tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 30, 2014 11:30am-1:31pm EST
lso goes subsidy come at the g20 as the imf to leave the worker look at subsidies in fuel and fuel subsidies and they were i think for a year or two a lot of consultant running around looking at the fuel subsidies and where they were. and that the time i was in manila and they would come by it with you doing on fuel subsidies, this and that. my view is that the fuel subsidy issue hasn't moved as an international issue and perhaps those of you in the sort of think tank and you can add more to this. i don't think it's moved as much as sort of the g20 has wanted. it's all got to do with local sort of politics, local will. i think the indonesian i tried indonesia because i am indonesian come has been one of the few where they have taken a large chunks of the subsidy out. anybody else can add on that that would be very helpful.
>> all politics is local. so it is not the ideological economic situation. it is difficult to make sure government's advice. because they can be a politically very, very painful process. and no wonder in india it took election and very powerful, very determined prime minister to make progress recently. in nigeria is a bit political. so i don't think, i don't think there's a very clear understanding, a very clear consensus on it. i'm not aware of one single government which will save no, no, no. we definitely think is a good idea. it is just that the prime minister's and finance ministers are looking for the political tactics to do that. and again if you post that come
in this country talk about a very substantial proportion of the economically average person to you should not be surprised it is a couple good process but i do think they have made progress. i think i wouldn't characterize it as a failing. >> if i could you share an anecdote empty chair at the national press club there's a meeting with all the heads of there's energy trade associations, and make presentations on the stated industry. the year ago i got up and asked a question but i said, how many other industries would agree to give up all the subsidies you receive if we got rid of all the subsidies that would put on a carbon tax? so everybody would have a level playing field. not one hand was raised. so this issue of subsidies isn't just something that pertains to asia. we've got plenty of them right here at home. >> thank you so much for all
your excellent presentations. so i guess to some of the old on charlie's sort of question, after the keynote, so that currently there is some momentum building from the u.s. and i guess the western europe to sort of severely limit the public financing for coal. we have covered some of the key indicators and they suggest that coal may still be the only viable option. in that light, i mean it's for asia at least we talk about the u.s. or europe, or even say let's put china into the a side because there's enough of private financing come is public financing will use that often for asia?
>> well, with a bit of the certification the typical asian country, it's very integrated monopoly so that no, there is no real competition or even who is competition in most asian countries. that you might have private investment backed by long-term contracts with the government over the dominant -- more often than not -- and more often than not that industry has picked relationship with the state owned banks. now, if this is in the country that the conditions for right and the institutions function let's say malaysia for example, i would put that into the category, the malaysian they
can do pretty much whatever investment they want because they have -- [inaudible] they have access to capital from various sources. if you have countries that there's a big impetus subsidy problem burning cash or you have a over function finance the taliban system, there you have a big, they have a much bigger potential role for development banks. but the thing our number start a very large proportion of the capital needs could actually be mobilized by the private sector or by the cover. again if you have -- quite
popular in some asian countries if have a long-term contract with the government and the government has a proper capital market, and that long-term contract will enable the investor to raise capital. >> let me add, i think it could be very different depending on the asian country. because i think of the lower income countries laos cambodia myanmar nepal company of the lower middle income countries, vietnam bangladesh come at any of the middle income countries. i think the middle income countries is correct worry have depth in the financial system. you have utilities that are decently managed, and, therefore, there is appetite for private banks to invest in these things. but the lower, and the lower income countries of laos is very hard to get the private sector to invest anyway in laos or nepal or cambodia. that's were develop and financing institutions have a
large role to play. i think it's in middle income countries with plays a very interesting. because on the one hand, the long-term strategy should be i useduse the word should come should be developing financing comes in and investments we make is a third part of the thing that would be. the first part we do should be that policy dialogue to address all those things that charlie discussed. governance in the power sector, how it's done, should we unbundle the utility to transmission generation transmission distribution? can we help them set up regular so they can set up a market like that? once we do that then the developer and financing institution should come up with some technical assistance to do some capacity building, help establish that regulation or then only should we come in with the financing after that. so then those countries i think play a very important role. we should also play this role i
should've said this first but we should also play the role in the lesser developed countries. but for larger countries the other part of your conversation from your question i think was reported and disguised very well, and it's a question of whether they should be financing goal. and i think the value of the multilateral institution in china is actually an interesting role because we let me $1.5 billion. that's a rounding error for the international budgets. we don't really need you don't really need our financing to build roads, transmission lines. us that were our value addition is. it's not financing for them. for them they want us to do things that they've never done before. so they want us to do tpp for toll roads in some cases which have done but you want to do more. in the power sector they want us to give supercritical over supercritical. they want us to do this
combined more efficient use of coal. cc is the sort of thing. that's the value addition they have begged such as the financing of the knowledge we bring to projects to try out new things that they haven't tried. is fungible, right if they use armory to do this and it frees up some of their capital to finance other things we can do. [inaudible] >> we have to keep in mind the really large amount of electricity is not to give light box to very, very poor people in very poor village. that is increasing -- that's a major improvement for the very very poor people. really large amount of electricity is in move a step up in human capital that these people go to work in a factory and had money to buy a refrigerator and next step
takeover air-conditioning. the city of singapore 97% of the buildings have air-conditioning. so the really, really large amount of electricity is not at the bottom of the pile of the. the centers for companies collect justification in southeast asia, it's not a large amount. it's completely unfair to frame it as a big part of the climate change debate to the really large amount of electricity is lifestyle. that's when the numbers become very, very large. >> i think we would be remiss if we didn't draw on shoichi expertise is one of the leading energy geopolitics and in asia. some going to ask the question and i think shoichi if you advising the japanese government, which i'm sure you've done before but today,
what would you say are the most critical things japan needs to do to get on a sound energy path in 10 to 20 years? where does russia fit in as a supplier to japan for the rest of the authorities? how serious do you think the perception is in japan that china's bellicosity in the south and east china seas really is a serious issue for people concerned about energy geopolitics in japan? >> thank you for raising very interesting set of questions. first of all. [inaudible] totally need to restart new delhi actors as fast as possible. there's no question about it. you know it's just easy --
the percentage -- we have to be prepared for all sorts of things. the question is crude oil or imports. as reserve, natural gas, the story is different thanks to u.s. share japan is expected to import as much as up to about 20% from north america by early 2020. and japan is also interested in alaskan projects. [inaudible] up to the end of 2020s. by 2030 japan can increase its
russia doesn't have such a path of exports. to the world. i have only one project. it takes many more years to build something new. it takes more than a longtime. as opposed to the recent big deal of china russian gas pipeline contract. it stabilizes the region, supply demand balance of natural gas and basically japan is very happy about it. >> i think we --
[applause] >> tonight on c-span a special presentation remembering public figures who died in 2014 beginning with former senate majority leader howard baker. we will show a 2007 interview looking at senator baker's career in congress. as chief of staff to ronald reagan. you can watch the interview tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. on c-span2 its booktv in prime time with authors have written about richard nixon.
