RECS: Students agree on the need for CCS

There are many ways to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and each has its pros and cons — a successful solution will involve a balanced mix that includes all options available to us.

At the Research Experience in Carbon Sequestration (RECS) program, Ph.D. and graduate students played the Stabilization Wedge Game developed by Princeton University’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative. The object is to keep CO2 emissions flat using wedges representing different strategies.

Teams included students from academic institutions such as Columbia University, Ohio State University, Indiana University, Penn State University, Rutgers University and Johns Hopkins University.

A major part of the game includes weighing the financial costs of each CO2 reduction strategy. That is, we all want to reduce CO2 emissions, but we need to take into account the need for affordable and reliable electricity and ensure that we protect our economy.

The best Stabilization Wedge Game players put together a realistic option for CO2 reduction that wins over the following stakeholder groups: taxpayers/consumers; energy companies; environmental groups; manufacturers; industrialized nations; and developing nations.

Invariably, this means including CCS as a wedge strategy. Students at RECS agreed that since we rely on coal for 50 percent of our electricity, the solution must include a plan to increase our investments in CCS projects.

That’s what we’ve been saying all along, but it was nice to see a team of academic scholars reach the same conclusion.