The nation’s first carbon capture and sequestration scheme is sneaking its way through the West Virginia Department of Environmental “Protection.” This is right on time with the Senate’s attempt to sneak in $4.6 billion for Clean Coal in the Stimulus Package. This Carbon Capture and Sequestration boondoggle needs to stop before it starts.
Mountaineer Power Plant as seen from Ohio
We need your help to stop it! Please comment on this faulty permit by Friday.
“Clean Coal” may sound like fun to folks till it shows up in your backyard. Please support the communities in WV and nearby Ohio who are fighting this permit!
This particular scheme — est. $70 million– will only capture around 1% of the plant’s emissions. The permit does not show the contours of the strata the CO2 will be injected into nor does it mention how surrounding water will be impacted. If this permit is approved, it will be approved without knowing where and how the CO2 will migrate.
This Friday, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection will close the comment period on American Electric Power’s permit application to capture and geologically sequester Carbon Dioxide emissions from its Mountaineer Power Plant. Please take a moment to visit www.crmw.net/CCS_Comments.php to tell the DEP not to approve this permit.
Why else is Carbon Capture and Sequestration a Bad Idea?
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is not a viable option to prevent catastrophic climate change. In a best case scenario, CCS wouldn’t significantly contribute to a reduction in carbon emissions for at least 15 years, well beyond the time period in which we have to significantly curb our CO2 emissions.
CCS is an energy intensive process. For a coal-fired power plant to capture and sequester all of its CO2, it would require up to 40% of the plant’s energy output. This means that while its capturing 1% of it’s emissions, Mountaineer will also produce 0.4% more CO2 to maintain energy output levels and carbon sequestration, making the already minuscule amount of CO2 captured even less significant.
This decrease in efficiency will lead to increased coal consumption and mountaintop removal coal mining.
Capturing and sequestering carbon emissions from a coal-fired power plant will double the price of electricity from coal, making it more expensive than renewables like wind and solar.
We cannot afford to waste precious time and resources on this dead end technology.
Please go to www.crmw.net/CCS_Comments.php to learn more and submit your comments by January 30, or mail them to
Director, Division of Water and Waste Management, DEP
601 57th Street SE
Charleston, WV 25304-2345
ATTN: Jeff Knepper, UIC Programs
Thanks from Coal River Mountain Watch.
www.crmw.net
While I am not a big fan of CCS, I do wonder if it should be opposed. It will be hard to get political support for major renewables spending unless something is given to the states that are heavily dependent on coal. Also, providing a demonstration will help show the difficulties with the technology. With no demonstration, they can continue to claim CCS as the solution if only the opponents would let them try.
My opinion, whatever it may be worth, is to trade CCS for renewable energy funds.
Yes, but whose community is willing to be the guinea pig? Not mine!
I understand your point. However, whose community will accept the chemical processing plant for the PV cells or the smelting plant for the steel to make the windmills? The economic justice issue cuts across all energy technologies. Certainly we need a better process that balances the concerns.
Well worded R Margolis.
Hi Dana,
I’m worried that there’s a contradiction in campaigning on a slogan, “There’s no such thing as clean coal,” and then actively trying to block efforts to develop CCS technology? While making coal more climate friendly will NEVER make it clean, with China alone building about an entire UKs-worth of electrical capacity every couple years (almost all of it coal-powered), it strikes me as folly to actually protest pilot-scale tests of CCS technology (we don’t need to cheer them on either). As Jumpin’ Joe Biden said (before he had to “un-say it”), we may be able to get by without CCS technology in the US (maybe) but it’s a technology the world probably needs. Given the mind-boggling scale of the climate challenge, we really can’t afford to write off a technology that may deliver scalable emissions reductions without even giving it a try.
I think it’s time we put some serious thought into what a “win” looks like on the coal front, in the near-term at least. What if we said to the coal industry (and encouraged Obama to say), “Fine, go ahead and try to make your so-called-”clean”-coal real. In the meantime, we’re going to put a stop to dirty coal then.” After all, by saying something called “clean coal” exists, they are implicitly acknowledging there’s also something that’s “dirty coal” and opening up a huge window for us to hammer them using their own framing. That is, what if we said, “No new coal plants that don’t sequester at least half of their emissions” (so as to make them no higher than an efficient natural gas plant, as in CA and WA’s emissions performance standards). That would amount to a clear statement to the coal companies: “Get crackin’ on making CCS work or you’re out of business.”
What if we also said, “If there’s such a thing as clean coal, then what’s all this about coal sludge spills and leaky retention ponds? That seems like that old dirty coal stuff we both don’t want, and not your new fangled “clean” coal. So you won’t mind when we require coal ash to be stored in lined landfills, right?” And: “Blowing the tops of mountains to get coal sure sounds like dirty old coal, not that great new clean coal stuff you guys are talking about. I guess that means you’d support a ban on MTR which we’re going to get Congress to pass…”
All of those things (and the real enforcement of existing environmental protections) would make coal plants much costlier to run, and would force to coal companies to either innovate and compete, or die. It also gives us much needed time to push forward on investments in the rapid development and deployment of truly clean, affordable energy sources that will make coal obsolete for good. In the meantime, we stop MTR, stop new coal plants (until, and if, they can figure out how to get CCS working), and prevent the next Kingston-style coal ash disaster. That sounds like a “win” to me.