>> more now on the future of coal in today's energy environment and how it factors into the climate change debate. panelists look at the state of clean coal technology and its role in reducing carbon emissions. this is about an hour and 40 minutes. >> so, thank you so much for i guess, staying with us. my name is jimmy jimmy carter, missing a with css energy and national security studies, i'm sorry, security program. and -- my name is jane mcconnell. it's my pleasure to moderate the second panel which will examine the role of technology in addressing coal related carbon emissions challenge. i think that the panel, the
first panel very much, so some key consensus type of messages in that coal will be imposed as part of the generation mix certainly for developing economies but then also for the u.s. it has important role in economic development but also in energy security as well, supply security and diversification. but then at the same time, you know carbon challenge is something that everyone has in mind. anything for some of the countries that really is the overarching message as policymakers formulate. i think for some other economies, perhaps the supply security is the overriding concern as opposed to climate but generally i think public awareness on the climate challenge is rising around the
world. so certainly this makes technology as one of the areas of solution and makes our discussion, particularly timely. and during this panel i'd like to invite our panelists to sort of discuss with us some of the opportunities and challenges that are associated with the development and deployment of clean coal technologies around the world. and also some key issues that there are also other key issues we may explore in this technology area such as you know, what are the relative advantages and disadvantages of ccs versus supercritical ultra super critical clean coal technologies, both from the climate but also also in economic perspectives. and also i would be interested
in hearing panel perspectives on commercial viability or ccs especially without the option -- ber option. and it's not to say it's not import. it varies from market to market, economy to economy. so maybe you could have some sort of timeline that we can start thinking as we look to technology as one of the solutions. and also maybe we can spend a little more time on the r&d side of it. certainly dr. freedman talked a little bit about it but what's the framework right framework and what are some of the key ingredients and successful roadmap for ccs are indeed for the u.s. many but perhaps in some of the other leading economies that are experimenting with ccs deployment. and it's my to pleasure to introduce the excellent panel
here. to my immediate left is mr. hiroyuki hatada, chief representative of the washington office of naro new energy and industrial technology development organization of japan but it's a very catchy name. is japan's largest technology project management organization and its affiliates of their mission of the company could interest. is currently in council technology cooperation between u.s. and japan and managing existing bilateral technology demonstration projects among others. his previous roles include drafting and implementing policies and industry in such areas as waste computer recycling of biofuel quality regulation. so he's certainly not a stranger to the energy related technology opportunities and challenges. to his left is mr. bob perciasepe the president of the center for climate and energy
solutions, also known as cq ef. which is a widely recognized organization in the u.s. and around the world as a leading independent voice for practical policy actions between challenges of energy and climate change. so perfect to have him. and he probably doesn't need come under renewed to mention this but he was most recently they administer abuse environment accession agency from 2009-2014 come and doing it to his time as deputy administrator epa set stricter auto emissions and mileage standards, increased protection for the nation's streams and rivers and develop carbon emission standards for power plants. his previous public service included secretary of environment for the state of maryland in the early '90s and also senior planning official for the city of baltimore. to his left is mr. ben yamagata, a partner at his lover.
his practice encompasses better was the federal, legislative and other issues in the area of energy, environment and natural resources related matters. he represents clients before the u.s. congress as well as federal agencies including but not limited to d.o.e., epa and interior. from both projects specific and pragmatic, programmatic issues that relate particularly to technology research, development demonstration and deployment relating to the use of both fossil and renewable energy resource. in addition to his work, he served as the executive director of the coal utilization research council which is a coalition of industry with an interest in promoting clean coal technology. so we could not have had a more perfect panel than these three eating practitioners and thinkers as we try to take a
closer look at what clean coal technology can do in our efforts to address the carbon emissions challenge. and i'm going to invite each speaker to speak for 25 and 25 minutes, and then we will hopefully have enough time to take a lot of great questions, and then it certainly opened up further discussion. hiroyuki please. >> thank you very much jane your and welcome ladies and gentlemen. it's great honor for me to be joining this important panel even though i had to postpone my florida vacation one week. [laughter] today i'm happy to brief you on what coal technology can do in order to reduce global co2 emissions. as introduced, my name is hiroyuki hatada from the washington, d.c. office of neitdo. before getting started, let me just briefly introduce neitdo to
you. neitdo is the technology development agency under the jurisdiction of the japanese ministry of economy and industry. we are japan's largest public technology project management agency. and so we formulate our technology development projects, and we manage those projects. and we have a consortium of project performers who work on our projects for us. we do not have a level of for our own. in the scope of our committees is pretty diverse and that ranges from energy related technologies to non-energy related technologies. to give you some examples, renewables renewable energies and robotics electronics and
materials and, of course, been coal technologies. now, finally getting started. just speaking about goal, we have seen this kind of chart a couple of times today, but this is the forecast of iea for the, you know growing consumption of goal. the one point i want to draw your attention to is this chart is called a new policies scenario which means this chart has already taken into account some new policies of different countries, even those policies that are not yet implemented. so this means that coal consumption will go even though we have some proposed policies for administrative measures. and then another point is the report has a major portion of the increase will come within 10 years from now.
so we will have to be, you know thinking about what we can do you know in years. today i want to talk more about the coal-fired process as opposed to call the cell. so this is a chart and the same kind of chart from the perspective coal plants. the coal itself coal-fired power plants will increase as well, and capacity addition projected in the world up until 2040 will be 1360 gigawatts. to give you basic idea, my impression is that when a coal-fired power plant is about .5 gigawatt, it is called a large-scale powerplant. so you can just, you know simple calculation will tell you how many power plants this will transfer into.
and 24 t. we are going to have 2300 -- 2600 gigawatts capacity. so now the forecasts say that coal consumption and coal power plants will increase. we have to think how we could decrease co2 emissions from coal or coal wired powerplant. so these are the three points that i'm going to talk about today. this is pretty much my agenda for today. number one, carbon capture and sequestration and enhanced oil recovery, and two the higher efficiency on coal-fired generation technologies. and lastly i want to talk about making sure that best technologies available today are actually used today. so first item the carbon capture and sequestration.
this technology is one of the most important technologies that we should be working on as the technology agency. however, the point is that we are still working on this. the small-scale projects, what we call higher up projects, is complete, which is the left hand picture. small one, that isn't eight megawatts scale. we are complete with this, but we are still working on the middle scale project on the right hand picture. this is 250 megawatts scale. this won't be operational until 2019 so we are working hard on this. that's pretty much about the caption technologies. ..
after you put the co2 in the deep underground there's still a concern there is still a concern about the long-term story and what will happen when we try to store for a long time. on top of that the environmental effect and what might be caused because of the co2 these are the reasons that come from these issues. and what we want to think about also is economic incentive. we have to think about how the system could work economically. so speaking about the economic
aspect we are working very hard to reduce the cost of. there are some technologies that might contribute but still we would have a will add a significant enough with cost of the operation to the coal-fired generation program. our estimate is that there must be different -- there must be different estimates that but ours says that only capturing on top of that generation plan plus there will be sequestration and that will be different depending on what environment.
