SODBatch A&B SPM Comments co-chair response final ... - ipcc-wg3

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
870
SPM-
871
SPM-
872
para
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
time the power plant is built but that is not the same thing as
"economically unatractive." If natural gas prices and carbon permit
prices are high, retrofiting an existing already paid off pulverized
coal plant might be quite a good investment and might well be
cheaper than building a new IGCC+CCS unit if the regional market
for baseload power is already saturated. Please be more precise and
accurate in wording in something as important as an SPM. Also
this same basic agument applies to energy efficiency in buildings.
It is cheaper to build the shell, HVAC system, lighting ect to be
energy efficent during the construction phase than to go back in and
have to retrofit these systems. Why isnt this same point made in the
section below about buildings? There is noting unique about this
observation as it applies to coal power plants and CCS units. See
for example, Wise MA, JJ Dooley, RT Dahowski, and CL
Davidson. “Modeling the impacts of climate policy on the
deployment of carbon dioxide capture and geologic storage across
electric power regions in the United States." Submitted to the
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. July 2006.
(James Dooley, Battelle)
14 A 12 16 12 16 Suggest replacing "economically unattractive" with "costlier". If
carbon emissions are not priced, installing CCS on new coal plants
would be cheaper, but still "unattractive".
(Cédric PHILIBERT, International Energy Agency)
14 A 12 16 12 18 Do we need a sentence on a new energy carrier at that level? Maybe
not. If we need it, the ways it is currently written suggests that
hydrogen from biomass is a low-carbon carrier only in combination
with CCS, which is not the case. Suggest dissociating CCS and
biomass here, as in other places.
(Cédric PHILIBERT, International Energy Agency)
14 A 12 16 12 19 Would require more than just infrastructure changes, in my mind.
U.S. Government
(Government of U.S. Department of State)
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
See A-857 Accepted
(4)
DISCUSS if hydrogen sentence
is important enough to be kept
(we need room for other
additions)
Reformulation but keep
hydrogen issue, see text prop ch
4.
4 Accepted
The SPM will
be modified in
this respect
(4)
See A-871 Accepted.
Should read:
“require a
challenging
Page 230 of 348