What are your thoughts?
In solidarity,
Jesse
Hmm, I would like to reiterate that this permit doesn’t specify how the process will impact the strata or the water in it– that the permit is incomplete–even if you like the technology, that is not best practice for anything. In a more prosperous community, my guess is a permit this sketchy wouldn’t have made it nearly as far. Unfortunately the hundred plus years of blind government obedience to the coal industry has allowed it to go through.
Perhaps in a state that has stricter attitudes towards policing the coal industry, I could begin to see your point. But, given that lack of oversight from WV’s DEP and their bias towards the coal industry to the detriment of community health and safety in hundreds of previous instances, I think it is a scary process to test out a virtually unknown coal process in this situation.
I also think it’s worth noting that this permit is piloting CCS in one of the poorest communities in the US which has already been devastated economically and environmentally from years of coal. I think that being in solidarity with my community means recognizing that poor communities face the brunt of our experiments and this permit is a instance of environmental injustice.
The fact that this permit is being pushed in such an impacted community is, to me, a strong reason to oppose it. Let rich communities, who have more resources to fight back if something does go terribly wrong, experiment with CCS, if you believe it should be done. Let the communities already facing catastrophic impacts from coal right and left have one less potential catastrophe to worry about.
I think under the understanding that Appalachia has been a dumping ground for all of coal’s worst mistakes, one of our premiere energy sacrifice zones, then even if you are for CCS I would ask you to be against this permit, since it is one more experiment being forced on some of America’s poorest and already exploited communities.
There is information on geologic conditions that would favor CCS (e.g., certain rocks will absorb CO2 and it will become mineralized). The places that do not have the geology should be eliminated. Ideally, there should be some kind of risk apportionment process that balances the dangers communities must face, but that probably makes too much sense…
Dana, thanks for your response. You make an excellent point about where and how these experiments to develop CCS technology should occur. I agree that any risk to the experiments on the residents of historic energy-sacrifice zones is not a just way to progress with the development of this technology. I think that the risks associated with geologic sequestration are a bit overblown, but that doesn’t mean we should not proceed with precautions and appropriate siting and permitting of the first test sites.
That position is a bit different though than categorically opposing any research into CCS, and I hope we’re also finding some common ground on that front – i.e. I believe we should focus on a) fighting to end the worst impacts of coal rather than fighting all efforts to develop CCS tech, and b) ensuring that any such efforts are not callously dumped on residents of historic energy sacrifice zones or other communities ill equipped to protect themselves. Both efforts will be easier, I believe, if we don’t simply categorically oppose CCS (period). Do you agree?
Cheers,
Jesse
Jesse,
I don’t see a contradiction at all in saying there is no such thing as clean coal and opposing CCS. I see it as the logical thing to do. The stimulus package just gave $2.4 Billion to Clean Coal Research. That’s a waste of money, my money. And the original well and plans were at least partially paid for by the federal government. Again, that’s my money. Money that should have gone to actual renewables.
In order to maintain the same level of delivered coal-fired electricity, 1/3 more coal is going to be mined and burned to make up for the parasitic energy load of the CCS system. We’ve had some nasty weather down here in Southern WV in the last few days and the river in front of my house is house is running thick. When you say you want CCS, you say you want that river to be even more full of sediment that chokes out aquatic life. You want it to contain more toxins like selenium. And you want it to run out of hollows in greater quantities and with greater force flooding our communities even more.
And we can write off CCS. We actually can’t afford to NOT write off CCS. It simply will not be ready in time to help prevent catastrophic climate change and it’s going to continue to suck up our valuable time and resources. Power companies are trying to push through power plants labeled “Carbon capture ready.” They are using these 1% capture plans as an excuse to lock us into burning coal for another 50 years. Which is a slippery slope to go down independent of Carbon emissions because there’s not 50 years of coal left in Appalachia. We’re going to have to switch to renewables eventually, why not do it now?
And Jesse, I would love for you to show me a clean way to mine coal. MTR is really dirty. But it wasn’t MTR that created the Pittsburgh Mine Pool, the more than 1 Trillion Gallons of toxic water threatening to burst out of abandoned coal mines in Northern WV which needs constant treatment and will forever. There are plenty of underground mines that cause the land to subside destroying peoples homes and land. Land subsidence is especially a problem across the river from this power plant in Southern Ohio.
And for the life of me, I still don’t understand why we would want to export CCS to China. We should be investing in renewable technologies and exporting those. Thousands of people die every year in China’s coal mine. Why would you wish that on even more Chinese people?
And Jesse, I’m sure you’re a wonderful person and CCS looks great from where you’re sitting. But to me, in southern West Virginia, it looks like a nightmare.