we are not saying that it will work but it will come up with a good way to make the ccs economically viable. when speaking about this, there is one way to make it work like putting co2 so that they have more loyal than originally accepted. so by producing more loyal oil that makes more economic sense so that is a very technology that makes it viable that the
issue is that it only works. the future is the location of the oil fields that are suitable and the right mixture is the distribution of the stationary. that's representing the emission sources, so as you see this they do not really match with each other so there are so many places where it doesn't work. that's why we have to continue to work to come up with other ways to utilize the carbon capture or maybe some other way to make sure that it makes
economic sense. the u.s. is one of the few countries where it works well. so even the situation is about my first item and moving on to the second point before getting into the details of the coal-fired power plants, this is pretty much the technology. when i talked to one of my experts he said he didn't like this but that's okay. the top is a subcritical and if you go down from the top the
only difference is that you get a higher pressure. so the most efficient technology there is commercially available at this point in time been speaking about the up coming technologies the second from the bottom is to somehow turn coal into gas which is the first generator before going into the turbine which is the second generator. the last one on the bottom after you turn coal into gas it goes
through the fuel cell so you get three generations here. that's why this is the most efficient and promising technology. having in mind this an accurate understanding the technology is here. this is our technology roadmap we are working hard on going through with this plan. we are at around 30 something percent and depending on the situation commercially speaking, the best deficiency is 43%. but the plan is to achieve up to 65% by 2050. we are working hard to achieve this goal. however the point is while we
are working very hard on technologies for the future the plans are standing up today and that is why we have to talk about using what is available today. so moving through that point they use what is available today. first of all how does the best plan today x. this is a picture from the best plant in japan and also in the world. this is another picture from the same plant shown in the previous panel that there isn't a picture
to picture. the plant was beautiful but the difference is you see the houses on the bottom you see it is so close to the coal power plants this means -- not sure how much it matters here that if the picture is not enough i will operate how efficient the current technology is a. at the notion if we used the supercritical technologies for
all of the newly built plants that reduction will be 1,100,000,000 pounds per year compared it to another area that is critical. and now it is 11 million per year. japan totaled co2 emissions by total dot only coal-fired power plants to the a manufacturing plant in the household offices everything. the total mission is told hundred million per year. so by choosing as opposed to
subcritical i don't want japan to disappear but -- [laughter] it's totally stopping the emissions. this is how efficient the current technology is. in addition to co2 before it started to be called a pollution, traditionally looking at that aspect of this is about the same plan. i had to circle the power plant. it was invisible. the number was so small compared to others, but another point is here i'm comparing this to the numbers from the uk, france and
all the countries but the numbers from those countries are not from the coal power plants. the numbers here are the average of fossil fuel power plants which means this includes gas but even after including s. which is the u.s. is the technology it is creating this much. so that's about it. however, the people are not choosing this technology. around half of the world come in around one third of china is subcritical and almost all of the new plans are using subcritical. if you look at this table on the
bottom, subcritical is the cheapest. the cheapest is a good thing but the downside is that it's least efficient. this means they need more fuel. that's 20% compared. so by choosing the cheapest they are losing money but you might not care if they are losing money. they are producing more than is necessary. so that is why we have to help them make a right decision for the sake of them and us.
for this purpose, providing the financial assistance can be an option but being from nato i want to talk about something else today. that is the study of the assistance that we are providing two different countries. so far there have been 19 products in the countries analyzing how the new technology would work and we are hoping those countries make the right decision in terms of what technologies to use. and i think everyone is looking at the triangle in the u.s.. another aspect of the technology is the maintenance. after building a new plant you
have to use this over 40 years. this example there are several power plants that have been operating around 40% originally designed efficiencies over 40 years compared to another plant that has dropped off quickly. i can't say what country this is from. that's the difference and why it's important as well. last number one, the project is located in california and its
"usability study project and depending who participated in the construction they are hoping to see its completion. second, richer fitting the project on the u.s. existing plant for the sake of the reduction and then also we have to reach out for the partners in the recent tour that we had and hopefully there will be more opportunities to cooperate. with that, i will conclude my presentation and i'm happy to take any questions that you might have greater. thank you. [applause]
>> i would like to ask a quick question is substantive questions later. your side on under 13 to make sure that i understood this correctly so the u.s. and canada said did you see that the average from the cool whale power plants with some, the average from coal oil and gas. >> of the coal plant is much cleaner than the average. and quickly the blue line to
make sure when you say a certain cool plant you mean not japanese? i just wanted to make sure. [laughter] >> again thank you for the introductions and it's a pleasure to be here with everyone. thanks for that presentation and i will try not to duplicate all the information you have on the efficiencies of the different technologies and try to lay out a little bit of history as well as where i think we need to go. i'm going to say the word power plant where there is a site. sometimes there is more than one generator at the site but let me
use the word plant for the sake of the use. in the united states there were 557 holes -- coal fired plant. in the world there's 2300. china and the u.s. have 51% of the power plants. and i'm not counting units just publicly close of the u.s. and china have 51% of the plant site in the world. we know some of the reports we received in the last couple of
years -- and you had a similar data. we got about 1.6 1600 soa 1,600 gigawatts of capacity and is expected and matched the chart to grow by 2035, 2042 about 2600. you have 2630. this is current growth so that is a 60% growth between today and let's say 2040 and a lot of that growth is going to be in asia and india and other parts of the developing world less so in the u.s. but there will be some growth as it is improved on the plants and some additional
technologies built-in and the global demand is expected to rise over the next five years from 7.8 billion tons in 2013 to a little over 9 billion in 2019 servers going to be continued growth in the demand for the fuel as well. i do these numbers out there because you've already heard of some of them today to some of the numbers you had. but it shows is that the world is making a huge commitment in this fixed infrastructure. we are talking about 42% of the world's electricity being generated from this type of fuel and i'm not counting natural gas but when you look at these
fossil fuels we are probably in a 50% zone of electricity being generated from it. for at least another several decades, which is getting us into the middle part of the century where we are supposed to be making some substantial reductions in greenhouse emissions. but at the same time, we are trying to and you may wonder if we are able to think of this from all of the events that you hear that we are trying to raise everybody's standard of living and quality of life. and in order to do that there's over a billion people on earth that do not have electricity and soak you have to think through that we have that other conflicting characteristic of the modern thinking in the world that we want people to have a better quality of life and i think most of us would agree although sometimes i think a tent in the woods with the good
quality of life in a modern society "-end-quotes having some electricity. the goals that we have as a planet to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions but at the same time try to grow the quality of life of all of our citizens on the planet is a very contextual thing we have to think about so if the reality is we are going to have this kind of power generation unnerves to for quite a while to have to think about how you're going to deal with the emissions. i often say it is not the fuel come it's the emissions we have to deal with and history piece i
want to lay into is itself a form compared to some of the high-performing plants in japan. we have some of those in the u.s. also. we have plants that are getting very very low. i want is a very close to zero almost. that is a phenomenal achievement. when i first started in air pollution control 30 years ago we had things we have to get 20 or 30 or if we were lucky 40% reduction environment are having conversations with engineers and the air is 80% of my church in. i can't burn something inevitably exposed to that. today we have the selective
catalytic reduction. we have perfected the way to change this into a different kind of gas into different kind of product so we have made some fantastic reductions from the coal-fired power plants and the current cost is ten and a half cents. in 1985 the average cost was six and a half cents. in today's dollars that would be 14 cents. six and a half. the average today is ten and a half. you could say we are starving our starting our infrastructure by not charging the same amount of money they made in 1985 that he had done over the last 20 years is in the best in
pollution control and an amazing impact on public health so i talked talk to my colleagues in the industry and i say this as a major technological achievement we have had over the last 30 years what makes you think we can't do that with carbon dioxide and of course what we were just seeing is some of the emerging technologies that make the plants more efficient to begin with and the second, trying to capture it so when you look at what we have been able to do and i'm just using the example in that case and how it's affected the consumers of commercial and residential and industrial, we've been able to hold the cost but a constant when compared to inflation. now there are regional
differences but i'm looking at the average so how do we take that next step in and what are these emerging technologies? i'm not going to go through them in detail but let's talk about what's happening on the ground. we now have a carbon capture and storage plant operating at the boundary location. it's been operational since october of this year and its couple that with enhanced oil recovery. some of my colleagues would say you are pushing more hydrocarbon out of the ground and bring them into the cars or trucks or airplanes and see if there is a penalty but there's still about a 35% benefit of doing it.
