CCS is a good investment

In a blog post from today, Grist reporter David Roberts’ argument that “we’re going to burn the coal anyway” is a bad reason to invest in carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). His rationale? The technology is “not a low-cost alternative” and “not a modification of existing infrastructure.”

His last two points are accurate, but those seem to be no reasons to abandon efforts to leverage CCS technology.

In the long term, we need to take a look at the cost/benefit analysis, and, yes, CCS is going to be expensive. Even a study last month from the International Energy Agency said that businesses and governments will need to invest at least $2.4 trillion by 2050 to capture carbon dioxide from power plants and store it underground. However, the upside will be once CCS is commercially deployed: It could cut carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent while limiting cost increases.

That’s one reason ACCCE is urging the federal government to partner with the private sector to help drive down the costs of commercial deployment.

In fact, many energy companies with clean coal projects – such as American Electric Power’s Mountaineer project in New Haven, W.Va. – have requested federal stimulus funding to ensure more efficient generation of electricity from coal.

And research groups are urging the government for financial assistance. Last week, Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Susan Hockfield told Bloomberg News that the lack of government investment in energy research is increasing the risk to national security and hindering the creation of breakthrough technology.

Researchers, scientists and engineers are working to perfect the science behind the technology to ensure we have enough energy to meet future demand.

The fact is, we rely on coal today and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future – a point Roberts acknowledged in his blog post. And that’s reason enough for us to continue investing in CCS technology to help reduce emissions even further.

Comments

[Mark Corbett]

Why don't your ads tell people how you get the coal and the consequences to the environment. Mountaintop mining is ruining West Virginia!

[Steve Ford]

I'm sure this won't make it, but I just want to know where did all the frogs go in North Jersey? Acid Rain, perhaps?

[Monica from ACCCE]

Steve: Although I can't say what happened to the frogs in North Jersey, I can assure you that clean coal technology has helped make today’s coal-based generating fleet 77 percent cleaner than it was in 1970, based on regulated emissions per unit of energy produced – which include sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

Concerns about acid rain deposition were high in the 1980s which led to the development of new technologies (like scrubbers) that were installed to meet more stringent emissions standards under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. Since that time, sulfur dioxide emissions (SO2) emissions in the coal-based electricity sector have been significantly reduced.

[Monica from ACCCE]

Mark: Actually, we do talk about how we get coal and what coal companies have done to reclaim the land. During our 2009 Factuality Tour, we visited the Black Thunder Coal Mine, which by itself, provides the U.S. with 8 percent of its coal. We also did a video about the mine's efforts to restore and reclaim the land. Check it out here: Factuality Tour