U.S. funds CO2 Capture and Storage

The Obama administration is continuing research that began more than ten years ago on capturing the emissions from burning coal and storing the CO2 underground. Some environmentalists remain skeptical about the outcome, and uncertainties still exist as to the industrial feasibility, economic cost and legal aspects.

Secretary Chu Announces First Awards from $1.4 Billion for Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage Projects
Washington, DC (10/2/2009) — U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu today announced the first round of funding from $1.4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the selection of 12 projects that will capture carbon dioxide from industrial sources for storage or beneficial use. The first phase of these projects will include $21.6 million in Recovery Act funding and $22.5 million in private funding for a total initial investment of $44.1 million. The remaining Recovery Act funding will be awarded to the most promising projects during a competitive phase two selection process.

The successful development of advanced technologies and innovative concepts that reduce emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a key objective of the Obama Administration’s effort to help mitigate the effects of climate change. Carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas and contributor to global climate change.

The full report, including a list of large-scale industrial carbon capture and storage selections announced, is here.

A special issue of Science magazine (September 25, 2009) contains background information and scientific reports on carbon capture and sequestration. The scientific articles are preceded by the Editorial below:

Editorial: Carbon Capture and Sequestration
By Steven Chu, U.S. Secretary of Energy and Nobel Laureate in Physics
Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have caused the climate to change, and a dramatic reduction of these emissions is essential to reduce the risk of future devastating effects. On the other hand, access to energy is the basis of much of the current and future prosperity of the world. Eighty percent of this energy is derived from fossil fuel. The world has abundant fossil fuel reserves, particularly coal. The United States possesses one-quarter of the known coal supply, and the United States, Russia, China, and India account for two-thirds of the reserves. Coal accounts for roughly 25% of the world energy supply and 40% of the carbon emissions. It is highly unlikely that any of these countries will turn their back on coal any time soon, and for this reason, the capture and storage of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants must be aggressively pursued.
Read more here...

For more information, see the Dept. of Energy Web site.


There are other sides to CCS, as indicated in the articles below:

Refitted to Bury Emissions, Plant Draws Attention
The technology is certain to devour a substantial amount of the plant’s energy output — optimists say 15 percent, and skeptics, 30 percent. Some energy experts argue that it could prove even more expensive than solar or nuclear power.

And as with any new technology, even the engineers are unsure how well it will work: will all of the carbon dioxide stay put?

Environmentalists who oppose coal mining and coal energy of any kind worry that sequestration could simply trade one problem, global warming, for another one, the pollution of water supplies. Should the carbon dioxide mix with water underground and form carbonic acid, they say, it could leach poisonous materials from rock deep underground that could then seep out. Read the full report in the NY Times.

Clean coal? Obama making $2.4 billion bet
More funding for controversial ‘carbon capture and storage’ research
Read more here.

Carbon capture and storage -- Trouble in store
Politicians are pinning their hopes for delivery from global warming on a technology that is not quite airtight. See the report in the Economist, here.

Blackout: Heinberg on dwindling coal reserves and the siren song of “clean coal”
There isn’t nearly as much coal left as most people think. “Clean coal” will run down limited reserves even faster. If humanity doesn’t begin massive, sustained investment in renewable power sources immediately, civilization could be at risk before the end of the century. And that’s without considering the impacts of climate change.

Right now the U.S. is on the verge of a momentous gamble, as reflected in the ACES bill: betting that long-term emission reductions can be achieved via carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). ACES postpones serious domestic reductions for over a decade on the assumption (hope?) that CCS technology will mature and drop in price enough to enable the indefinite use of coal. See the report at Grist.

Carbon Recycling - An alternative to carbon capture and storage
Legally, there are concerns over whether CO2 transport and long-term storage present human or ecosystem related risks and who is ultimately responsible if a leak occurs. While progress is underway in some countries, no country has yet developed the comprehensive, detailed legal and regulatory framework that is necessary to effectively govern the use of CCS.

So why expensively transport and store the CO2 underground when it could be profitably recycled post-capture? Read more here.

Energy & Climate Bill passes Committee

Energy and Commerce Committee Passes Clean Energy Legislation
The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved "The American Clean Energy and Security Act" (ACES Act, H.R. 2454) by a vote of 33 to 25 on May 21, 2009. According to co-sponsors Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, the bill charts a new course towards a clean energy economy. It imposes the first nationwide limits to greenhouse gas emissions. The bill was called 'historic' by President Obama.

The ACES Act proposes to create millions of new clean energy jobs, save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars in energy costs, enhance America's energy independence, and cut global warming pollution. Passage of such legislation this year is said to be crucial to demonstrate U.S. leadership on limiting greenhouse gas emissions prior to the international meeting in Copenhagen in December. Read more about the bill here.