but the key i want to reiterate we don't have an economic model right now to help us finance carbon capture and storage both an economic transition model in the economic transition model being paid for the carbon to do the enhanced oil recovery is a very good transition concept because what they will do is it will enable us to build more carbon capture storage plant and the more we build, the cheaper they will become and that's what's happened with the air pollution i mentioned we went from what scrubbers down to injection so we have reduced the cost and i'm going to quote from an article couple of weeks ago he said said he fully expects to
build another unit of the same location, but he expected to be 20 to 30% cheaper to build because what they were just building the first one. and and so i think that this is a pretty important component finding that bridge. go and how we do it and i agree with what he said in terms of the potential economic model and of course you know what the economic model is in the long-term there has to be a price on carbon so that you get paid to stick it in the ground. i'm just saying. and you have to do it in the places, not spinning at the camera but on the map on the wall. you have to dig into places that were right on the camera that don't have the enhanced oil recovery opportunities otherwise we will be building pipelines all over the place. so, now the other good thing besides the fact that we now have one operating we have one under construction in
of oil wells that have not producing any more but also to build more carbon capture and storage technology to learn how to do a better job of it. and so, this mou is in terms of sharing data as we were trying to do these projects so we can share it. i told you how many power plants we're going to have in the world that are based on coal and then how many we're going to have in the world based on natural gas. if we want to get 80% reduction or sooner in greenhouse gas emissions we'll have to do something with that carbon, whether capturing and sequestering it or capturing and using it in some other kind of economic activity, we're going to need to do that. so i am going to stop there in that high-level discussion. but you see the challenge in amount of investment we're making in that kind of power
around the balancing goals of improving the quality of life on earth and at the same time trying to deal with green house gases, the fact we had success in the past of reducing the unit cost of substantial treatment on power plants and we are at the beginning of that process now. i see somebody helpfully put the map up there. you can see mississippi over there. but anyway. i will stop there. >> thank you so much, bob. [applause] next ben please. >> thank you so much and let me start by apologizing to you because a number of my slide i noticed when i was sitting here
earlier today, i used a font that was so small that it is going to be difficult for you to see but i want you to take heart because i have about 50 slides and i'm going to move through them so quickly you won't be able to read the slide anyway. now, in truth the slides will be available. jane tells me that that's the case and so if, if we don't see some things they will be available. let me first of all thank jane and also the center for having me here. i appreciate that. and i appreciate the discussion and i want you to know, bob that because i'm a big coal guy on the technology side we are absolutely parallel and i thank you for that and you have a long reputation of being fair and realistic and i it is a pleasure for me to be here with
you. let me also say that while jane noted that i'm the executive director of the so-called coal utilization research council curc i will call it, i will make reference to some of our studies and conclusions and what not, the views that i am about to express with you are entirely my own. that is like an antitrust statement i think but in any case i did want you to know that. let me begin by making two points and first of all as i thank both of my fellow panelists pointed out co2 can not be effectively addressed without carbon capture and sequestration. just a point. second point that i want to talk a bit about is, our country needs energy options.
we need all energy options. this is one of those slide i was talking about but if you can't see it in 2019 in china and india, coal plants, planned or under construction will emit annually as much or more co2 than the entire u.s. coal fleet currently emits annually. emphasize, this is only the co2 emissions from plants to be built in those two countries over the next half dozen years. i think i'm just augmenting a point that our panelists already made. both the eia and the iea are also expecting africa to increase coal use by 50 to 70% between now and about 2040 at the african summit that was held
in washington, d.c. several months ago i thought that african leaders made it abundantly clear that they will use coal for the 600 million people on that continent that have little or no electricity. india at the u.n. climate conference in new york city several, late summer, made similar points. this past summer the leaders of brazil russia, india, china and south america launched the new development bank with $50 billion in subscribed capital and authorized capital of approximately $100 billion as an operating bid to finance infrastructure and sustainable development projects, coal being one of those kind of projects. so let's be clear. if you eliminate coal use in the
united states, eliminate all the coal using power plants in the united states, we will achieve a 3% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions globally. the eia i.e. a representative who was on the previous panel noted this new medium-term outlook that the iea has just released this past week and indicating that the world's coal consumption will continue to climb for the next five years despite the agreement between china and the united states that two leaders of those two countries. i think it is important to note, and i quote from the executive director of the iea maria van der hoeven, who said, quote coal use in its current form is simply unsustainable. we need to radically accelerate
deployment of carbon capture and sequestration. i think that's the point that i would want to make to you as it relates to co2 in the world arena. let me also talk a bit about the importance of energy options. i'm not going to spend anytime on this. all of you i am certain, have gone through this litany of the benefits and the costs of all of these energy options that exist and i what i want to emphasize is each one of them has their benefits and their drawbacks. let me simply say that the japanese know all too well the price being paid for great reliance on one fuel source. this next slide is simply to depict that and the degree of reliance that exists both in japan and the consequences of fukushima but also the what is
happened in germany with respect to renewables. we haven't talked very much about that day and i don't intend to osteite as a whipping boy but let me just say in in 2013 installed capacity of wind and solar in germany nearly equaled the installed capacity of fossil fuels. that's good. but wind and solar energy producers got a guaranteed price, usually well above market price and this electricity is dispatched to the grid before other conventional resources. as a result, in germany electricity prices have more than doubled and are 40 cents per kilowatt-hour compared to the u.s. average of, as bob pointed out, of about 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. what does that really mean? that means we have a competitive advantage because of the price
of electricity and frankly the price of the existing fleet that delivers that electricity. the important metric i want to point out with respect to the costs of electricity to the american consumer, at least some economists say that a 10% increase in electricity costs leads to a 1% decrease in gross domestic product and a loss of as many as 1.5 million jobs. now whether you believe or not that of course is part and central of the debate that's taking place even right now as we look at the proposed epa regulations called 111-b and 111-d. so options matter. ccs is critical to effectively addressing global co2 emissions.
