We know that Barack Obama has a shady history with liquid coal interests, and now I learn from Dave Roberts that John Edwards' views on new coal power plants aren't nearly as sound as they appeared at first glance.
« Credit Where Due | Main | Alex Debat »
King Coal
11 Sep 2007 10:08 am
Comments (18)
Environmentalist though I am, I am afraid I am going to have to see some fairly detailed plans, with budgets and regulatory approvals, for exactly how the US' very large and growing appetite for electricity is going to be satisfied during and after the _transition_ away from coal before I can classify anyone other than Dick Cheney's views as "unsound". The realities of power production and consumption, and the relationship between electricity and a decent way of live, are stubborn things that cannot just be wished away.
Cranky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89i9I7juUYY
"We should not build another coal-fired power plant in America, unless we actually have the ability to capture the carbon, which we don't have today. We don't need to make a bad situation worse."
Right clark..."unless we actually have the ability to capture..."
As the linked too article (which you apparently did not read) makes plainly clear, that's not enough (their bold and italics, not mine):
"Edwards would require that all new coal plants be compatible with sequestration -- that they be IGCC plants, which make CO2 easier to separate and bury -- but he would not require them to actually sequester their emissions.
Is this worth worrying about? Yes. As Big Coal author Jeff Goodell says, "There is a big difference -- a rhetorical Grand Canyon -- between supporting coal plants that are 'compatible with' CCS and actually requiring them to do it."
The key thing to note is that IGCC plants emit 80-90% as much CO2 as old-school dirty coal plants (they are somewhat more efficient). An IGCC plant without sequestration is almost as bad as a dirty coal plant, from a climate-change perspective (though it emits less NOx, SOx, and mercury).
If we build a bunch of coal plants -- whether they're IGCC or not -- we will be committing to sequestration (if we're to have any hope of slowing global warming). It's either that or shutting them down. So if President Edwards requires energy companies to build IGCC plants, he will have done very little to slow global warming. What he will have done is lock us into a policy path we've never rationally assessed or chosen."
I second the video Clark linked to. Check 1:20 in. Also,
in this position statement"> he seems to be calling for a ban on coal plants that don't sequester.
But I guess thats not what the campaign said to the guy. Edwards needs to clarify this position and if he really only supports a compatibility requirement he needs to change the language in his speeches and on his website.
obama, edwards, clinton, whatever. i'm sick of the same old, same old.
lee mercer jr. for pres! i'm not sure if he's an environmentalist, but he will definitely "prove jeb bush is all in my house with disease." (number 56).
"Environmentalist though I am, I am afraid I am going to have to see some fairly detailed plans, with budgets and regulatory approvals, for exactly how the US' very large and growing appetite for electricity is going to be satisfied during and after the _transition_ away from coal before I can classify anyone other than Dick Cheney's views as "unsound". The realities of power production and consumption, and the relationship between electricity and a decent way of live, are stubborn things that cannot just be wished away."
Liquefied coal combines high costs with high levels of global warming emissions. How hard is it for Democrats to be smarter on the environment (beating the Republicans on this is like being the thinnest kid at fat camp)? Our corn ethanol subsidies probably won't lead to an economically-efficient and environmentally-friendly oil alternative and is pushing up the price of food in Mexico and the cost of beer. We don't need crackpot ideas like liquefied coal on top of it.
"How hard is it for Democrats to be smarter on the environment..?"
Very. Unions still matter for organization.
Pardon me, but I don't understand David Roberts' point at all. Dodd would require sequestration, which is GOOD, according to Roberts. Edwards would require compatibility with sequestration, which would lock us in to sequestration, which in Roberts' view is BAD.
Am I the only one scratching my head? I could understand if Roberts' primary objection was that Edwards wasn't getting us to sequestration fast enough, but it seems to be a secondary objection for him; the real problem, as he describes it, is that Edwards will ultimately force sequestration on us.
I think I'm a pretty smart guy, but I'm baffled here.
Hey Matt -
How about looking at what Edwards actually says on his website instead of a poorly sourced blog post?
Hmmm?
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/energy/new-energy-economy/
The Edwards Plan:
Cap and Reduce Global Warming Pollution: Edwards will set an economy-wide limit on the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. He will build on the precedent of the Clean Air Act of 1990 -- which limited pollution causing acid rain through a sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade system -- to reduce pollution in a cost-effective and flexible manner.
Use Science to Set the Caps: Edwards will cap greenhouse gases at levels that the latest climate science has determined to be necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. He will reduce greenhouse pollution by 20 percent by 2020, and reduce it by 80 percent by 2050.
Make Polluters Pay: Edwards will auction off a portion of the pollution permits to raise $10 billion a year for a New Energy Economy Fund to jumpstart clean, renewable, and efficient energy technologies and create 1 million jobs. Other permits will be sold or given away.
Lead the World toward a New Global Climate Change Treaty: Climate change is an international problem and the U.S. can never solve it alone. China is building the equivalent of one large coal-fired power plant a week and is expected to pass the U.S. as the world's largest polluter of carbon dioxide in 2009. [NYT, 3/17/2007; WSJ, 3/3/2007]
To lead the world toward a new, effective climate change treaty, Edwards will:
Make Our Own Commitments to Restore Our Moral Leadership: The U.S. has 4 percent of the world's population but produces a quarter of its carbon dioxide emissions. It is one of only three developed nations that has refused to limit its greenhouse gas pollution. By adopting caps, Edwards will help the U.S. regain credibility in the world without sacrificing American competitiveness. [Irish Times, 2/14/2007; Greenwire, 10/31/2006]
Involve Developing Economies: Any climate change treaty must include developing countries, which emit significant amounts of carbon and could otherwise serve as a haven for polluters. However, these nations are poorer than the U.S. and emit far less carbon per capita. To bring them to the table, Edwards will share America's clean energy technology in exchange for binding greenhouse reduction commitments. If necessary, he will insist that strong labor and environmental standards in our trade deals include commitments on climate change. This new deal will require global participation, promote shared responsibility, and let American workers and businesses compete on a level playing field.
