The Carbon Capture Juggernaut Rolls on
   If the coal industry's carbon capture and storage (CCS) plan were
   ever implemented, it would be the largest hazardous waste disposal
   project that humans have ever undertaken, and among the most dangerous
   as well. A new report explains why the plan cannot work.

http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_more_ccs.080515.htm
Rachel's Democracy & Health News #959, May 15, 2008

The carbon capture juggernaut rolls on

[Rachel's introduction: If the coal industry's carbon capture and 
storage (CCS) plan were ever implemented, it would be the largest 
hazardous waste disposal project that humans have ever undertaken, 
and among the most dangerous as well. A new report explains why the 
plan cannot work.]

The coal, oil, automobile, railroad and electric power industries are 
planning to "solve" the global warming problem by capturing carbon 
dioxide (CO2) and burying it a mile underground, hoping it will stay 
there forever. The plan is called CCS, short for "carbon capture and 
storage" (or sometimes "carbon capture and sequestration").

Emitting CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, 
and natural gas) is thought to be the main human contribution to 
global warming.

If industry's CCS plan were ever implemented, it would be the largest 
hazardous waste disposal project that humans have ever undertaken, 
and among the most dangerous as well. As the New York Times reported 
April 23, 2008, "A large leak of underground carbon dioxide could be 
as dangerous as a leak of nuclear fuel, critics say."

Now a new report by Emily Rochon and others, published by Greenpeace 
International, describes industry's CCS plan in detail and shows, 
point by point, why it cannot prevent climate chaos.
http://www.precaution.org/lib/gp_report_false_hope.080505.pdf

Anyone who wants a basic introduction to CCS will want to get a copy 
of Rochon's report. It is a thoroughly documented, carefully argued, 
presentation of industry's plan, with professional graphics that 
clarify how CCS is supposed to work.

Rochon's report is even-handed, often leaning over backwards to 
present the industry plan in the best possible light. Still, the 
report concludes that CCS is a "dangerous gamble" that ultimately 
cannot prevent climate chaos because -- even if it works -- it will 
arrive too late to do any good.

In 40 pages, Rochon's report reinforces five main points:

1. CCS wastes energy. Capturing carbon dioxide will consume 10% to 
40% of the energy produced by a power plant. This means that, on 
average, CCS would require construction of a fifth power plant for 
every 4 new power plants that use CCS. Thus CCS requires, on average, 
25% more coal mining, transportation, and waste disposal than non-CCS 
power plants. CCS would also increase the water requirements of power 
plants by 90%.

2. CCS is expensive. CCS will double the cost of a power plant and 
will increase the cost of electricity somewhere between 21% and 91%, 
according to U.S. government figures. Worse, CCS will divert funds 
away from renewable sources of energy and energy conservation 
projects, which could reduce CO2 emissions faster and at lower cost 
than CCS.

3. Storing carbon dioxide underground is risky. No one can guarantee 
that CO2 buried in the ground will stay put forever. Even very low 
leakage rates could reverse the climate benefits achieved initially 
by CO2 burial.

4. CCS carries significant liability risks. A large leak of CO2 could 
kill vegetation, animals, and humans over a fairly large area. 
Industry is already angling to get taxpayers to shoulder the 
liability. With some 6000 CCS burial projects required to make a 
significant dent in the CO2 problem, opportunities for serious 
mishaps will be ever-present.

5. CCS cannot deliver in time to avert climate chaos. The world's 
scientific community is saying CO2 emissions must peak by 2015 and 
decline thereafter -- but even the most optimistic industry plans 
call for CCS to begin in 2020 -- and most industry spokespeople are 
saying CCS won't be available until 2030 to 2050.

Despite these fatal flaws in industry's CCS plan, the U.S. and Europe 
(and probably China) are counting on CCS to solve the global warming 
problem. As Fred pearce wrote in New Scientist March 29, "In Germany, 
only CCS can make sense of an energy policy that combines a large 
number of new coal-fired power stations with plans for a 40 per cent 
cut in CO2 emissions by 2020." And the New York Times reported April 
23, "Over the next five years, Italy will increase its reliance on 
coal to 33 percent from 14 percent." The Times reports that "the 
technology that the industry is counting on to reduce the carbon 
dioxide emissions that add to global warming -- carbon capture and 
storage -- is not now commercially available. No one knows if it is 
feasible on a large, cost-effective scale."

In the U.S., the three remaining major presidential candidates -- 
Clinton, Obama and McCain -- are all enthusiastic supporters of coal 
with CCS tacked on. No matter who wins the presidency, the coal 
industry will be sitting in the Oval Office promoting CCS.

In sum, the coal industry is putting all our eggs -- yours and mine 
-- in a basket that has never been tried before on a commercial 
scale. It is -- as Emily Rochon says with characteristic 
understatement -- a "dangerous gamble."

Rochon's report ends by reminding readers that we already know how to 
solve climate chaos. Energy conservation and renewable sources of 
energy are already available, are cost-effective, and can do the job 
far faster than coal with CCS. CCS is not only dangerous, expensive, 
and too late to do any good. It is also unnecessary. Given all that, 
why would we choose to take this dangerous gamble?

_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Reply via email to