my point here with this chart from the department of energy is, do we have a demand pool that will allow this country to be a leader in both the development and then the use of co2 in new newly constructed units. and for that matter, the same question applies to the existing system. and the existing fleet. how are you going to address new projected demand? all of us in the previous panel have come to the same conclusions. it is not hard. it is certainly not rocket science. it is really more rock science and that is we're going to at least primarily use natural gas. eia in its aeo 2014 early release report projected that in order to use all of that natural gas which is that orange line, i don't know what it looks like up here but if you look at the monitors over here you can
better see it. the orange hash marks are natural gas. you don't see any coal up there of course between now and 2040 but to use that natural gas it will be about 130 gigawatts of new natural gas combined-cycle. it bill be about 84 gigawatts of combustion turbines gas-fired. that equates to about 2.1 tcf of incremental natural gas use for electricity from 2012 base load. let me say a primary reason again as other speakers have said for this increased gas capacity is both price and availability. you just can't avoid that. it is worth keeping in mind that in 2004 natural gas used for power production however nearly downed in price in two years to reach $5.50 per mcf. then it doubled again in 2008,
if you will recall to reach $12.41. in 2012 is dropped to $2.81. right now it is around 5 or $6. i think the point is pretty obvious. well adding to the fact that we don't have any new projected demand for control what we're trying to show here is that the existing fleet is getting old. in "20/20" the average -- 2020 the average time of the existence of existing fleet will be about 42 years old. it is important to understand that this existing fleet according to the eia is still expected to provide about 38% of all of the electricity requirements through 2040 in the u.s. now here's my point i guess we have an existing fleet that
provides low-cost electricity. it's reliable. and after full implementation of the mercury rule, generally i would say this fleet will be compliant with most of our existing environmental requirements for criteria pollutants save co2. but the point here is, it is a clean fleet. it is going to be a clean fleet. those who have performed economic impacts to the economy and to families with higher electricity prices, and these increases are going to happen, particularly with the retirements that are projected both as a consequence of mats which is whatever you can say it is between 50 and 60 gigawatts and at least under one scenario epa provided under the 111-d if it is promulgated as has been proposed there might be as much as 49 additional gigawatts.
if you add that up, that is about 100 to 110 gigawatts in capacity of the u.s. out of 310 gigawatt fleet currently. so i think the importance here again getting back to the issue of existing units in 2040, in 2040, that fleet, keep in mind, we're not going to build any new ones. that fleet is going to be about 62 years old. so i want to come back to the importance of the existing fleet. and talk about this really in the context of how complicated all of this is and i really do think that bob did an excellent job of indicating that it is very complex and that we tried we need to find some kind of a symbiotic relationship between these seemingly divergent
requirements in our society for more and more abundant and lower-cost electricity but also with attention to the need for environmental stewardship. we don't need to talk about these but i wan to remind you about some of the exigencies that have happened over the last 12 months that remind us not just about the value of the existing fleet but frankly the need to keep in mind that as we retire elements of that fleet and others have talked i think a lot about the potential reliability of the grid as we continue to retire much of this fleet, we've talked a bit about particularly in germany about renewable energy. what i would guess i would have to call the market distortions a consequence of the too much, in my mind subsidy in someplaces in the world. limiting options is just a
matter of what it is, whether it's nuclear or natural gas price volatility. and as i said earlier it is your duty in my view at least that we be good environmental stewards and i at least personally consider co2 a major challenge but generally if you look at the american consumer, the only thing he or she expects is power when they put something in to the ubiquitous outlet and i think that's one of the challenges that we have as we think about the complexity of the system that we're trying to deal with and the regulatory regime that we're trying to create. what i now want to talk about is, what i think is a timely issue here. it is time. it has been time for a long time, to really focus upon
technology or as, the iea executive director said, radically accelerate deployment of ccs technology. let me just say again at the outset that you have seen some of the estimates that was made about the costs and cost comparisons. others did as well including dr. friedman. the curc, and this is where i will wander back into the curc and my role in curc, that the simple, the simple conclusion, current status of carbon capture technology it costs too much. we at least would argue that we have an integrated all of this. we're getting there with kemper and with boundary dam.
we haven't integrated all of this technology. we know about it but we haven't integrated it into functioning commercial sized power systems. we'll get there but we're not there yet but the biggest impediment, and i think all of us again agree on think the driver, the market driver here, isn't there with low-cost, very abundant, very affordable natural gas and it is not there because our economy isn't bubbling at 90% also. so when you put all of those factors together it is not hard to conclude that the drivers here for technology development don't really exist for a variety of reasons particularly with respect to something at least the users of that technology, at least in this country view it as pretty risky stuff. and i won't try to go into and cost and values of all of that.
but i would like to spend just a minute excoing what bob said before. we have been very successful in using technology as the fulcrum to insure that we have a more environmentally pure world or environmentally sustainable world. you just have to look at, these are epa charts by the way. the metrics are the same everything. it takes a picture of 1990 so 2 concentrations. the white down through the u.s. and in that one slide is because there were no monitoring stations there. picture in 1990 and a picture in 2009. and i don't think i need say anymore than technology, in part, was responsible for that reductions, those rather dramatic reductions. i mentioned before i am involved with the coutilization research
council and curc as we call it and the electric power research institute have for more than a decade have been developing and updating a coal technology road map. the lasseter race of that was in august of 2012. we're updating it again because things are constantly changing and improving. i want to show you these two charts. i hope you can see them. the left hand chart is focusing on efficiency and what we can do with technology in the context of efficiency gains. as hatada and others intimated if you get greater efficiency you lower co2 emissions. 1 1/2 to 2% efficiency gains one to 2% reductions in co2 emissions. that left-hand side says we can
move from the best we know how to do, 40, 41 efficiency in the u.s. to 48% or more. the right hand chart which we also represent as the need for pursuing research and development, to do so at least in the context of how we think that technology ought to be developed, could result in the prevention or control of conventional emissions of sox nox, particulate matter. so we can clean up emixes at greater levels than we have today and those bars represent even greater emission decreases as a consequence of more technology development. note, we also are looking at water. if you were here earlier today assistant secretary or deputy assistant secretary dr. friedman had a chart similar to this. his was i think more updated.
