AHC/WI: Earlier Adoption of Flue Gas Desulfurization

Delta Force

Banned
Flue Gas desulfurization was first theorized in the United Kingdom in the 1850s. It is used to scrub sulfur dioxide from the exhaust gasses of power stations burning sulfurous coal and petroleum, reducing impacts on human health and the environment (sulfur dioxide contributes greatly to acid rain and potentially ocean acidification). Although it's more associated with the 1970s and 1980s, flue gas desulfurization was actually implemented on three British power stations in the 1930s, including Battersea. However, World War II disrupted development of the technology, and it wasn't until the 1970s and 1980s that it was commonly used again.

Earlier adoption of flue gas desulfurization would have quite a few implications for both the United Kingdom and United States. Both countries were heavily reliant on coal and were early adopters of air pollution laws. Air pollution around London was almost like modern Beijing, and in December 1952 thousands of people died in the Great Smog, leading to the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1956. The United States passed its own Clean Air Act in 1963.

There are obviously significant health and environmental improvements that could be realized in both countries. It could also make coal more competitive if flue gas desulfurization becomes common before the 1970s, when electricity consumption was growing at nearly 7% per year. The technology could become a standard piece of coal power station equipment, and develop economies of scale. Because flue gas desulfurization wasn't well developed until the 1970s, the early systems were expensive and entered a stagnant electricity market. Companies also chose to use nuclear and petroleum for power generation because coal emissions simply couldn't be cleaned up.

I know it's a small and somewhat obscure PoD, but if this had occurred could the world end up in an odd situation in which there is more coal consumption but less health and environmental impacts from it? Could earlier adoption lead to economies scale such that even developing nations build facilities with flue gas desulfurization?
 
I know it's a small and somewhat obscure PoD, but if this had occurred could the world end up in an odd situation in which there is more coal consumption but less health and environmental impacts from it?
I'm not sure that's possible. Coal emits a lot of CO2 - coal emits 910 gCO2/kWh vs 390 gC02/kWh for gas and 0 for generation from nuclear (although some will be associated with construction). An electric grid with a higher coal component and a lack of nuclear (or even coal remaining as a fuel in domestic heating) would leave us in most likely a worse position as far as global warming is concerned.
 

Delta Force

Banned
I'm not sure that's possible. Coal emits a lot of CO2 - coal emits 910 gCO2/kWh vs 390 gC02/kWh for gas and 0 for generation from nuclear (although some will be associated with construction). An electric grid with a higher coal component and a lack of nuclear (or even coal remaining as a fuel in domestic heating) would leave us in most likely a worse position as far as global warming is concerned.

World electricity consumption was rapidly increasing in the developed world at a rate of around 7% per year (doubling every decade) prior to the energy crises. If the technology is ready by 1960, the vast majority of electricity in the developed world would be produced at thermal power stations built with flue gas desulfurization equipment because generation has to double every decade. That could build a large enough economy of scale to see the technology become standard on developing world power stations as well, perhaps in more urban areas at the very least.

Flue gas desulfurization wouldn't really make coal perform worse against nuclear, because until the 1970s the technology didn't exist to make coal an alternative in most locations. It came down to petroleum (which can have sulfur content reduced during refining) or nuclear, with some locations able to use natural gas due to their proximity to pipelines. It would make coal an option again, which would lead to more facilities being built, but they would be cleaner than the historical ones.

Basically, it seems this scenario might lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions, but it would lead to reduced health, pollution, and environmental problems.
 

Delta Force

Banned
It might make petroleum a niche power source too, providing peaking power where natural gas pipelines aren't available instead of baseload power like coal or nuclear. Sulfur dioxide probably wasn't as much an issue for petroleum because it can be removed during the refining process.
 
Top