More Coal, Less Sun

The Pennsylvania story brings into focus the coal debate, and asks how much effort should be devoted to research into, and development of, clean coal.  But is Solar Nation the place to be doing it?

It most certainly is, because the way we as a nation treat our future usage of coal impinges directly on solar energy’s development and deployment prospects.  We currently use coal for nearly half of our electricity needs, mainly because of its low cost;  this cost is, however, artificially low, thanks to government subsidies* and our failure to include harmful externalities in its price.  To be charitable, let us assume that Seth Grove, the state representative referenced by Annalise Gojmerac in the above story, is not aware of those externalities.  He would do well, then, to read Dexter Gauntlett’s article in Clean Edge, Inc. (jobs.cleanedge.com):

We can no longer ignore the not-so-hidden financial and human costs of coal.

To Capture or Not to Capture

If we continue to use coal without regard to its harmful effects, we mortgage our collective futures for the price of a kilowatt-hour.  If we attempt to capture and neutralize its carbon emissions, it changes from one of the cheapest to one of the most expensive fuels available**—and it’s by no means certain that those emissions can be effectively neutralized or sequestered.***  More to the point, the first of these options excludes solar from a pricing perspective, while the second would soak up invaluable resources that could be used to fund R&D in clean energy and energy efficiency.

Does this mean we should abandon research into carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) from coal emissions?  It does not.  It means we have to be very realistic about what to expect from CCS and adjust our national energy priorities, as well as our R&D investment targets, accordingly.  At present, there are no commercial-scale coal plants anywhere that employ CCS;  some experimental projects exist, but none to date have proved the concept.  And the industry’s commitment to CCS can be gauged by the fact that it spends roughly the same on it as it does on lobbying and advertising against it.  Nor is ‘clean coal’ available today, as the advertising implies.  Data from the projects currently under way will not be available for five years, meaning that it will be 2020 or later before any commercial plant employing CCS can be built.

In its own way, the above paragraph represents a nod to realpolitik.  There are many who believe that we can, and should, map out an energy roadmap in which coal, clean or otherwise, does not even appear.  It’s a tempting picture, and one not beyond the bounds of reason.  Could the amount of money currently thrown at fossil fuel, if redirected to advanced solar technologies, produce a breakthrough that would allow Solar to compete on an equal footing and thus vacate the arguments for using coal at all?

If we did not believe in that possibility, we should not be in the solar advocacy business.  But until it’s not only possible but actual, state and federal administrations may have to advocate for some level of spending on CCS as a concession to those who feel they will be disenfranchised by the ineluctable march toward clean energy.  Coal without CCS cannot even be on the table.  An overdependence on CCS will impoverish the truly sustainable options.  The challenge, both political and economic, will be to strike a balance that allows those in coal states to feel they are contributing to, and benefiting from, a truly sustainable future.

Coal Power in a Warming World

In 2008, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) produced a major report, Coal Power in a Warming World.****  It is worth our reproducing some of the passages from that report, to put CCS efforts into perspective.

First, the report allows us to question the automatic assumption that new coal plants need to be built:  

“As states adopt more and stricter laws requiring utilities to pursue energy efficiency and renewable energy, some utilities that until recently thought additional coal generation was needed have found that is no longer the case.  Increased federal efficiency requirements and a federal renewable electricity standard would increase utilities’ ability to meet our energy needs without new coal plants.”

The UCS report also clearly recognizes that investment in CCS must not overshadow investment directed to the more promising technologies of renewable energy and energy efficiency (RE & EE):

“One of the greatest risks associated with pursuing CCS is that it will prevent the nation from giving appropriate attention to truly clean and sustainable energy options (wind, concentrated solar, photovoltaic solar, geothermal, tidal power, biomass, and biofuels) and the myriad emerging technologies that can make us more efficient in our use of energy.  A recent study by the American Solar Energy Society (ASES) projected that the United States could obtain virtually all the CO₂ reductions needed up to 2030 by aggressively pursuing energy efficiency and renewable power.  In addition, the ASES study shows the United States can meet its energy needs and reduce emissions without relying on CCS, at least through 2030.”

The UCS report quotes an earlier MIT analysis that compared the costs of CCS and EE, and projected which technologies would meet global needs through 2050:

“While MIT strongly supports the development of CCS, its modeling showed that the world would save far more energy through efficiency measures than it would obtain from coal plants with CCS.”

The ‘tilted playing field’ of artificially cheap coal power and the poor state of R&D investment in clean energy is also addressed in the UCS report:

“The development of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies has been impeded over the years by the difficulty of competing with artificially inexpensive coal power (whose price does not fully reflect the enormous environmental and societal costs associated with its use).  Devoting a disproportionate share of federal R&D funding to CCS could accelerate the speed at which this technology evolves relative to cleaner options, further inhibiting the development and deployment of energy efficiency and renewable power.  Given the high stakes involved in combating global warming, we should not reduce R&D investment in coal with CCS but rather greatly expand R&D investment in efficiency and renewable technologies.

“Clearly, cleaner energy technologies are not receiving anything like the level of R&D investment they should receive given the profound nature of the threat we face.  Investment in technologies that can reduce CO₂ emissions should be greatly expanded, with the amount based on each technology’s relative potential to reduce emissions safely—not on the relative strength of the industry most invested in it.  Based on that criterion, renewable power and energy efficiency should receive more funding than coal with CCS.” 

We close with the recommendations of the UCS report on energy investments:

“State and federal governments should immediately adopt policies requiring the power sector to increase its investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency. These policies should include new or stronger renewable electricity standards (which require utilities to obtain a growing percentage of their power from renewable sources) along with energy efficiency requirements and appliance efficiency standards aimed at reducing retail energy demand by a growing percentage each year. 

“The federal government should provide far more R&D and demonstration funding for energy efficiency, concentrated solar, photovoltaic solar, geothermal, wind, tidal, biomass, biofuel, and energy storage technologies.”

Slightly Less Dirty vs. Clean

Thomas Kerr of the International Energy Agency recently stated that it is “highly unlikely” that we will reach our emissions reductions goals without CCS.  So to all those in the political arena for whom the abundance of coal reserves in their state represents a measure of satisfaction, we give notice:  don’t even think of building new coal-fired plants without CCS, and be prepared to fund CCS at those plants you have.  And to those at state and federal level charged with sprinkling R&D dollars around the energy sector, remember that all CCS does is to make coal somewhat less poisonous;  clean energy is exactly what it sounds like:  clean.

So sprinkle accordingly.

*According to the Government Accountability Office, fossil fuels (not just coal) received $13.7 billion in favorable tax treatment during the five-year period from 2002 to 2007, while renewable energy received $2.8 billion.

**Adding carbon capture and sequestration to the operation of a pulverized coal plant, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ report quoted, would increase its cost of energy by between 60% and 78%;  for an integrated gasification combined cycle plant, the figure would be between 29% and 36%,.   

***Researchers believe that CO₂ can be sequestered in depleted oil and gas reservoirs, unmineable coal seams or saline aquifers.  One of the great unknowns, however, is whether the CO₂ would leak into freshwater aquifers or the atmosphere.  Utilities would have to monitor the storage conditions on a permanent, effectively eternal basis, and it’s considered unlikely that insurance companies would cover them in the event of sequestration failure. 

****The full UCS report can be found here: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf