facebook twitter subscribe

Donate to SolveClimate News

Obama: The Making of a Clean Coal President

Political and Economic Opportunity, Green Cooperation Cement Obama's Position

Feb 10, 2010

President Obama has issued marching orders for the rapid national adoption of "clean coal" technology. Last week, shortly after his budget address, he ordered a high-level task force to deliver a plan within 180 days determining how "to overcome barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within 10 years, with the goal of bringing 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects on line by 2016."

Obama's executive office memorandum looks like a big victory for the coal industry, which was already handed $3.8 billion in last year's stimulus act for carbon capture and storage (CCS) research and development and deployment. He did not simultaneously order a similar plan for a big roll-out of solar or wind energy to level the playing field.

Making good on campaign promises, the president is throwing the full weight of his administration behind a moonshot effort to make coal the "clean" energy technology of choice and open a federal pathway to a profitable future for one of the nation's most polluting industries.

Three factors have cemented Obama's support for carbon capture and sequestration technology: political necessity, economic opportunity and the backing of some of the most powerful mainstream environmental organizations operating inside the Beltway.

With climate legislation stuck in the Senate and perhaps in limbo until after the next presidential election, green groups are evaluating their next moves, trapped by concessions they negotiated with the coal industry, but betrayed by the politics, which has now left them without climate protection measures that were supposed to be part of the deal.

The political strategy was hatched during what Kert Davies of Greenpeace calls the "grim years of Bush." At the time, it offered a ray of hope for climate progress, he said, the touchstone of which was economic cooperation with polluting industry and big corporations.

NRDC, Environmental Defense Fund, World Resources Institute and the Energy Futures Coalition all had a hand in advancing the strategy, which centered on getting the coal and utility industries to the negotiating table; having them agree to a cap-and-trade system to put a price on carbon; and in return giving them generous concessions. The strategy included the calculation that coal industry and utility company interests could be split off from the interests of the oil industry, which stood staunchly and powerfully opposed to any form of carbon regulation.

They weren't nimble enough to change their strategy when political winds shifted, Davies said.

"The 'damage done' part is the hard thing," Davies said. "Once you've said those things and been on panel after panel and flown around the world to meetings, it's hard to back out."

At the Bloomberg Media Headquarters in New York last March with Obama already in office, David Hawkins of NRDC and and Mark Brownstein of EDF led the "Policy Needs" panel of a "Public Workshop on Carbon Capture and Sequestration," which their organizations co-sponsored. They argued that CCS would hasten climate policy adoption and called for the development of at least 5 gigawatts of CCS-enabled coal-fired facilities by 2015, within the context of a larger policy blueprint that included a cap-and-trade system.

About 5 gigawatts of CCS-enabled coal-fired power is what Obama asked his task force for last week, but the larger climate policy architecture was nowhere in sight.

"This clean coal task force is a catastrophe," Davies said. "Nobody is asking the administration for an ROI [return on investment] calculation. We're getting rolled."

CCS Still Expensive and Far Off

CCS technology is projected to be notoriously expensive. No full-scale demonstration plant has yet been built, and the pieces of technology that have to fit together add significant cost to operations.

Comments

Two problems with CCS

(1) The US fleet of coal plants is nearing retirement age (see here and here).

(2) Coal is not renewable, meaning it will run out sooner or later. Maybe sooner rather than later.

Who Should Pay for Carbon Capture?

Many object to carbon capture because they object to coal, but this linkage is mistaken. Going for carbon capture does not mean subsidising coal. Indeed coal companies should be made to pay for capturing the carbon dioxide produced when their fuel is used. That would certainly give a huge boost to the economics of competing lower carbon technologies. See my website at http://jemsavestheplanet.blogspot.com/ for more detail.

The International Energy Agency (an intergovernmental organisation) say that stabilising climate in 2050 will cost at least 70% more without carbon capture.

Recent reports from the World Future Energy Summit
http://cleantech.com/news/5532/carbon-capture-and-storage-rebooting
say that “speakers pointed to the maturation of CCS and many successful pilot facilities around the world. And they set the expectation that the industry is now ready to see production facilities built in large numbers.”

When fuel producers are obliged to place contracts for carbon capture and sequestration for a proportion of the carbon in their fuel, as I propose, I think there will be power companies from around the world competing to take their money. I hope we will be left wondering what all the fuss around cutting emissions was about.

CCS is not only for coal

The US has lots of shale gas, and lots of CNG imports are hitting our shores, both of which could be pressed into service for electrical power generation instead of coal. The CO2 from nat gas can and should be sequestered as well. I love solar and wind, but the wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine. These two modes cannot provide the baseload capability for an electrical grid. Their unpredictability, especially wind, makes grid management difficult.

I Agree

Regardless of how many windmills we build, if we are also still producing fossil fuel of any variety we need to capture most of the carbon dioxide produced when it is burnt. Carbon dioxide will continue to be removed from the atmosphere to the deep ocean by the downwelling polar currents but only at about 6% of today's emission rate. If we release more than that atmospheric concentration will continue to rise.

I was concerned about trying to capture carbon dioxide from vehicles if battery life, cost, range and charging time do not improve enough to make electric vehicles attractive. But I have recently been looking at using potassium hydroxide solution to capture carbon dioxide as the carbonate and bicarbonate, which is very basic well known chemistry. At the limit of solubility I estimate 11 kg of liquor could hold the carbon dioxide from the combustion of 1 litre of fuel. I reckon that makes it feasible as long as the liquor is changed out every 100 miles or so and sent for processing to recover and sequester the carbon dioxide and reform the hydroxide. My guesstimate for the total cost of the scheme is about 70 pence per litre of fuel consumed, which I would certainly pay if there was no other way. Most of the cost is collecting spent and distributing fresh liquor.

It is not crucial that the vehicle carries enough hydroxide solution for a long journey because most trips are only a few miles and these account for a large proportion of the emissions. But it is important that the vehicle can occasionally make these long trips without delays for battery recharging. On a long journey it would be possible either to make several brief stops to exchange spent liquor for fresh or to simply exhaust the absorption capacity and allow carbon dioxide to escape to atmosphere.

coal

I voted and campaigned for President Obama too! I heard him say he would do exactly what he is doing concerning coal. During the campaign he didn't say he would do away with coal or forget about clean coal legislation. I have fought tooth and nail to blog and defend our President every step of the way. When I heard that he was going to turn his back on the coal producing states I didn't know what to tell my relatives and friends that are totally dependent on the (coal fields). Besides, some states like WV would be totally destroyed if he turned his back on coal. During the recent recession our state of WV wasn't hit as hard because the mines continued to produce. People continued to have work. This was a good thing because I don't have to tell you that Appalachia has it's share of problems, poor, sick, etc. We didn't suffer as bad as some of the other states like Florida or California. I was totally thankful for that and am elated that the decision of my favorite President is not to turn his back on me, my family, and my state of WV. Coal does cause pollution but, we need to find ways to work around this and keep people in jobs. Before we close down all coal fields someday we can be retraining people into new jobs in the clean coal industry. We have modern windmills in the mountains of WV, also. These feed electricity into Washington, D.C. I'm glad our President is thinking with his head and not totally following a "clean everything up this minute" agenda. These things will take years but, we go forward a step at a time. Kudos to President Obama for a wise decision that will help the climate situation and also. help people keep their jobs!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i> <p> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options