The current debate surrounding clean energy technology is dividing environmentalists, politicians, and the American public in general. As a nation, there is an urgent need for energy technology that reduces carbon dioxide emissions, but that also maintains a healthy environment and economy. All three criteria are claimed to be met by Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) supporters; but I’d like to consider a few points (and many more are not included because of length) against this unproven technology that could ‘solve’ the coal industry CO2 issue.
First off, clean coal technology is not cheap. Already, the federal government has allocated $3.4 billion in CCS research and development; compare that to only $2 billion invested in wind technology under the US stimulus Recovery Act. CCS will certainly make energy production from coal-fired plants more expensive. A main argument for coal-based energy production is that it is “cheap and affordable,” but the efficiency of coal plants will decrease up to 40%, and even 60% for less developed methods, if CCS is implemented. The gasification process plants, or IGCC, have not been developed yet they are the only reliable form of CCS in reducing emissions while remaining somewhat efficient. Also, further research has shown that previous potential deep geologic sites for sequestration are found to be insufficient in capacity or safety to make a large difference in CO2 emissions-reduction (see The Big Question article).
picture of an IGCC plant
About 50% of America’s energy comes from coal plants, thus a legislative measure to regulate CO2 emissions at old and new coal plants is necessary to reduce the global warming impact of such plants (in the US about 40% of CO2 emissions come from coal processes). The American Progress website states in an article that, “requiring all new coal power plants to meet an “emission performance” standard that limits CO2 emissions to levels achievable with CCS systems,” is imperative to the success of CCS in the United States. But, the coal industry emission standards should not be blatantly favored by choosing an emission standard based on weak technology. Instead, emissions standards for all energy sources should be based on the environmental need to reverse climate change. Real clean, renewable energy—wind, solar, geothermal, even some forms of hydropower—does not need an “achievable” emission standard because it is truly carbon-free.
CCS supports the increased mining, transportation, burning, and disposal of coal. Coal mining is not a safe or environmentally-sound industry. Mountain top removal mining has destroyed about 5million acres of Appalachian forest and filled-in 2,000 miles of freshwater streams. Underground mining kills hundreds of miners annually due to black lung or mining accidents. The piping of CO2 underground could lead to massive explosions (deadly) or slow seepage of CO2 into groundwater (deadly). Burning coal still contributes to several health issues related to coal ash and air pollution (neurological defects, asthma, cancer).
Carbon Capture and Sequestration is not the answer to our global warming woes; it is not a safe alternative energy option; and it is not feasible on many technical, political, financial, or ethically justifiable grounds. The US needs clean energy technology, not a distraction from what true emission reductions means.
http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/factsheets/basics-sequestration.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/business/energy-environment/17coal.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/ccs_101.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126021059&ft=1&f=1066
I'm in agreement with your position on CCS. This approach represents the problematic attitude that many, so called, "clean energy" advocates and engineers seem employ in their idea of emissions reductions. What's troubling about this potential technology is that they are essentially not reducing emissions but are rather capturing them and putting them somewhere else. That, in my opinion, does not constitute a reduction. As you properly mentioned, the adverse environmental and ecological effects remain in the coal mining process itself. The idea of sequestering carbon and storing it elsewhere in the environment is completely illogical in the context of environmental protection. How does that change the fact that it is still a contaminant/pollutant that is being introduced into our environment by the process of coal fired electricity generation? They want to argue the point of reduced emissions. How? The "emissions" are still there, the only difference being that they are not released into the atmosphere but rather being captured and placed somewhere else. The typical practices are to take the sequestered carbon dioxide emissions and storing them in underground geological formations and in the deep ocean. What?! That is ludicrous. It is very frustrating to see such lack of foresight and holistic thinking in people who have self-proclaimed environmental interests. It is simply taking one problem and turning it into another. Carbon Dioxide does not necessarily degrade. Some can be potentially absorbed by the earth's geological processes but, in the quantities that are to be involved here, it would quickly exceed assimilation level. In other words, it's going to leak. The ocean is already dealing with acidification issues and any further introduction of carbon dioxide emissions into the ecology could potentially have dire consequences. You are absolutely right in questioning this option. You correctly ascertain that the better way to address this would to make transitions to truly low or even zero emission processes and to mitigate the demand side. You also mention how expensive the conversion processes would be. Why waste money and effort to buy time when those resources could be dedicated to actually solving the problem?
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you that we do need to make the switch away from coal and oil to renewables. But what about our current situation? How do we get rid of the global warming impacts that we already have? Carbon Sequestration is one of the answers. While both of you are right in saying that it can be very expensive and and not worth our efforts that can be true. But there are other forms of sequestration such as pine stands. If we simply plant more pine trees then we can reduce the amount of carbon in our atmosphere. It will produce a place for animals to live and it will act as a temporary filter (until it is burned or broken down) so that we can have the time to find a new solution. There are plenty of places that we could plant these trees such as abandoned farms or places that could be taken over of eminent domain. Someone once said that the way to solve most of our environmental problems is to plant more trees and ride more bicycles. It is about time that we got started with doing just that.
ReplyDelete