'Universal fig leaf'
Although they focus more on U.S. need, lawmakers have talked about the international implications when they push for development of coal plants with carbon sequestration.
"We should launch another mini-Manhattan Project and reserve a Nobel Prize for the scientist who can get rid of the carbon from existing coal plants, because coal provides half our energy," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said in an April floor statement. "We have not figured out what to do about carbon. If we did, India would also do it, China would also do it, the rest of the world would do it, and we could have low-cost energy."
Lawmakers argue, as well, that it is important to develop the technology at commercial scale instead of having another country do it first.
"Congressman Markey has said several times that he's very worried about losing a clean-energy race to China, and to the rest of the world," said Eben Burnham-Snyder, spokesman for the House Select Committee on Climate Change, chaired by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). "He thinks it's vital that we move forward on CCS, but also on wind, also on solar, on all these technologies that we can export to China."
The development of CCS technology appeals to many lawmakers who answer to conflicting constituencies.
"Coal is an important part of the full range of energy sources available to us here at home and abroad," said Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee member whose state has both coal and zealous environmental activists. "That's one of the reasons I've long supported research to develop a viable and economically feasible way to capture carbon produced from burning coal."
The idea of developing CCS is politically appealing, said Kenneth Green, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank.
"It's the universal fig leaf. For people who want to say they're not against coal when they really are, they hold up CCS. If CCS works, then coal is fine," Green said. "If you are a coal supporter, it lets you say to your coal people, 'I know you're going to get hit by cap and trade, but we're going to give you CCS. It's going to protect you, more or less.'"
The stimulus law includes $3.4 billion for development of CCS technology. Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Friday announced how $2.4 billion of that will be spent. Included in the allocation is $1.52 billion for projects to capture and store carbon from industrial sources that could include power plants, cement plants and manufacturing. From that same $1.52 billion the Energy Department will fund technologies that reuse captured carbon, such as technology to turn it into food for algae.
Carbon capture and sequestration likely is eight to 10 years away from "significant" commercial deployment at coal-fired power plants, Chu said.
Money, logistics
Various estimates put the cost of electricity generated by a CCS-enabled coal plant at 40 percent or more higher than the current price of coal-generated power. The only way that becomes viable is by making carbon very expensive to burn, such as through a cap-and-trade policy or carbon tax, several analysts said.
There also are questions about where the carbon would be stored and who would assume liability for leakage or any other problem. A new bill from Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) seeks to answer one of those questions by having the government assume that liability from a power plant after it has been in operation at least 10 years.
Some analysts find the arguments about CCS and developing nations flawed. The plants would be very costly, and developing countries probably would be disinclined to spend the money, said Jerry Taylor, senior fellow and energy analyst with the libertarian Cato Institute.
"If the Chinese aren't willing to pay the costs today or tomorrow, what good would it be to hand over blueprints for technology that won't ever be deployed?" Taylor said.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentThat's the problem with these Pro Coal pieces, they put policy over science as the technology just isn't there for Carbon Capture Sequestration. The Pursuit of CSS is putting the cart before the unicorn. The cart is increasing our dependence on climate destroying coal, and the CCS unicorn is just, a mythical technology that can capture and store the carbon scrubbed from coal economically. The reason to use coal is that it is cheap and easy. CCS technology, when/if invented, would remove both of those incentives by adding cost and complexity to the system, a point made in the article as to why China would likely ignore or downplay CCS role in new plants. Pica is right in his assessment that we need to switch of carbon fuels, period, regardless of what the policy wonks think is feasible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIanGun, Thank you, I couldnt have said it better myself. I recently wrote a very detailed analysis of CCS here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://blog.mapawatt.com/2009/03/13/carbon-capture-and-storage/
Basically, it shows that money that would be used for CCS is better spent on other renewable generation projects! Why spend millions of dollars burying something when you can put that money to good use?
Can anyone please tell me if my analysis is flawed, because I dont believe it is.
Why not improve coal power? As IanGun said it's cheap and easy, so what's the problem on simplicity and low cost?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoal emmits more carbon dioxyde than fuel or gas, but it is cheaper and prevents from the energetic dependence.
Renewables are not the solution nowadays, they are complex, expensive and very poor developed.
The energy sector needs more investigation in all of the energy sources as possible: coal, nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal...
Please, don't say 'coal no', just say 'no coal without investigating'.
No coal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven ignoring the emissions factor, I would still say no coal, because it's running out. What do you think we're going to do if we're still depending on fossil fuels when they dry up? If we haven't matured renewable energy by that time, we are screwed. Period.
And the only way I can think of that these companies will ever mature that capacity is to kick them in the pants and remove the incentives for burning fossil fuels. This should have happened decades ago.
One question. Does anyone know what the environmental effects of burying huge amounts of CO2 are? Also, it's horribly expensive and may not even work. Seems like a gov't boondoggle. Can you say ethanol?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf CO2 is really that dangerous, and there is a LOT of doubt, then the only way to reduce emissions is nuclear power.
Provide power producers with a credit for retiring their coal plants with new nuclear plants. Forget cap and trade which will turn into a corrupt scam. Just tax CO2.
