Big Coal author Jeff Goodell says, "There is a big difference — a rhetorical Grand Canyon — between supporting coal plants that are ‘compatible with’ CCS and actually requiring them to do it.
David Roberts writes:
One of the most meaningful steps the U.S. can take to fight climate change is to forbid construction of new coal plants unless they capture and sequester their carbon emissions. If we allow more dirty coal plants, all our other efforts will be in vain. That’s why James Hansen and Al Gore return to the subject so often.
Presidential candidates know that coal is an issue, although most take pains to ignore it. Chris Dodd is an exception, echoing the Hansen call for Phillip Morris a moratorium on any new plants without CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) , a.k.a., CO2 sequestration, a.k.a, a little seltzer down the pants in this political theater.
Edwards would require that all new coal plants be compatible with sequestration — that they be IGCC plants, which make CO2 easier to separate and bury — but he would not require them to actually sequester their emissions.
Edwards has the efficiency thing right, but is playing the typical politician with rhetoric about the basically unproven CCS strategy. Is that so bad?
Well, not if you are a presidential candidate, but, if concerned about the continuation of life on the Planet, then, in a word, “Yes”.
The key thing to note is that IGCC plants emit 80-90% as much CO2 as old-school dirty coal plants (they are somewhat more efficient). An IGCC plant without sequestration is almost as bad as a dirty coal plant, from a climate-change perspective (though it emits less NOx, SOx, and mercury).
If we build a bunch of coal plants — whether they’re IGCC or not — we will be committing to sequestration (if we’re to have any hope of slowing global warming). It’s either that or shutting them down. So if President Edwards requires energy companies to build IGCC plants, he will have done very little to slow global warming. What he will have done is lock us into a policy path we’ve never rationally assessed or chosen.
…
We’ll be committing to a massive, nationwide, taxpayer-funded infrastructure project without ever deciding through open debate that it’s the best use of our resources. We’ll have done it because the coal industry and coal politicians told us that there’s so much coal we "have to" use it — even if it turns out to cost more than cleaner options.
I know, let’s ask the kids.
“Junior… this Halloween… would you rather dress as a Koal Zombie or a Nuke Zombie?”
“I wanna dress as Bodman. momma.”
On the other hand, can you take carbon dioxide sequestration to the bank? Well, if you want to pump it into used oil wells to recover more oil to burn. Otherwise, we have little assurance that CCS works to prevent climate change. But, Roberts, then uses a low blow. “Would you rather have IGCC + CCS or Nuclear power plants?”
We need to choose, says Roberts, “the most rational allocation of our limited public capital, investing in the options that are cleanest and cheapest.” Gosh, tough choices.
In defense of Gristmill, Roberts did mention “renewables“, but, it was difficult to see with so much green wash on the CSS Nuclear. Must be some of that there stealth technology, eh?
One Comment
According to a new poll (PDF):
This is nice, too,” crows David Roberts:
And, just to twist the knife, here’s a bit from the E&E writeup (sub. rqd.):
3 Trackbacks
[...] the promise of CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage), it could be a false promise from those who would seem committed to business as usual above all else, to include survival of life as we know it on the [...]
[...] blog previously noted an observation by Big Coal author Jeff Goodell says, "There is a big difference — a [...]
[...] The Emperor Ain’t Gonna [...]