but i want to make one comment about this. we all are very supportive, very hopeful, that everyone of those projects will be developed and finally built. we all focus on boundary dam and kemper and the petra nova project. a little bit i think on the archer daniel midland project but there are several other projects up there where at least in my judgment it's a challenge and it is mostly a financial challenge, not necessarily a technology challenge because those projects are living in a world where the market doesn't yet exist. those projects are living in a world where there is a lot of cheap natural gas and there is no driver for at least again in my judgment, or where the technology is going to be able to survive. we talked a lot about the
importance of, i think political and government support. let me just underscore this by saying that without very significant public support we're not going to get there. and, i'm talking about the support that exists or doesn't exist unfortunately within the current administration and i don't mean, and i do not talk about the really superb efforts that are being done at the department of energy, in particular, in an effort to sustain a program and develop a program around advanced coal-based technologies. let me just walk you through this for a second. the president's request in fy-2015, current fiscal year was $302 million. last year congress provided $392 million. if you just draw a straight line
down to the blue line you can see what the administration requested then. so in terms of trying to increase augment the amount of funding for technology research and development not talking about demonstrations, research and development, it has really been the congress. i'm not saying that the administration hasn't been helpful but it is the congress that moved the money up to a level where at least curc believes we need to be in order to achieve the kind of goals that i had in that frame back aways that you probably couldn't see. well, for those of you who follow this kind ever wonky stuff, earlier this week you probably know that house and the senate agreed upon the "cromnibus" bill. omnibus, continuing resolution, what not after some amount of acrimony i might point out but the agreement in the cop guess
with respect to the president's request in 2015 is around the $400 million mark. let me conclude by saying that as a organization that is curc, we've tried to look at, what's required in the technology development world specifically focused upon coal in order to insure that, that coal has a place in the future, as part of one of our important energy options? and what we've looked at is, what needs to be done with the existing fleet from an r&d or research and development technology perspective and simply stated, that is, we've got to improve the efficiency of those units. that is going to require some technology. we have to improve the flexibility of those unit. we have improve the reliability of the units when we are asking them now to cycle rather than operate as baseload units.
we also believe that we need to put steel in the ground. again bob mentioned an initiative that c2ee has underway with respect to using the revenue that can be generated from selling coo 2 -- co2 to enhanced oil recovery and it is significantly important because it is a revenue stream in the context of technologies that can't make it without additional revenues or sources of revenues because the financial models don't work. and then thirdly we are we are very supportive of the technology r&d programs that look not just at trying to improve existing technology, low-cost electricity coming from that.
but also transformational technologies. that is, new power cycles, new ways to use coal cleanly and cost effectively. a part of our discussion is that technology not only addresses future environmental concerns, just as, it has successfully done for decades in the past but also more importantly technology in our view is a means to low-cost electricity improving people's lives and making possible modernization through electro technologies. that's the 1.3 billion people in the world who have inadequate supplies of electricity or no electricity at all and is the promise of that as a modern society we have to make available to everyone, at least to the extent we can. let me finally say that with respect to this, if we call it a three-part technology program
senator heidi heitkamp, democrat from north dakota, in march of this actually introduced legislation with a number about colleagues that includes that three-part program and other elements of coal and technology that she has come up with with respect to her own analysis of this and i believe her intention is to introduce that legislation again in the new congress. that is certainly our hope and expectations. i thank you for your attention. i again apologize for small fonts and the only thing i can tell you right now is i only had 19 slides and not 50. thank you. [applause] . .
>> you know, between sort of the public and private sector stakeholders are -- is there sort of a common understanding that the ccs could be, you know is it something viable even for the natural gas industry or at least sort of a concerted effort to support measures, you know whether it's the increased budget for r&d, but is there a
lot of discussions between coal folks and then natural gas folks on the viability of ccs? >> well, i mean, you have a little bit of a greater dilemma of the distribution because there's 1,700, i think, natural gas plants in the united states even today and so they're distributed more widespread. but i think the general feeling is later in the century they're going to have to capture some of that carbon as well and perhaps use it as a prodt or have more localized ijection. bui think ters also a seasons that ifou can soe a sensehat if you c solve the problem r e high volume and with so of t impurities that you have in the coal ges at you're trying to extract e carb outf, that whatever proach is taken tre wille
adapble to a natural gas siation. but erwi be a distrition set of isss,ounow, lat in the cenry inerms how to dealith te rbon once you capture it. but tecology advcents that areaening andill continueohappen as b poted out, should be aptable. al to other instal processes, they'ot por generato. eyelso generating carbon. i inyo had sometnol plt data there as well. >> i'd just underscoreth by ying and bob ma the point exactly tt it's sourcesf co it's njust cl, 's certainly noju natural gas, it sel plants, it's ethanol plts, it's cemt plants. >> thether estion i have, at as one ofthe seral other questions,s that i guess, you knowearlier day, i mean, i
esse did spend quite a bit of ti on countries that d you know tha ha t economic profes d ao prably natural roue endowment profes where the ccs withhe eor is not really an opon. din th i't a panel thatill talkbo t economicomtitiveness aspect of coal, bu i st ofand to get, you know your sortf, you ow tugs on whatresome of e lessonsha our experiences wi ccs i mean hodo we sortof mke our experienceanxperiments gog forward revant too of these countries that do not ha -i mn, ceainly by builng moree canre,ou kn, ar driving down t stndhe rllyake the pie,he ccs, u know,
technology or the --ctually, thequme p bigger. d r the, d then that to beme lot more just commcially viab industry seorer se. otr than th wtare some of e ws thatyothink ate shou be tnking about? >> i tnkt' impornto point out, d i'mot anxpert here but those in our organization who are empsize that storing co2 can be done. know how to do i so let's srt there. e real issue is solving,nd some states e trying to ades thi i fact, what a the liabit issuesurrounng rg large vlumesof compreed cor a vy long period of time?
o' rpoible for that, a how ou work throu th kinds real, ally impoanssues? we have an iueith respecto atea some in t eor community haven issue with how eph determined to classify wells as class ii or classvi lls. ceaiy noxrt in that area'm just mickingwh i hear. but that see to be a difficulty as well. so i thinkthe important thing ne, is that onhene hand frhe technogy perspective we can injecto2 and we have eaconfidence thate can ept tre for a vry long periods of time. it's these he issues which arequall asmportt that have to be dealt with. and they veo be dlt with early on, particular n just t u.s., but in oer places in t wrl where we're tryg to dthis.
th invoes, fo those of yo miar is very gd example assung 'll beka je co2nd i didn't que work outhat way. >> [inaudle] >> um, talked about the cost duiofor ccs throug the pa of, you know, thecoming from t higher volume of expeen a doingore wi lower the st t issne way to godown the cost but this another way -- but the'sanother way t only accumulating more exrience, bu the oer way is to b successful with new technologiesith c thill significantly lowethco for ccs. but this will take time. th will take time. buwere, you know, al working n technologies that will, you know, ke ccs ssible- naib]
th styou know, when you talk abt not the initial investmentbubout the runninco bas iose on aunning cost sis, the reason tha e c s coly is because you ndngy to do cc so we are trying to come up with ways realize cboapture thsi i this cnt less amount of energy. that's what we're working on. and that wilakecs more vile for other cotrs. >> [inaudible] o justo help fksho are t oficionosf the unrgundinjectnd ntl progr -- >> includingmi - >> that ben mtied clas ii and css ls i has a numberf requirements for monitoring the prossnd evytng else.