Wind and solar will not replace any base load generation because they are unreliable, highly variable and take up a ton of space.
The problem with
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is that we are using technology that's over 200 years old. We boil water, we extract some of that energy, we condense the water. Any thermoelectrical plant is inherently inefficient due to the high heat of vaporization of water. This adds thermal pollution to the environment. Nuclear, gas, oil or coal power plants have this defect. Switching to other working fluids with lower heats of vaporization will improve the thermal efficiency of the plants, reduce fuel usage and be less environmentally harmful. Carbon sequestration, cap and trade, et cetera are solutions in search of a problem. One has to ask, how many wind turbines can be erected with 2.5 billion dedicated to Carbon sequestration research?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately high heat is a required factor in almost any engine. Thermodynamics states that the most efficient engine process requires a very large temperature gradient. Ideally we would achieve this by reducing the temperature of the heat sink to absolute zero, but that is neither feasable or cost effective on large scales. So we compensate by raising the temperature of the heat source way above normal. It's unlikely that this will go away anytime soon; very low temperature systems present an entire buffet of problems, and since thermodynamic processes are still the only ones we have to rely on, we'll keep shooting for high temperature heat sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistruthe2141 said: If CO2 is really that dangerous, and there is a LOT of doubt...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo there isn't. Geologists, climatologists, meteorologists and other scientists who actually study the Earth and its systems are in virtually unanimous agreement that human activity is causing climate change through the release of carbon dioxide. Junk Science and other organizations have done a wonderful job of fooling the general public into believing that there is a big debate going on in the scientific world about climate change, but there really isn't - at least not about the fact that it is happening. The only debate is about exactly what will happen as a result.
The CO2 sequestering alone is estimated to consume ca 25 % of the electricity produced by the coal fired utility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf all 1000 utility boilers in USA would use CO2 sequestering a conclusion may be that to produce the same number of kWh of electricity as today, then 250 new [eg coal-fired] utility boilers would have to be built, and 25 % more coal than now would have to be combusted - and thus 25 % more CO2 be produced that would also need to be sequestered...
Alternatives anyone ??
Alternatives anyone ??
To produce all the electricity that is consumed on the whole earth today you need a square with ca 550 km long sides - located not too far away from the sun belt, of course.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis area assumes solar trough mirrors that heats oil that heats water and drives steam turnbines that turns generators to produce electricity.
Full-size utility plants like this are in successful operation in USA since a decade or more, and yield a whopping 25 % energy conversion efficiency from the sun.
That area required to power the whole earth with electricity is actually smaller than the area of the presently used open-pit coal mines...
And you can put up the solar electricity equipment locally - and build it as small or large as you like.
OK everybody, those of you who natter on about the evils of fossil fuels, just for today:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Shut off all electricity to your house (including your freezer)
2. Take your laundry to the local river and wash it by beating against a rock. Then dry it by hanging it on a clothesline.
3. Walk out to the forest and gather local plants for food.
4. Find a local source of water (no taps as the pumps are powered by evil fossil fuels).
5. Scrounge up some firewood to boil your water and cook your food (and feel bad that the firewood generates 100X the pollutants of evil fossil fuels)
6. And in your spare time (14 minutes before sundown) devise a new method to power the world.
Repeat this exercise for the rest of your life as this is what the Climate-Industrial Complex has in mind for you. But not for themselves as they will be jetting around the world, eating Russian caviar and slapping themselves on the back for being so clever and saving the world for themselves.
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA CO2 reduction plan was envisaged during my M.Sc. in Environmental Technology, as a class-assignment in 1999-2000. It was a low tech plan which could easily be put into practice where the whole world could come to play. The plan offered a new dimension to carbon trade for businesses, also the World. The outline was as such-
Fast-growing trees assimilate CO2 out of air fast (4 times faster than natural forests). We need to harvest these trees for their fast growing period in selected areas around the world. The harvest (dry hard wood is >50% carbon and very slow degrading) will be put away into caves, empty mines and natural faults- thus putting away atmospheric CO2 safely and cheaply for a very long time. After all, thousands of years old similar fossilized trees we use (oil, coal and gas) cause air CO2 to rise. Why no put back some?
A Chinese saying is Catastrophe = Opportunity . Could we not witness the CO2 rise as an opportunity to store some energized Carbon (similar to currency?) for foreseeable future use? Businesses may choose to grow & bury calculated numbers of trees each year to compensate for their extra carbon emission need. This plan will help developing countries come to terms with the worlds Carbon Trade agreement where they can even keep the harvest for themselves. The plan allows a proportionate trade between businesses and the earth, which is only apt.
This act means no offense to tree-lovers, forest-lovers or nature lovers. Only newly grown, purposefully, commercially harvested trees will be used, leaving natural forests alone. Scientists will calculate the numbers of trees required each year and decide types of trees to harvest for total sustainability.
Desperate time calls for desperate measures. I know this is not The solution, but as an Environmental Technologist I believe it has the signature of being a substantial part of it. Here I urge all Environmental Action Groups to commission the plan as good enough to counter any other CO2 reduction plan (if not better), and press worlds policymakers to acknowledge the same so that carbon traders may get this plan as a choice.
Unique Advantages of the Plan: