I hope everyone read the testimony in the link. Well worth it.

Ken had this link at the bottom of Weekend Roundup last Friday–

also well worth it, especially given our recent discussion of W-M

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090716/43-new-coal-plants-would-escape-climate-bill-co2-standards

It’s amazing–mind boggling–how much energy CCS consumes. If we need CCS to save the planet, we certainly can’t waste it on old coal-fired plants.

The Solve Climate post discusses how grandfathering in the Clean Air Act and deregulation have actually kept old coal plants on line well past their retirement age.

If the government is going to help pay these companies to do this with our tax dollars, why not just give homeowners a good slice of that money to install solar and wind for home use? To me that would seem much less expensive and much better for the environment in the long term. Not to mention an increase of jobs in the green sector.

*LEST* we end up having to bear the brunt of hotter summers without the aid of air-conditioning (because we wont be able to afford it).

and…

“as South Africa is now developing a thriving *WINE* industry due to climate change…”

Thanks.

Then add in the fact that given dwindling coal reserves and an increased demand on coal resources due to the higher energy requirements of CCS, future rate increases are likely? One can possibly envision a price for coal-fired electricity at 40 cents per kilowatt-hour within ten years. I think that makes solar highly competitive, and even at a fair advantage. Should that projection play out of course.

And again, if that situation does pan out, and we’ve put say $300 billion into CCS by then, and ‘all of a sudden’ we can’t afford that energy and solar and wind are far cheaper, I hope I don’t hear any comments to the effect of “Oh man! Didn’t see that one coming!”

Lets put that $300 billion (arbitrarily chosen of course) into renewables now, instead of RnD for CCS. Lets we end up having to bear the brunt of hotter summers without the aid of air-conditioning (because we wont be able to afford it).

Or maybe on the flip side of that, as South Africa is now developing a thriving wind industry due to climate change, perhaps this is a business opportunity. I’m hereby calling dibs on the patent for the solar-powered, ten inch diameter super speed iPhone self-fanning App!! Pay up now suckas and I’ll give you a discount. New business opportunities!!

(In relation to that last comment, given all of my confrontational statements as of late – which I’m not apologizing for – please take that last one as a jest among friends)

As an admission, this was definitely some good honesty coming from Spitznogle, of the scale I’ve never seen, and I sincerely admire his honesty.

If coal-fired plants cost twice as much to operate in the future as they do today, where does that leave coal in relation to other sources for electricity (like concentrated solar, off-shore wind, and, even, net-metered residential solar and wind)?

Here’s a link to a chart showing costs of electricity in different countries, probably out of date but hopefully instructive:

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2006/01/22/household_electricity_prices_around_the?blog=49

Looks like folks in Italy and France, those gruesome, deprived backwaters of national health insurance and 8-week-paid-vacations, pay electric rates close to double current US averages. Am I right on this, blogosphere?

I think the big concern in US business is increased cost to industrial and commercial users. Prospects of such increases, especially all at once, spark fears of recession/depression, probably not unreasonably. I think that’s why some are calling for a “safety valve” or “off-ramp” in US climate legislation.

One thing about increased electricity rates is they definitely increase the value of energy efficiency measures — which have tremendous potential to control costs.