Compressing the cost of carbon capture

The cost of deploying carbon capture and sequestration technologies—the latest advancement in a suite of clean coal technologies—is a topic that is getting some press these days.

It seems that people are figuring out that telling the American people that something can’t be done isn’t too popular, so the new line of attack is that it will be too expensive. (According to one New York Times blogger, the price of carbon sequestration rests largely on the purported price of carbon dioxide emissions under a carbon trading or carbon tax policy.)

I agree that the cost is critically important. First, the cost for deploying CCS has to be viewed in comparison to other alternatives. In most cases, displaced coal generation would be replaced with natural gas and nuclear – both of which have higher costs (and in the case of natural gas could increase energy imports). When you look at the facts here (especially given the opportunity costs of not having these technologies for deployment in China, India and other countries) it becomes clear why the deployment of CCS is so crucial.

Second, we can and should take every opportunity we can to drive down the cost of deploying these technologies (just like we did for technologies to capture SO2 and NOx). That starts with robust programs to spur the development and deployment of these technologies. It also includes policy frameworks to ensure that we don’t unnecessarily raise compliance costs (through allowance auctions versus allocations) realizing that higher compliance costs are just passed along to the consumer in the form of higher electricity costs.

There is no reason to be concerned about the ultimate cost of CCS if we’re smart enough to approach this in a way that ultimately makes sure the consumer is paying the lowest possible cost for the emissions reduction. If we do that, we’ll have a policy that works for both the environment and our economy.

Comments

[James Moore]

I was under the impression that the Obama administration wanted the cost of coal and gas used for electric generation to increase so that other renewables would be able to compete. Solar and wind are not cost effective and oil only helps create about 1% of the electricity generation in the USA. When you really analize what this president intends, it has nothing to do with efficiency or new technology. It has to do with the ability to raise money by taxing carbon to be used in other socialist entitlement programs.

[F.Koral]

Why even bother...there is no proof that C02 exists as a significant factor in Greenhouse gas. This C02 business is all about power and government control of industry. Why spend billions on a problem that does not exist ?
F.Koral

[m. Kjonaas]

The affect of CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant when compared to that of water vapor.
CO2 in not an impurity in the atmosphere. It is essential to life on Earth.

[BLau]

I live on a back bay where daily the coal barges carry coal to our power plant close by, wonder what is going to happen to our cost of energy is going to be after they institute this plan? We installed on demand water heater when we built post Katrina, it cut our costs for power way down.