"Why do we want to encourage them to use coal?" said Erich Pica, Friends of the Earth's director of domestic policy. It is "fairly defeatist," he added, to assume China, India and other countries could not move to clean-energy sources.
"Promoting CCS as the answer, it just sort of pushes the day of reckoning for fossil fuels down the line," Pica said. "Coal, from the mining of coal to the burning of coal, is a very dirty fuel."
While others argue that renewable sources cannot be developed quickly enough to meet the world's energy needs, Pica argues that "CCS is not going to come on line fast enough, nor is it going to be deployed fast enough to really make a difference."
The coal industry is politically powerful, Pica said, and right now is using President Obama's own words to push for development of cleaner coal technology.
"This is America. We figured out how to put a man on the moon in 10 years. You can't tell me we can't figure out how to burn coal that we mine right here in the United States of America and make it work," Obama said during a rally in last year's presidential campaign.
Said Pica: "We think the president's wrong on this one. A cleaner energy economy means we have to switch off fossil fuels, period. That means no new coal plants and no coal plants with CCS."
Companies pushing solutions
For companies developing CCS technologies, arguments about China and other developing country are helpful. And they sense Congress is ready to act.
Alstom, a France-based company working on carbon capture technology, relocated its U.S. headquarters to Washington, D.C., in the last six months "as a signal to both policymakers and customers that we were really interested in engaging in the public policy process," said Ruth Smith, the company's vice president of government affairs.
Alstom has a CCS demonstration project in Wisconsin and others in Poland, Canada, Sweden, Norway and France. The company's technology uses chemical reactions to remove carbon from flue gas. Coal would need to be changed from the pulverized rock form now used at coal plants into a gas before that technology could be used.
New Hampshire-based Powerspan Corp. is among those taking the global view as it lobbies on the "clean coal" technology issue. The company has said it has a carbon capture technology that could be used at existing coal plants.
"We're trying to be the counterargument to 'Clean coal doesn't really exist,'" said Frank Alix, CEO of Powerspan Corp., referencing the advertising campaign attacking the concept of "clean coal."
"To say it isn't out there at a commercial level is a true statement," Alix said. But the technology is available, he said.
"To say we're not ready," Alix added, "that isn't true."
A power company is not going to install $200 million to $300 million worth of equipment, Alix said, without a financial incentive. A government policy capping carbon emissions and setting a price on amounts over that cap would create the needed incentive, he said.
The company, which began lobbying on the carbon capture issue in 2006, talks to lawmakers about China, India and developing countries. Powerspan, meanwhile, sees business openings both domestically and internationally. It has established partnerships with Asian consultants and has its own employees working in Asia.
"The economic stakes are high," Alix said.
Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
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: