Articles

The fact that coal fired plants are inherently inefficient; and that CO2 capture would now utilize "...30 - 40% of the plant generating capacity", makes this generation option very unappealing. Current coal fired plants are less than 40% efficient due to the fact that they must first convert the coal to steam (maximum of 50% efficiency for the boiler - Reference Mark's Standard Handbook fo Mechanical Engineers, 8th edition, 1979, Chapter 9 , Sources of Energy, P. 9-152), then from steam to electrical energy. In addition, coal-fired plants use 10 - 15% of their current electrical production for SO2/NOX/precipitators/ash handling equipment.

The better alternative is to utilize a portion of the "existing" dams already built in the U.S. to generate "renewable" electrical power with "zero emissions(Reference Hydro Review Magazine, Sept 2006, "National Inventory of Dams". There are over 80,000 existing dams in the U.S. used for irrigation/flood control/navigation/municipal water supplies/etc). Estimates of the amount of power that could be generated from these "existing" dams range from 23,000 MW to over 30,000 MW. Moreover, the total energy conversion from the potential energy of water to electrical energy is greater than 80%, with zero emissions.

Canada produces 60% of its total electrical power needs from hydroelectric power plants. Why can't the U.S. increase it's hydro power output from the 10 -12% it now generates?

Wouldn't it be easier and more efficient to plant more trees and to avoid deforestation to capture CO2 from the atmosphere?