Landmark Climate Bill Supported By Industry Giants and Enviros
According to the Energy Committee, supporters of the bill include BP America, Caterpillar, Conoco, Dow Chemical, GE, Johnson & Johnson, Shell and Siemens. Among community and environmental groups, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, American Lung Association and Center for American Progress have given their support, as reported here.

Has anyone actually read the entire ACES bill?
Don't have time to read the nearly 1000 page ACES bill? No problem. 1Sky.org has read it and has provided a preliminary analysis. The analysis is condensed in tabular form for easy reading, and can be obtained here. Contact Jason Kowalski at Jason@1Sky.org with any questions or comments.

Greens take sides on the ACES bill
Longtime climate crusader Al Gore says we should do all we can to get the legislation passed, while top climate scientist James Hansen says we should demand a different, better bill, according to Lisa Hymas, Grist's senior editor.

Gore says the bill is a good starting point, and that efforts to reach compromise on it have boosted its chances of passing both the House and the Senate. He believes that he key role of the legislation is to begin that shift to lower emissions.

According to James Hansen, “The revised Waxman-Markey climate bill is too watered down to qualify as a positive step for avoiding catastrophic climate disruption.

Activists and environmental groups are picking sides or staking out positions in the middle, 1Sky.org is viewed to be in the middle, along with goups such as NRDC, Sierra Club, Apollo Alliance, Earthjustice, League of Conservation Voters, and many others.

Jesse Jenkins, of the Breakthrough Institute, believes that to drive the transition and jump-start a new energy economy we must, “make clean energy the profitable kind of energy,” as President Obama has said. The gap in price between our traditional sources of energy and new, clean energy sources, like wind, solar power and biofuels, must be closed, and this can be done in two ways. We can make conventional, dirtier energy sources more expensive. Or we can make new, clean energy sources more affordable. Jesse Jenkins worries that as currently drafted, the ACES bill will fail to effectively utilize either option, and therefore prove unable to reduce emissions or truly build a new clean energy economy.

But it ain't over, 'till it's over
The ACES bill still has quite a ways to go before passage by the full House. According to Grist's political reporter, Kate Sheppard, at least six other House committees have jurisdiction over some portion of this bill, including the Ways and Means Committee, which oversees legislation pertaining to taxes and other revenue sources. In that committee, John Larson (D-Conn.) has offered a carbon-tax bill and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has proposed a cap-and-dividend bill. Kate Sheppard writes that they will want to play a role in shaping the final legislation.


Follow the ACES Bill Debate and Updates on Twitter at Grist

MORE New Coal-Fired Power Plants?

Officials weighing federal applications by utilities to build new coal-fired power plants cannot consider their greenhouse gas output, Stephen Johnson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ruled on Thursday. Environmentalists fear the decision will clear the way for the approval of several such plants in the last days of the Bush administration.

Just about a month ago, the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board ruled that the EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming from new coal-fired power plants. This appeared to be great news for clean, alternative energy since the appeals court ruling would stop permitting of any new coal-burning power plants for some time.

However, a memorandum issued by EPA head, Stephen Johnson, on Thursday puts the agency on record saying that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant to be regulated when approving power plants.

James Hansen, the nation’s leading climate scientist has said, “The science is clear: a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants, and phase-out of existing coal plants, is essential if we want to preserve creation, the life on our planet, for young people and future generations.”

Under the Bush administration, the EPA has rejected the idea that greenhouse gases should be regulated like other kinds of air pollution, despite an April 2007 Supreme Court ruling that said carbon dioxide fit the definition of a pollutant that could be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has formally requested for a Department of Justice investigation into the potential criminal conduct of EPA head Stephen Johnson. Whitehouse said that Johnson put "the interests of corporate polluters before science and the law” in ozone, lead, soot, tailpipe emissions, and global warming pollution. In a speech on the senate floor, Whitehouse said, "The American people cannot accept such a person in a position of such great responsibility. I am sorry it has come to this, but I call on Administrator Johnson to resign his position."

To see EPA head Stephen Johnson in 'inaction', watch this video. His middle name should be Stonewall: Stephen "Stonewall" Johnson. He deserves a Fossil Fool Award for his actions as well as his inactions on CO2 emissions and global warming.

A change to President-elect Obama's newly selected team on environment and energy can not come fast enough.

For the full reports, see: New York Times, Washington Post, Wonk Room

EPA: Coal Plants MUST limit CO2

GREAT NEWS for CLEAN, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Sierra Club press release: November 13, 2008

In a move that signals the start of our clean energy future, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) ruled today EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit from new coal-fired power plants the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. The decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions.

“Today’s decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy,” said Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club Senior Attorney who argued the case. “This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America.”

“The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. This decision gives the Obama Administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century,” continued Spalding.

The decision follows a 2007 Supreme Court ruling recognizing carbon dioxide, the principle source of global warming, is a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act.

“Instead of pouring good money after bad trying to fix old coal technology, investors should be looking to wind, solar and energy efficiency technologies that are going to power the economy, create jobs, and help the climate recover,” said Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign. Read more HERE.

