A no-win scenario in gaming theory is also called a lose-lose situation. An example is when the executioner offers the prisoner a) hanging, b) firing squad, or c) poison. Whatever the choice, the prisoner loses his life.
I am concerned that coal represents a no-win scenario. U.S. must lead the world in clean coal tech tells that Steven Chu - U.S. Secretary of the Department of Energy, is advising Congress that America must develop clean coal technology. China is expanding electrical production by building one new coal-fueled plant a week. None of these new plants are deploying carbon capture technologies.
Coal's push for carbon storage an impossible dream adds a little more information. Every metric ton of coal produces 2.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide. Of course, carbon dioxide is a gas, not a solid or ash that can be easily be disposed. Under normal atmospheric pressure, a metric ton of carbon dioxide is 500 cubic meters of gas. To capture that carbon, the gas must be compressed and then pumped underground. In an earlier posting, The realities of coal, I calculated that burning $23.23 of coal costs up to $200 to neutralize.
The U.K. realizes it has a precarious energy dependency upon Russia and is desperately seeking alternatives. Coal is lose-lose for the Brits, because it imports 75% of its coal. The U.S. on the other hand, has the world's largest coal reserves followed by Russia, China, and India. Ed Miliband promises new era of clean coal tells that the U.K. law requires any new coal plant to immediately capture and bury 25% of its greenhouse emissions. By 2025, it must capture and bury 100% of the emissions. (Ed Miliband is the U.K.'s energy secretary.)
Proposals in the U.K. have the consumer paying a 2% surtax for carbon capture and storage. But that doesn't come close to paying the cost of carbon capture and storage, as provided earlier. The U.K. power industry is now requesting subsidies from the government instead of attempting to recover costs directly from the consumer. (Some pundits claim industry knows that clean coal is a myth, but I digress.)
The energy secretaries of both the U.K. and the U.S. are calling for the development of carbon capture technologies. It is pragmatism, recognizing that China and India will continue building new coal-powered plants. China, US on collision course over carbon tax on traded goods tells that China estimates 15% to 25% of its CO2 production originates in manufacturing goods for developed countries. China is arguing that the U.S. should pay China to reduce its CO2 production.
Sigh. This just sounds like lose-lose, doesn't it?
Comments