bu obviously you'ticking thcaonnan isng reservoir ohydrocarbons. cls w cated inhe last five yea as class of underground injeio a control torec grouwar for purely rboncaure and storage. and think the two provision in tre that cause peoplethe mostagita are the moniting and rorngeqrements. you know is it reall down ere, is it sting down there. and the seconne is t naiaasrae comnent which is unfidnduected permitng, younow, nuan orarbitrary thinkin or ater you want to callit d uil w undstdetr about what all the broad abits are, it s not relved inthis rulakg. thers is open-end
questionn almo ever pmi what is the finanal assurance iee provideere, and i thk that tat- do ihk epa knowsh has to be xed, d e questionnd this is a whe oup of people at will beorng on it and, pefully, 'll continue to have a dialogue o it. and th lt thing i'll mentn, eor is agood transiti and it'sgeograicly mit assed rooiedut.-- limed a hi indou the has be pice on rbon, as they say, s y can actulyake moy byutting it in the grnd and sequesri i or alternately we learn h to use thaarbon for otherin of industrial pceeshat then doe't allow it toge back up in e atmosphere but it ts putin something we pindeantly sequeer th w th i thinkll tsehings aregoing to pput ty're no they' not theright now.
>> not yet. ju qck sort ofuilding up on hiro's last comnt that it do take energy t run ccs, is that how - it's not, find it fascinating how, i guess the fu co2 capture atcs actuall do rece eiciency and requirmo coal burning, right? iean tt's somethg that i was going throu one of the iea reports the coal, a i jt thgh you know, it was kind of fasciti. so fororeason i think they're botheliv the ings td be laverelative aantage disvaages to differe types of, i guess cleanoa tenologies. u know, yeah, depending rt of time horizon that you'r loing at, you owdending on t mrket a the iestment ameworks and structures. anyways, l opup the oofor discussions.
sorry. if you could please identyho you are and then ask the question in thfo oa estion, that ulde great. tnk you -- [inaudle] ank yoforxcle presentati. well today we are invesng in clean coal technologs. i inwere tang t different acklingtwo dierentieces of question, thgh they're - [inaudible one is the abilityf higher, more efficien combustn technologies includin-- [inaudible] d e other is ccs. well i inwe should beor careful about wt are actually talking abo. i meaninchievi objectives
ofclate isues and suainabl growth of globa economy, i think thathe best way an-- [inaudle] is to mime diffio of higher combustion thnologies, essentiay the areas of the -- [inaudible] state of ccs. wecan -- naib] they shoul't, they shoulday lessn [iudible] we can seebere rching out to -- [iudle of ccs. we should hurry up diffusion
more efient combustion technologies. and we shoul hehe- [inaudible] of ccs as - [inaudib] exrts of me efficie highertechnologies or t. i'd like to hve mments fr any you. thank you. >>okay. well, agreeith the ideaha the best soliowod be ffentepdi on,um whether we are --h tme amwe are talking out or, you know at rtion the world we are talking abo. then well ent, when t sotionak time, sometimes it'srom, you kno ica logiliation -- technogical situio th thnologiesre sometimes not comet yr almost completer notomplete at all or somemes weeed to have
some economic syem thatak s workable. that mht b a reason th so solution tes time. and then -- well speaking about e higrfciency technologies, that i something u ow, we can do today. we are working on thnologs r, you kw, xt decad thnd china, they're all standingp n plan toy and tomorrow. we can't donyin on that, those plants that were ilt sterday, but we can -- there is, you owth thingwe cado for theplants that are going to build torw. so that wasneofth my pot. [inaudible por pla bhil-- [inaudible but comparedto another tion at they mittake which is -- [inaudible] enow efficiency
technolo maki su tha the ey choosehe best efficiency thsothg that we c do today. thk yo i agree withou. liken thisto the crawl wlk npproac we need todo some crawling befo we decide we canet into th blocksnd do t 0-rd- 1-yard dash. d the way thkbo tt thens we've aeadyeen that a l of torld i stl, i still nsucting subcric plants. y e they doing that? doesn'cost a much. that's one metrichat we have toeep in mind gh it doesn't mean,as we'vell id that theor is not going to stop usingoal. and s we kn howto build superical units, and peing on how youanto
defineanlt supercric unit, co at too. but thas a walking sta. and whil it dsn't require technologynd crtnly agree th tt poi i does the tr peritical becausof thehigh temperateatia et, tit doe sem to me at tha is a sge that probably t res -- thees of the wrl needs take before we deci wre going to run wi a ofhi noneou agu-- wodn be oe hem -- that sa wedot need to thn thunedtatesnyre. my vw his t's build e efficientystems, l's phase out thenficient, less efficit, thsyems tt we have even inth u.s. but wee chosen at let havehe policyebate other arena e it but then w needong-term transition to the ean co thehily fien th carbo caure-enledysms. and lst it's view w
dot have that yet. and wt we really need is frkl we ne a commitment fr aot ofpeople clin our goverent, and wene a lot resoce and en ita about resource talk about capital, and i talk about huge amounts o money. anhat'sno right wog to come, at least iny view, from t pvateecr. >> i mean the obvious answer ne to both. in theear trm it'seasier to efficient than it is bld tenogy thas sll evolving. bui would justdd to wat ben sa is tt the eicncof th stems re than just a plt. 'slso h we use electrit there's ver low-cost technologies tt cane us around the world in terms of increasi pople's quality life by in ecicy, but usg mor effientlyh we thought about using it, like
40eag sowhher 's lightbbsr air nditioners, an of tse things aremu mre efficie toda than the werev 2 ars ago. soe should, wehod a a world an certainly as aotry as tingo demstte to the world that youando this, ke everythi as efcient a possible. that shouldeunr all circumstances, no maerha itak nosens t not do that. ut is,ou know it's all allengg, youno weave an old tnk ben, you had t be age tav er so of tselas are even olde tn me. >>an >> and -- [laughter] but th'v alleen upgred. th're not the ogil boir, oblyan the boilg,ou knowhamberha be refittedo more ficient. and so we have just to give an example onthe boiler side because t nuea powerlas and e coal powe plants oe you ge pa tuel, ty have veryimarttribus. ers biler boiling water.
u ve to deal with the hea of pozaonand then you u kn push thetmnd turn a turbine. so coal -nuclear por plts have bee cergbo20 sowhe ound19 20%of the electricity inhunitedstates for e last20 yrs the amount electrici we have keeps goinp. so how do they ep stayingat 20%? because they're making --all, there's abt 100 nucleapor plts i s every one of tm is prucing mrelericity than it d when ey were built because theve upad them ey've pred t erdynamics inside the bler systs, the heatransfers. they're not, you know they're not havingore uraniumin there, they're just makinghem muchmore efficnt from a thmodynamic persctive. and tnk there's a lot to b ne there across theoard. and it's jst one he tin that'sapni with the automobile now. when i w kid, t fourylinder eine, you had a
four-cylinde enginewhen i w kid, you couldn'ta r-conditioning or por wiows. there wasnnoh per ings that ruire mecnil er from theengine the dio, guess, is preyuch the se. buthe key is we're getting mo power out ofthe same displacement othepiston at the atoh last year iaw one literho of yu o are gearheads t rm, a e-ter engine that wa producing 100 horsepor. i mean, it's jst like boggs my mind. wcan do e samehing in power genetion. you kw,it rll you kno getting back to the bics of whats acal pping there, you kw,he boiling o the werthe creatinof the pressure, the turni o the wheel, t eicntrafer ar of allthe, that heat. >> i tnke might have [inaudleonrsations] [lauter] >> that wa excellent. no, itwa aealy ueful analy. uh-uh think we mht have me ft forne more question.
