Last week, the National Energy Technology Laboratory (a project of the Department of Energy) issued a new report on every climate activists’ favorite subject: coal. Specifically, this report is about Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), and it poses yet another major red flag to the viability and wide scale deployment of CCS.
The take-away of the report? Implementing CCS on a typical coal plant will nearly double the water consumption of an already huge water consumer – upwards of 4 billion gallons a day. And in some regions (namely California, Florida, and New York), water usage could rise by 250%-350%.
So wait – if one of the major impacts of a changing climate is water shortages, why would we promote a “solution” that involves doubling (or tripling) water usage?
To be a little fair(er), there is lots of ongoing debate in our movement around CCS. There are plenty of lively discussions and perspective on whether CCS is something climate activists should support, or whether it is simply the dying gasp of the dirtiest industry waging a massive PR campaign to keep coal alive. (can you tell which side I’m on?) Check out a sampling of articles on Alternet, It’s Getting Hot In Here, and here on Grist. And check out these two fact sheets about the “clean coal” myth and CCS from the Energy Justice Network and one I prepared with Rainforest Action Network. For the pro-”clean coal” side of the debate, just tune into you local presidential debate, or check out industry-sponsored “grassroots” front groups like America’s Power.
Just to be clear – this latest report furthers the reasons CCS should not be a priority for the climate movement. CCS is an unproven technology that may or may not even work commercially, will raise electricity costs substantially, lower efficiency, double the water usage, maintain our dependence on dirty fossil fuels, continue to destroy communities from mining practices, provide rationale to keep building coal plants, excuse private corporations from any liability for catastrophic leaks or problems, entail building thousands of miles of new pipelines to transport C02, and further deprive proven clean energy development of much-needed funding.
CCS sounds like the time-honored Pentagon “Star Wars” boondoggle, or a typical corporate handout – not a solution to the climate crisis. We’ve got until 2010 (3 years!) to stabilize our emissions and begin dramatic reductions. The most hopeful estimates of CCS don’t see widespread deployment for 2 decades or more. We don’t have two decades. The only way we can avert catastrophic climate change is immediately transition to low/no-carbon energy sources. Energy efficiency, conservation, and clean renewables are proven solutions to reduce our emissions- and it’s time we stop letting fossil fuels trample them down for funding, access, and prioritization.
CCS is a pipe-dream, a distraction, and a gamble. And it’s a gamble that our future hinges on. Don’t let the coal industry flip the coin – we need to change the game.
-Matt
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Matt, thanks for continuing this discussion. Is there a reason you didn’t mention the favorable reports of the IPCC and IEA? I think all of us agree that CCS isn’t a silver bullet solution, but you still haven’t given a satisfactory answer for China and India. Your case would be much stronger if you addressed these issues and gave a review of the arguments on the other side of the debate.
My 2 cents,
Teryn
Matt,
Commercially viable CCS is probably at least 10 years out, maybe never.
If you add water requirements and the additional power generation requirements to actually do the work of post-generation CCS (separation, compression, distribution, injection, etc.) the environmental impact may exceed the impact of the current power generation model.
While renewables, alternatives, conservation, and efficiency improvements are laudable ideas and maybe even worthy goals; population growth (the key usage driver/predictor for power demand) and GDP growth (the key capital expenditure driver/predictor for power generation infrastructure construction) will continue unabated for at least the next 40 years, given current demographic and economic projections.
The only really viable alternative is efficiency improvements and conservation. Innovations in those areas are probably the only real ‘solutions’; and that is probably only possible with a ‘space-program-type’ investment.
Unfortunately for us all, no generation has been able to overcome human nature’s urge to procreate, envy, and greed; the Baby-boomers were going to do it in the 70’s but didn’t, the GenXers didn’t care in the 90’s and still don’t, so maybe the GenYers can overcome millennia of it…but I doubt it!
Power consumption and generation infrastructure build-out will continue until there is a watershed event that changes the paradigm. When they have to turn off the air conditioning in a high-rise non-opening-windows, office building in downtown L.A., Dallas, or Atlanta one hot summer day, things will change!
For excellent rebuttals to the issues of coal and emissions in China and India – check out David Roberts excellent rebuttals over on Grist. While I don’t agree with all of his points – he confronts pretty much all the typical arguments made.
Part 1: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/26/03657/903
Part 2: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/27/1166/3002
Part 3: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/30/1114/1794
Part 4: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/3/22320/8954
And to really address the emissions from China and India – we need to look at bigger questions of social, economic, and environmental justice. It’s not simply fair to say “China is building a coal plant a week and won’t stop no matter what we do”. They are building those plants to satisfy demand for cheap consumer goods that are being largely bought by the US. There are much bigger economic factors involved in WHY those plants are being built – and ultimately those emissions should be seen as the US’ emissions.
We can shape the future – and I don’t buy arguments that the future is immutable. Statements that amount “China will continue to build coal no matter what we do”, or even that “population will continue to explode no matter what” are disempowering at best, and cause for inaction at worst. Social movements can dramatically change the course of history – it’s a question of what we demand and what we create. The future is unwritten.
CCS is experimental as are many of the energy storage technologies needed for renewables. If we have to do the research, why not do it on a variety of approaches. After all, if CCS turns out to work while some of the technologies needed for the renewables fail, you still will have coal until the bugs get worked out for renewables.
Deep change solutions are what we need, not attempts to maintain our current unjust, unsustainable power use. Plus, can coal EVER be clean if we continue to mine it like we do right now? Until I see a plan to have truly clean coal from cradle-to-grave I will continue to oppose CCS. Thanks for the great post Matt.
Even if the US electric use evaporated and China, India, and Africa only use 25% of the US per capita electricity (and that is half the per capita of electric effiiciency paragons like Switzerland), there would still be almost a doubling of world electric demand. Supplying this while minimizing carbon sounds like revolution enough.
Seriously, these countries need energy for public health needs such as water treatment, hospitals, food preservation, etc. Even coal with CCS will take fewer lives than having people do without minimal electricity.