to carbon ratio; well other than H2, and that the paraffin series asymptotically approached H:C = 2:1, but benzene (not benzine) gave you 1:1.
Then somehow, Acetylene (C2H2) is also 1:1, but burns hot; presumably due to that triple carbon bond. But then, as I said, I’m not a chemist.
So what does Gymnosperm know that I missed in school ??
Then alcohols and ethers just add water (H2O) to the gas, so it is already partly burned, before you put it in your tank.
The most prolific anthropogenic emission from a power plant; nuclear, coal, gas or diesel is ENERGY. Just like that big ball in the sky – climate is primarily of consequence in that instance since it supports anthropogeny. Big message to all warmists and other piggies slobbering at the troughs of those who work – shut the f up, and start producing something of value to mankind!
Actually coal’s share of electric energy has dropped from about 50% to about 35% today. It was never as high as this article states. The natural gas data is correct.
on the plus side you will be able to sell more coal to china
Any and every fuel North of an Ice age ice line should be used first, this will give folks of the future south of the ice a chance.
Wow, another third grade science paper. Who would have thought a new combined cycle gas turbine plant could outperform a simple Rankine cycle coal boiler from the 1940’s?
Maybe if the regulators would let power companies make modifications to existing coal plants without major modifications when the window is broken the gap would not be as wide.
Or maybe if people just burned natural gas in their hot water heaters and furnaces before turning it into electrons first the gap wouldn’t be as wide.
Methane is clean, cheap, ubiquitous, and relatively easy to transport domestically via pipeline.
It will also be the next target of the mean spirited green movement as is an eeevil fossil fuel.
Prediction: Democrats will make it the next target once they have removed Nuclear, coal and oil.
They disparately need a demon to attack to raise funds for power and control.
They have a proven methodology and track record in these endeavors.
“Natural gas switch from coal brings power plant emissions down”
Well it just isn’t enough now is it???!
Hmm?…Hmm?
By the way, if methane is supposed to be a fossil fuel why are there lakes of it on Titan?
Yes, E.M.Smith, you are correct. gymnosperm is confused about the chemistry.
Methane (CH4) has the highest hydrogen to carbon ratio, MUCH higher than coal and all other hydrocarbons… So less CO2 is emitted (for the equivalent amount of energy produced) when natural gas is burned as a fuel.
IF carbon dioxide emissions really were a significant problem, then natural gas and the oceanic methane hydrates would see increased use worldwide. This is already happening for various other reasons and, fortunately, it will continue medium and long term, whatever the global warmers say or do. But the more masochistic European countries like the UK may achieve some longer lasting self-inflicted wounds before the futility of the IPCC position is widely acknowledged.
I think getting on board the methane train may be the most honorable exit for many in the English-speaking MSM.