The Center for American Progress, which claims its mission to be “Progressive Ideas for a Strong, Just, and Free America,” has published “Carbon Capture and Sequestration 101.” This is on the heels of the 2005 “Global Warming and the Future of Coal.”
In “Global Warming and the Future of Coal” they begin with a discussion of some of the problems of coal, then say:
“Fortunately, there is a potential pathway that would allow continued use of coal as an energy source without magnifying the risk of global warming. Technology currently exists to capture CO2 emissions from coal-fired plants before they are released into the environment and to sequester that CO2 in underground geologic formations.”
This implies that we WANT to use coal. I would prefer to power my house with solar and wind and eat tuna and not worry about mercury poisoning.
In “Carbon Capture and Sequestration 101,” they discuss how it can be done:
“In CCS operations, CO2 is separated from the fuel and captured either before or after the combustion of coal. It is then compressed to a super critical liquid, transported by pipeline to an injection well and then pumped underground to depths sufficient to maintain critical temperatures and pressures. The CO2 seeps into the pore spaces in the surrounding rock and its escape to the surface is blocked by a caprock, or overlaying impermeable layer.”
They don’t say how much it costs. But they they say “Even cost-competitive new technologies are usually not adopted rapidly” which implies that carbon capture and sequestration is cost competitive. The question is what is it competitive with? Nuclear? Probably. Solar and Wind? Probably not, when you factor in the costs of mining, processing, and shipping coal, designing, building, and maintaining carbon capture and sequestration facilities, building and securing the high pressure liquid carbon dioxide pipelines.
Other questions:
- How much will CCS plants cost to build and to run?
- How much money and energy will be used to compress CO2 to a super critical liquid, transport the stuff via pipeline to injection wells, and pump the stuff underground to depths sufficient to maintain critical temperatures and pressures?
- What happens if terrorists attack the pipelines? What security measures will be needed?
- What about toxic pollutants like mercury, arsenic, and radioactive particles that are also released from coal when it is burned? Storing it in pools, as is the current case, is not without its problems – as demonstrated by recent disaster in Tennessee.
- What about the costs of mining, mountaintop removal? And the miners. Would they rather dig for coal or build solar or wind energy systems?
- If the costs of new CCS equipped plants and retrofitted old coal plants is higher than the cost of wind energy doesn’t wind power make more sense?
The Center for American Progress also says:
“Energy companies boast extensive experience sequestering CO2 by injecting it into oil fields to enhance oil recovery. Although additional testing is needed, experts are optimistic this practice can be replicated in saline aquifers and other geologic formations that are likely to constitute the main storage reservoirs for CO2 emitted from power plants.”
My friends in the solar and wind industries don’t boast about this. People in the coal, oil, and gas industries boast about this. Which leads me to wonder: Is the Center for American Progress a coal industry shill? I e-mailed the Center for American Progress. I will let you know what they say.