Actually, China is already a major manufacturer of PV cells. They also emit high amounts of toxic sodium tetrachloride as well. China needs HUGE amounts of low carbon energy even just to reach 25% of the US per capita level (i.e., half again less than Japan or Switzerland). If China burns their cheap lignite the worst case scenarios of the IPCC are likely. There are no cheap easy answers to this conundrum.
“And Jesse, I’m sure you’re a wonderful person and CCS looks great from where you’re sitting. But to me, in southern West Virginia, it looks like a nightmare.”
WV Matt, I’m very very sympathetic to this statement and recognize the nightmare coal has wrought on WV and other areas. And I don’t for a second think CCS is “great.” But I’m also very familiar with the tremendous scale of the climate challenge (which as new science emerges only seems greater) and am still very conflicted about what to do about CCS. I’m worried in fact that avoiding catastrophic climate change (which will in all likelihood require us to scale up every available low-carbon energy supply as quickly as possible, including CCS if feasible) may be at odds with our shared objectives to build a just energy future where no peoples, no communities are sacrificed to provide our energy supply. I’m quite honest when I say I’m not really sure how to navigate this conundrum. I look forward to perhaps discussing this in person, should we meet at Power Shift ’09.
Jesse, perhaps this partially relates to your earlier post about the geography of the climate change fight and my question about what this means for those of us not living with coal plants in our back yards in how we support those who do. I think that when someone asks for our help to oppose something that is directly affecting their communities and health then we should trust their judgment. It is the people of WV that have to see their families and friends sick and dying from cancer because of this industry. I only started to understand the depths of the impact of coal and MTR after I had lived in SE Ohio and met people directly impacted by it. It makes me cry to think about it.
When Joe Biden came to campaign in Athens, I asked him about how he could support clean coal. His response was that China has 300 years of coal left and they’re going to use it, so we need to develop the technology here so they can use it there. Does this argument actually make sense?
Also, I am reminded of the Cascade Climate Declaration of “Sustainable, just and prosperous future for all”. It isn’t an either/or situation, like we’ll deal with climate change and sustainability first and deal with justice later. We need to deal with justice now and if the people of WV are saying this isn’t justice, we should support their efforts. I think we should continue to discuss this, but also realize in our conversations that those of us not living directly with the effects of coal have a different lived experience than those who do.
Actually, Joe Biden makes sense (did I really say that about a politician?). I realize that environmental justice is a sensitive topic, but there are physical limitations with the various low-carbon energy sources. There is no existing technology that generates electricity cheaper than fossil fuels with no impact to some communities. You can certainly find cleaner and safer energy sources than coal, but they need to be reliable and relatively economic. Otherwise countries like China will continue to expand their use of coal. I am skepical of CCS due to the scale of effort required, but we need to look at it just in case.
Hi Sasha,
As I tried to convey before, I’m definitely sensitive to the very different lived experiences of those facing first hand the impacts of our energy production, and those (like me) who do not. It is indeed my personal policy to trust those who live with the first hand impacts when they ask for my help and to offer the support I can give.
I am however deeply conflicted by a steadily growing realization that tackling the scale of the emissions reduction challenge required to even have a chance at climate stability will (in almost any scenario I can imagine) require us to try to scale up (and drive down the real, unsubsidized costs of) every low-carbon energy supply technology available. There are real limits to how quickly we can improve the energy efficiency of our economy, and the rates at which solar, wind, geothermal and other renewables can scale up over the coming decades. Even after we max out the potential annual growth rates for these preferable energy options, we’re left with a pretty big gap to fill. If we start striking potentially scalable technologies that can fill that gap – saying NO! to CCS, nuclear, second-generation biofuels, etc. – we’re left with an even more difficult challenge, one I’m not at all convinced is possible to achieve in the time we have left.
So the conflict I have then, is that I no longer know how we square the emissions reduction challenge with the energy justice challenge, as well as our desire to secure a more prosperous future. As a co-author of the Cascade Climate Declaration, I certainly hold all three objectives – “A sustainable, just, and prosperous future for all,” right? – and am therefore quite disturbed by the thought that those three objectives may be at odds.
Conflicted,
Jesse
Why not try some of each the way China and India are doing? Yes, China has not built its PV factories to western standards, but they can be retrofitted. China is also building wind and advanced nuclear. Maybe it’s the engineer thinking, but often interim solutions are all we have. I am not saying to rush together something and overly exploit those who have already done their share, but every time I count the numbers, you cannot get to a low-carbon economy fast enough and cheap enough with small-scale renewables alone. Carefully developed interim solutions may buy us the time we need.
Has anyone read any history books? Our planet is self cleansing… Our climates are cyclical… Until we have answers that are based on “real” science, why dont we continue to use what we have available, use coal, drill for oil in ANWAR and off of the coast of our country. This reduce our dependence on foreign oil… In the process let the free market iidentify what will work to eleminate the need for oil, coal and other so called dirty enenrgy sources…
Someone above mention modeling after CA and WA… That is a big joke… CA for example has a huge 23 billion dollar deficit… I would contend that we should model TX (one of the largest if not the largest energy producing state) we have a good energy policy and we have a 10 billion dollar surplus…
But wait, that probably makes tooooo much sense.