The interview, not with Dobbs himself, is on the absurd FutureGen earmark in the Senate stimulus bill.
The coal industry needs to get its story straight. Is the Futuregen “zero-emissions” coal technology now in the stimulus bill “shovel ready”? If so, the industry shouldn’t oppose greenhouse gas regulations or even an emissions standard that blocks coal without CCS (see “The Path to Carbon Capture and Storage).”
If the technology does not exist, if as the industry claims we are many years away from demonstrating commercial viability for capturing and storing CO2 from coal, then there won’t be bloody many jobs created over the next two years by this $2 billion (see “Is coal with carbon capture and storage a core climate solution?“).
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
Looking at the “spending bill” much of it isn’t shovel ready. Much of the spending doesn’t occur until 2012 or later. Most of the spending bill looks like a left-wing Christmas wish list. Setting that aside . . .
Yes CCS is ready. CO2 is used today for enhanced oil recovery. Great Plains energy produces natural gas from coal and exports the CO2 to Saskatchawa. Both the Sleipner (Norway) and In Salah (Algeria) inject more than 1 million tons per year of CO2 into underground formations. Technically it is certainly doable.
http://www.americaspower.org/ content/ download/ 1398/ 9398/ file/ ACCCE%20CCS%20database%20-%2012-19-2008.pdf
What is missing are the rules for using the underground pore space and regulations governing the injection wells. EPA is in the process of taking comments on CO2 injection wells. Some states are tackling the issues of who owns the void space for storing CO2 and who takes liability for it.
The other issue is the price of CO2. It costs money to pump the CO2 underground. The absence of a carbon tax or working cap and trade system leaves a great deal of uncertainty to investors in CCS.
I find it ironic that proponents of so called “green energy” tout technologies like thin-film solar PV or grid connected plug hybrid electric vehicles – neither of which is available TODAY. Yet when it comes to CCS, which IS being done commercially today – they claim that it isn’t a viable solution.
Neither example that you cite captures any CO2 at all from the combustion of fossil fuels.
That’s the part that is not being done commercially today, and is not likely to be done in the foreseeable future.
Joe,
I once entered an opinion against the Futuregen project, taking a note from you by saying, “Industry insiders call it ‘Nevergen’.” He responded by saying I didn’t know what I was talking about. No one in the coal industry has ever used that term to lable ‘Futuregen’. So where does the truth lye, or lie, as it were?
It was definitely called NeverGen by many. See http://www.statesman.com/ blogs/ content/ shared-gen/ blogs/ austin/ green/ entries/ 2007/ 08/ 02/ futuregen_or_nevergen.html
Now, of course, the industry has to put on a different face, which is considerably easier if you are two faced.
Both Shady Point and Warrior Run power plants DO recover CO2 from combustion gases. So you can’t lie to people like the reality campaign and say that it hasn’t ever been done.
Besides, post-combustion capture likely isn’t the way to go. When the all-in costs are considered, coal gasification will be a cheaper solution as the CO2 is removed with the H2S. This is already done at several power plants in the US, but the CO2 is vented because there is no nearby market for the CO2 and there is no price for venting.
Nobody thinks we should bolt electric hybrid engines on to a 1955 Cadillac, why should power plants be any different. Once carbon is priced corrrectly, we will tear down old inefficient carbon plants and put up newer, more efficient ones that include carbon capture and storage. All the technologies are proven and available at scale.
BTW – I had never heard the term “NeverGen” used except by opponents of the idea – and I am certainly an energy insider.
So what new car showroom can I go to and buy that snappy plug hybrid electric?
Coal death watch claims another victim.
NV Energy.
http://uk.reuters.com/ article/ behindTheScenes/ idUKTRE5187D020090209
Kojiro, you might not want to read it; The company exec says CCS won’t be affordable before 2020.
Also… The Think City Car is being produced in Norway as we speak (after a sojourn to find more money). It’s not a PHEV, but an EV that has a 110 mile range.
The test drive makes it look like fun.
http://electricaid.ning.com/
I don’t have a huge objection to building some coal plants, as long as they have advanced pollution controls and are required to operate with CCS from Day 1. However, no coal plant should be allowed to be built that is “CCS ready” but isn’t capturing and storing the CO2. If that restriction is put in place, let “Clean Coal” have a go at making this a reality. My guess is that no coal plants would be built for about 10 years.
Kojiro Vance –
Both legs of carbon capture and storage are lame. “Clean Coal” is nothing but a dream and a battlecry, not a feasible plan.
CARBON CAPTURE: Capture may be done in an IGCC plant, where there is no nitrogen ballast and fly ash to deal with, but what is needed is post-combustion capture in the fleet we, and the rest of the world, already rely on for our electricity. IGCC won’t be replacing those any time soon.
The only technology being studied for capture uses chemicals (amine scrubbing) and has serious problems when applied to post-combustion capture, such as heat-stable salts and the sludge from fly ash. Because of the large nitrogen ballast in flue gas, any compression or chemical scrubbing method is doomed to failure.
STORAGE: OK, some CO2 has been injected deep underground in some formations to help oil and gas production. Is there enough room for the world’s emissions? How can we be sure it will stay there, and not migrate to the surface to kill future generations? Who wants to insure that risk? Who wants lethal gas, under pressure, stored under them? I suppose you disagree with the findings of the GAO, which last fall lambasted the DOE for relying on the vain hope of “sequestration” as a solution for global climate change. http://www.coalpowermag.com/ environmental/ GAO-Lack-of-U-S-Greenhouse-Strategy-Slowing-Carbon-Capture_168.html
As for Joe Romm’s question, I find it all too likely. Look at how rapidly various societies have fallen apart, to pieces: Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” and a book with a title sometihing like “The End of Empires”
Far too likely, given the costs of dealing with each separate climate induced disaster.