Associated Press reports: "All permits in the pipeline are now stymied," said Jason Hutt, an attorney representing a number of utilities, merchant energy developers and refineries seeking permits. He said it also would affect permits for oil refinery expansion.

David Bookbinder, a Sierra Club attorney, the court ruling will "stop permitting of any coal burning power plants "while EPA mulls over what to do next" about how the federal Clean Air Act is to be used to control carbon dioxide. He said as many as 100 coal power plant permits — both those in process and others under appeal — will now be decided by the EPA, or state agencies that closely follow EPA's direction, after the Bush administration leave office. Read more HERE.

Proposed NY Pet-Coke Gasification Plant

This is a guest post by Walter Simpson of the Western NY Climate Action Coalition.

Lackawanna Clean Energy (LCE) is proposing a petroleum coke gasification plant to be constructed at the Bethlehem Steel site in Lackawanna, NY, adjacent to the Steel Winds wind farm. For those of us concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and the serious problem of global warming and climate change, the impact of this plant deserves serious study.

The project is in the draft environmental impact study stage of the State Environmental Quality Review Act process and appears to be moving along at a rapid rate. Petroleum coke is a refinery waste product which is more carbon intensive than coal. According to literature provided by LCE, their proposed gasification plant will convert 6,000 tons of pet coke a day to 85 million cubic feet per day of pipeline quality natural gas that could heat 450,000 homes a year. The project is being presented as good for our local economy. LCE says as many as 1,500 jobs will be created during a two year construction period and operating that plant will require up to 200 jobs. Local tax-base benefits are also touted. LCE would like to have the plant built and in operation by 2012.

According to documents supplied by LCE, conventional pollutants would be addressed with the best available control technology (BACT). GHG emissions from the plant are estimated to be 4,257,000 tons if CO2e/year. For comparison, consider that the proposed new Jamestown NY coal plant would emit approximately 300,000 tons of CO2e/year without carbon capture and storage (CCS) and approximately 150,000 tons per year with the level of CCS required by Governor Paterson. UB’s recently conducted greenhouse gas inventory indicated that total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from UB’s both campuses is 142,000 tons of CO2e/year. Thus the LCE gasification plant would produce 28 times the emissions of the Jamestown plant with CCS and 30 times those associated with operating UB. 4,257,000 tons of CO2e/year represents a full 2% increase in GHG emissions for all of New York State.

The above numbers are striking and suggest environmental groups should be very concerned about this plant. However, proponents of the project argue that it will use clean energy technology and that they are responsibly addressing the plant’s environmental impact, including GHG emissions.

According to LCE’s CO2 Management Plan (dated July 2008 and obtained from the NYS DEC through a Freedom of Information request), LCE’s gasification plant would actually produce a net reduction of GHG emissions of 2,466,000 tons of CO2e/year. They arrive at this figure by considering the fossil fuel energy and GHG emissions which will be avoid by (a) transporting pet coke to Lackawanna instead of other locations where it would be burned, (b) eliminating GHG emissions associated with producing natural gas through other means, and (c) creating less GHG emissions by gasifying pet coke compared to burning it. In addition, LCE is proposing to purchase carbon offsets for 432,000 tons of CO2e/year, create a CO2 emissions research center, and demonstrate carbon capture and geo-sequestration (burying emissions underground) for some portion of the plants GHG emissions.

Would the LCE pet coke gasification plant be an environmental benefit or cost? Is it part of the solution to climate change or a potentially very large contributor to the problem? Clearly it depends on the accuracy and fairness of LCE’s analysis and one’s perspective. Minimally, we can say this is a very interesting proposal deserving of careful public scrutiny.

On November 18, here will be a presentation of the proposal for petroleum coke gasification by Lackawanna Clean Energy, followed by a panel discussion open to the public. For further information, click here.

Risks of Coal Power Investment

NEW YORK - Coal-fired power plants are among the top emitters of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas contributing to global warming. A major owner of coal-fired power plants has agreed to let investors in on the financial costs of global warming. NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced Thursday that the energy company Dynegy Inc. has agreed to put detailed information in its financial filings on any material business risks posed by the outcry over climate change. That could include warning investors about looming government regulations that might make it more expensive to emit carbon, or the possibility that the company could be sued over pollution.

"You must disclose the risks that you are taking, and when you're building a coal-fired plant, you are truly creating many issues for years to come," Cuomo said. About the disclosure, he said, "It's not just good public policy, it's the law".

The agreement is the second of its type. Xcel Energy made a similar promise to Cuomo's office in August and the attorney general has pressured three other power firms to follow suit: AES Corporation, Dominion Resources and Peabody Energy.

Environmentalists applauded the deal. Former Vice President Al Gore, who appeared alongside Cuomo as he announced the arrangement in Manhattan, called the disclosure requirement "a new model to combat global warming."
The full reports are here and here.