judy blanchar ll staffer. you ow when i was hearing abt these citi that ve thcs -- heang abo the facilities that ha ccs now, sometis they're characterized as dmonstrationroct which imie that they're not real ready for psu time,n you know, theechnologyneeds more wo and that es are test falies. other times when youhe doe d others talk abo these cities that are doin ccs now, ty' commercially viable quotenqte and ey n be duplicated d th, you know, the expection is that thisan, you kw,e done many other places. and so is ierting to hear hothese faciti areei aracterized, and ias wondering wh a the isu behind this? i mean, is it the demonstration faciliti tt maybe the chlogy needs to be developed fuhebut maybefr doe's
pepective -- doe's perscte we're therelready d we cld it at large ale? i w just wondering if you could perhautome teure around the differences and h the facilits are characterized. and this is f ben but other as well. >> il -- there's a difference twn ving the abilityo il a carbon ctu and storage st, d the' nothin to -- there's nothg that needs t benvted to do . i e mean, what needs to be done is toige out h too it moreefciently, find ffent ways. the firstole of themth geuilt as commeral scale i'll dfentte this in miteareoing to be built wi a lotf conservative assumptions in i because you nt it to wrk an w i mentionedhat sas power thinks they can bild t ne uni for 20-30% cheaper, it's becse they' learning omhatthey did withhe rsone. an that's not an apical tenogy thing. t there'so new thing thate
don'kn how to do this, it's just how do w do in the most efficient way? since thomasdison started making elecicity -- although he picked the dec current d weinouse won with the alteatgcurrent -- but he was bling wat tocrte electricity. so we've knownoto do tat for a long time. and we're just getting a hl o a lotetter att. and so ihkthat's at's ing to happen with that. commercial sle is like aou know onehat's rni on, t's say, flower plant. commerally viable mns that there's an economic de associat with that that wean actually do it. andhas commercial scale wt ithink people are now dog at sasower kempernd mef theotr ones that ben had up on his car wil bu commerciallyiae itill not er because there's not enough revue options for that. i'll stop there, and you n fill in the blanks. >> would jst say, and i d caagree with t
differentiatiothe. ihi the acrym if you will, th we useere are not, are n descriptive of what 're trying to accomplish so i doike thed of commercial scale technoly velopmt, techlogy donraon versus coerally viable. and my point s the and is now that these syems are not yet commercially viabl weot have a the temple re -- a tplate here that uld allow us to confidently say thawe c buildhe next one, and it's going to be tay commeral viable. itight work itill work. that the point that i made earlier too. but it y still n b coeral viable. and we'll need dothe math at meoi bcause i'm not saying this is rig o won but if w ke 30% off the cost of boundary dam, suspect it's
il not commerciallyiae. that m be true of othe ojts that are bng demonsated a the cmeia level as well, t at doe't mean that we c't a shouldn' continue to do it, itoesn't me that wehouldn't be investing, franklyheavily i better tchnolo; that is, ipumover what know h to do tod. we nd dolof tt. anthere isan gey,nmy vi, to do all of that. >> all ofour commentsre extremel thougful as well as informative, and i very much appreciate, youno a of you arg yournsight andls th knowlge of whe the technogy and whereit may eaded and some of the ways we canry to get there. plseoi me in tnkg the three excellen panelists.
ppus >> thisearis the tent anniversary of "q&a," ande're featurin one inteie from each year of the series over the liday season. toy the memoir, "coming dr. q.," tki aut coming to the u. as anllegal immigrt who couldn't sak english and eventually becoming brain surgeon. you can watch his interview at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span. and right aftethat a spial prentation remembeng public gures who have died in 14 giin with rm senate majori leader howa baker. 'll show a web interew -- 2007 intervi looking at seto baker's rmn congress. re's a pview. >> whe i w first selected majority leader first one on e oor that day --he first th didas go ove to bob rd and i said, b i willev kw the rul and ecedenofhe senate the way you do.
but i'lmake y dea i will ner surprise y if you wot rpse me. he thoughtbout and said me think about it. [lghter] ceack later is afteooand said, okay,nd we never did. and i thinkhat tradionas carried on. i think dole adopted that point of viewas well. and it's ao sound poti even if i did fst advote it. becauseheyste itsf and therus of the senate a such that the's pnty of roo for disagreeme, plenty of rom for controvers anto do so whi the frework of the oganization tht sneang u onyour adversary. just some of the 2007 interview with fmer senate marity leaderoward baker who died earlithis year. you can wah the entir interview toghat 8 p.m. stern on c-span. and here on c-span2 's oktv in prime time with auorwho ha writtbo
chd nixn. first, elizabeth drew discusses hebook "shingt journal: reporting watergate and richar nixo dnfl." thenat bucna on"the greatest comeback." and falohnde anrick perlstein tir books,th nin defens and "the invisible bridge." booktv, all is week in prime me startingt 8 m. eastern re on cpan2. >> ctia nulandectl ouined the u.s. support for ukraine. with the rent drop il ic a russia's complete reliance on hydrocarbo oth econom th is about an ur. >>ember that both you and strobe we it pasedve happy -- if this is the right
emotion for pressional diomats -- and the reason for thatas that um, theso-called dastemoranm on sury assurances tukin signed by the united states, the u., ruia andkine jt one moh befo indember of '9 in change forkraine's asessi -- thanks very much aversi to the treatyand the pledge to transrth soviet era nucle weapons to rusa, the signatories, i qte "reaffirm their commitmentto rae's independence and veignty to existing borders, refrn from thehrat of u of for agnst territori integrity or political indendce of ukraine and from ecom coercion to suborna to tir interest the exercise ukrai othe rights inherent in i sovergn." that's a pretty comprehensive st cngtutions. t, but --
[laughte thgsave changed, and what -- where do you think t change s me fom and wh well, first of all leon it's great to be herwi y it's greato be bk atei with soa fiends. thank you for coming out. anit is uly interesting to think ba tt was0 years ag that we m and at that point we had so much hope -- >> hope. >> -- abouteing abl to knit reforming, democratizing russia into the fabric the internatnasyem thate could lift alloa including the lives of 150 mlion russian ople. itsru that one of theirst majo pec ofegotiation that i ever workedon on aer sthedenuclearizationof kazastan, belarus and ukrain i continue tohink that that was theight decision forthe countries to make, to