That's about 1/10th of the stuff at the site.
Please do read and inform yourself.
It should be kept in mind that some proposed energy reforms have more to do with 'energy security' (i.e., finding domestic versus 'Middle Eastern' oil) than to do with environmental concerns.
This is not to say that coal is a good way to go, but it may be very convincing to someone much more concerned with short term 'energy security' who isn't greatly concerned about CO2 releases.
So my feeling is that coal is being pushed under the rubric of being a domestic and therefore not foreign-controlled resource.
(Which in my mind is a very narrow definition of 'energy security', given the clear problems caused by industrial CO2 release.)
Low-tech cyclist,
Dodd would forbid coal plants from being built unless they had working sequestration facilities. That means the coal industry would only get to build plants if they could get sequestration technology perfected, safe, scaled up, and at least somewhat economical.
In my humble opinion, that's never going to happen -- by the time you add sequestration, the electricity you produce will be far more expensive than you can already get from efficiency, wind, geothermal, concentrated solar, etc. (much less what you'll be able to get from them in 15 years when sequestration come online).
Dodd's plan, in other words, leaves open the possibility that using coal to create our electricity just won't work. I know lots of people think we "have to" use coal. I think that's wrong. But either way, Dodd says, "if you can make it clean, you can do it. Until then, no."
In contrast, Edwards would allow IGCC plants to be built before sequestration has been developed or scaled, much less shown to be economically competitive. Once those IGCC plants are built -- facts on the ground -- we'd be committed to developing sequestration, even if it proves economically absurd. The only other alternative would be shutting the plants down, and that would be extremely difficult.
In short: Dodd's plan remains (properly) agnostic as to the prospects of sequestration; Edwards's plan bets everything on it. It forecloses options. In the argot, it "picks winners." Not good.
Dr. Frank, it was not a "poorly sourced blog post." I talked to a guy on Edwards' energy policy team -- the team that developed the policy in question. Yes, the language on the website is ambiguous. That's why I called. He thanked me for helping to publicly clarify the policy. There was no doubt about what he was saying: compatibility with sequestration, yes; actual working sequestration, no.
As to the rest of Edwards' plan: yeah, it's good.
The problem with using the Grist article to judge Edwards policy is that it does not provide enough information to know precisely what Edward's policy is.
The long article rests on a shorter one, which in its entirety reads:
There was some question in this thread about what exactly John Edwards means when he says he would "require that all new coal-fired plants be built with the required technology to capture their carbon dioxide emissions." Would he require that new coal plants sequester their emissions, or merely that they be built in such a way that they could sequester their emissions at some point in the future?
I called the Edwards campaign today. The answer is the latter: the ban would not require coal plants to sequester their emissions; it would merely require compatibility.
This is enormously significant difference. More later.
From that, there is no way to tell whether it is identical to the Dodd mandate, which requires that they have all the equipment required for sequestration, or is a weaker mandate.
What it is interpreted to mean is in itself is superior to the Clinton policy of providing subsidies for this kind of technology, since under the mandate it is an extra financial cost if building a coal power plant and so tilts the commercial balance in favor of wind farms.
And of course, not even Dodd's clear statement of his mandate requires the sequestration equipment to be used ... in reality, in either case, it is the carbon cap combined with either a tax or permit auction that is the real enforcement of sequestration.
In my humble opinion, that's never going to happen -- by the time you add sequestration, the electricity you produce will be far more expensive than you can already get from efficiency, wind, geothermal, concentrated solar, etc. (much less what you'll be able to get from them in 15 years when sequestration come online).
*************************************************
DOE says that current sequestration technology adds 2.5 to 4 cents per kWh depending on the process.
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/capture/index.html
According to this chart
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/comparative_costs.html
That puts it about even with natural gas at about 6 cents per kWh.
Solar PV costs are in the high teens per kWh, and solar thermal generators are trying to break through the 10 cent per kWh barrier. Wind is about 5 cents, but isn't dependable enough.
And with sequestration there's another revenue stream as CO2 is sold enhanced oil recovery.
> Dodd would forbid coal plants from being built
> unless they had working sequestration facilities.
> That means the coal industry would only get to
> build plants if they could get sequestration
> technology perfected, safe, scaled up, and at
> least somewhat economical.
Then we all get 85 mph, Nader-approved, dropping-free ponies.
Cranky
Edwards would prohibit any new generating capcity for 10 years, with all increased demand met by conservation.
That beats the hell out of requiring a technology that doesn't exist.
Carbon sequestration has been proven successful by Kinder-Morgan in Texas where over 1 billion cu ft of co2 daily are captured and pumped underground for permanent storage. We don't have a lot of options unless we go nuclear since there is going to be a severe natural gas shortage. If people do not want electricity they should go home and turn off their refrigerator!
Edwards would prohibit any new generating capcity for 10 years, with all increased demand met by conservation.
That beats the hell out of requiring a technology that doesn't exist.
Posted by DrFrankLives | September 12, 2007 2:02 AM
*************************************************
OBEWAN is right, the technology does exist. My company is working on two IGCC plants with carbon sequestration right now
Comments closed September 25, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Yglesias the environmentalist!
I like it.
Posted by Garuda | September 11, 2007 10:16 AM