Comments on: Yet another reason CCS is not a solution.

By: The Understory » FutureGen coal boondoggle, err… site selection: Illinois

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:54:05 +0000

[...] I won’t rehash the ongoing debates over the merits of carbon capture and sequestration yet again – I will throw out a different angle [...]

By: It’s Getting Hot In Here

It’s Getting Hot In Here — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:52:21 +0000

[...] I won’t rehash the ongoing debates over the merits of carbon capture and sequestration yet again – I will throw out a different angle [...]

By: FutureGen coal site selection: Illinois « It’s Getting Hot In Here

FutureGen coal site selection: Illinois « It’s Getting Hot In Here — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:49:32 +0000

[...] I won’t rehash the ongoing debates over the merits of carbon capture and sequestration yet again – I will throw out a different angle [...]

By: R Margolis

R Margolis — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:41:58 +0000

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.

By: Amy Ortiz

Amy Ortiz — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:07:58 +0000

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.

By: R Margolis

R Margolis — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:42:15 +0000

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.

By: Matt Leonard

Matt Leonard — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:31:47 +0000

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.

By: Larry

Larry — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:06:48 +0000

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!

By: Teryn Norris

Teryn Norris — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:49:47 +0000

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