- Enabling Economic Recovery Through Innovation
- The Top 12 Science Progress Features of 2008
- Breaking: Physicist John Holdren Is Likely Pick for Science Advisor
- Looking for a Research Bailout
- Want to Work Together? The Impact of Multi-University Collabortion
- “The Single Most Effective Way to Prevent the Transmission of Disease”
- Chu Is Bringing Science Back
- National Research Council: Nanotech Safety Needs a Closer Look. Much Closer.
- Neuroscience Everywhere
- Change for America on Science and Tech Policy, Part 4: The Office of Science and Technology Policy
- CNN Decides It Can Cover Science Without Dedicated Science Reporters
- Stem Cell Recommendations for the New Administration
Better Advice for Congress on Carbon Capture
After last week’s industry-led field hearing in North Dakota on carbon capture and sequestration, a Monday briefing on CCS hosted by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee was a breath of fresh air. The general tone of the presentations was positive, and the speakers backed their enthusiasm with credible scientific expertise. Unlike the field hearing, attendees at this event included representatives from the scientific community, among them Jim Dooley of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, a lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report on CCS. The meeting also included energy technology experts and energy analysts from the university and industry communities, all of who provided insight on the current state of CCS technology. The dominant message was that while continued investment and innovation is necessary, CCS will be a valuable tool in the mitigation of climate change, with the potential to reduce carbon emissions by up to 90 percent, according to Rachel Crisp, Deputy Director of the UK Department for Business, Enterprise, and Regulatory Reform.
Titled “Making Carbon Capture & Sequestration Work,” the public event focused on the economic and technical feasibility of CCS technology. The first panel tackled “The Business Case for CCS,” recognizing, unlike the presentations in North Dakota, the economic costs connected to inaction on carbon capture. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-MN) highlighted economic penalties right at the start of the meeting, pointing out the likely adoption in the near future of a cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide emissions. Dooley emphasized the need for a strong long-term commitment to CCS as a climate mitigation strategy, citing the environmental consequences of inaction. He was, however, one of the few at the meeting expressing a belief that climate change mitigation policy will have immediate value. While technical and industry representatives demurred on this point, they agreed that a regulatory framework with incentives for the adoption of CCS would be essential to its success, they were somewhat less enthusiastic about government regulation in the immediate future.
The session also offered better advice to Senators than last week’s field hearing by including representatives from European energy firms and governments. It is no secret that the EU is far ahead of the U.S. in its environmental and energy policies, or that the U.S. can learn from Europe’s experience, avoid its mistakes, and build on the strengths of its approach. Crisp explained a UK-sponsored competition for the country’s first large-scale CCS project. The entries must employ post-combustion technology, which can be used to retrofit existing power plants, and the winner of the competition will receive significant funding from the British government. Crisp said that the competition was intended as a model for the rest of the world to follow in the future development of coal-fired power plants. The Bush administration withdrew its support in January for the first commercial-scale CCS demonstration project in the U.S.
In contrast to coal industry’s pessimistic tone on CCS technology, this briefing made it clear that while it won’t be easy, CCS will be a crucial tool in future energy development and in the fight against climate change. To learn more about how carbon capture works, see the Center for American Progress’s Carbon Capture and Sequestration 101.
Alexandra Kougentakis is a Fellows Assistant at the Center for American Progress.
Comments on this article
No wonder an event called Titled “Making Carbon Capture & Sequestration Work” had a positive tone on CCS, how about setting up an event calling “Making Nuclear War Work”, wanna bet that congresspeople will leave believing that “Nuclear War is still a little dangerous, but with enough resources we can make it work!”.
When the global warming alarm rang out in the 70es, our parents chose to ignore it. Now that people are finally listening, we don’t have time to experiment with expensive and illusionary technologies. Coal is dirty for the economy, for society and for the environment, regardless of where you hide its externalities. The movement is growing, the end of coal is near, stop keeping this dinosaur technology on life support and finance real solutions.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:28 pmHi Tommaso
You bring up an important point, because the use of coal has environmental consequences that extend beyond greenhouse gases. Yet the fact remains that the coal industry exists, both in the US and globally, and is one of the top global sources of energy. It is difficult to overturn such a pervasive and ingrained industry in a single swoop. Instead of using the same dirty technology with high GHG emissions as well as other problems while wind, solar et al. technologies are upgraded, it seems to me that it is preferable to employ “best practice” technology for the energy sources that we currently have.
Further, you must realize that the coal-using industries are hardly thrilled about being asked to invest significant capital into technology whose only purpose is to reduce GHGs; in some cases this can decrease the potential energy output of a plant. A cap-and-trade program will oblige them to do this, however, so CCS incentives will be necessary to assist their transition and to protect consumers. Meanwhile, it would not be surprising if some of these companies made forward-thinking investments in renewables, because after all, they’ll need to make technology changes either way. While coal use will continue because it is the most reliable resource (compared to wind and solar), renewable energy technology deployment is sure to increase as well. Ultimately, if electric utilities and other coal users can be convinced to deploy CCS, the current stagnation and reluctance to change will be shaken up enough that the “real solutions” to which you refer will benefit as well.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:19 ami want for school project
May 7th, 2008 at 1:56 pm