coal power in a warming world

7/30/2019 Coal Power in a Warming World

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/coal-power-in-a-warming-world 1/70

Coal Power in wming wdA SenSible TrAnSiTion To CleAner energy opTionS



Barbara Freese

Steve Clemmer

Alan Nogee

Union o Concerned Scientists

O c t O b e r 2 0 0 8




U n i O n O c O n c e r n e d S c i e n t i S t S

© 2008 Union o Concerned Scientists

All rights reserved

b s is a consultant specializing in coal and climate policy issues

and author o Coal: A Human History (Perseus, 2003).

S c is research director or the UCS Clean Energy Program.

a no is director o the UCS Clean Energy Program.

The Union o Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonproitworking or a healthy environment and a saer world.

The UCS Clean Energy Program examines the beneits and costs o the

country’s energy use and promotes energy solutions that are sustainable

both environmentally and economically.

More inormation about the Union o Concerned Scientists and the Clean

Energy Program is available on the UCS website at www.ucsusa.org.

The ull text o this report is available online (in PDF ormat) at

www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy or may be obtained rom:

UCS Publications

Two Brattle Square

Cambridge, MA 02238-9105

Or, email [email protected] or call (617) 547-5552.

D E S I G N : David Gerratt/NonproitDesign.com

C O V E R P H O T O S : Larry Lee Photography/Corbis (ront); Corbis Images (back)

Printed on recycled paper



c O a l p O w e r i n a w a r m i n g w O r l d

Figures

Acknowledgments

1 Executive Summary

5 c h a p t e r O n e

iouo

6 A Long List o Disadvantages7 Coal’s Role in the Climate Crisis

10 What Is Coal’s Future Role?

1 1 c h a p t e r t w O

a co toos ho pos u m cs

11 IGCC Facilitates Carbon Capture

13 Full-Scale, Integrated Demonstrations o CCS at Power Plants Are Needed

15 The Risks Posed by Commercial CCS Adoption Must Be Addressed

1 9 c h a p t e r t h r e e

t U Ss Sou a ccS dosos

19 Five to 10 Demonstration Projects Are Needed21 Demonstrations Should Achieve Actual Emissions Reductions

22 Demonstrations Can Be Funded by Cap-and-Trade Revenues

23 Demonstrations Could Yield Initial Results by 2013–2015

23 Recommendations on CCS Demonstrations

2 4 c h a p t e r O U r

t U Ss Sou So bu co ps ou ccS 24 New Coal Plants Will Still Produce Enormous Amounts o CO2

26 Build Now/Retroit Later Is a Dangerous Strategy

27 Building Coal Plants without CCS Is a Financial and Environmental Mistake

29 A Strong Perormance Standard or New Coal Plants Is Needed

30 Recommendations on Coal Plant Construction

3 1 c h a p t e r i v e

t U Ss Sou no Suo coolu too 32 Recommendations on Transportation Fuels

Contents



v U n i O n O c O n c e r n e d S c i e n t i S t S

3 3 c h a p t e r S i xcoogs too cou ru essos i i dss O Uss o co

33 Recommendations on Coal-to-Gas Technology

3 4 c h a p t e r S e v e n

t U Ss Sou d mo dos o e r e

34 The Power Sector Should Be Required to More Aggressively Deploy Clean Technologies

34 More Federal R&D Funding Is Needed to Ensure Other Technologies Can Compete Fairly

with Coal

36 Recommendations on Energy Investments

3 7 c h a p t e r e i g h t

t U.S. co po iuss mus ass d cus co ououis u c

38 Recommendations on Environmental and Societal Costs

3 9 c h a p t e r n i n e

t U Ss Sou ao So ct po 40 Recommendations on Cap-and-Trade

4 1 c h a p t e r t e n

ccS doso rsus Sou b S do nos 43 Recommendations on International Assistance

4 4 c h a p t e r e l e v e n

couso

4 5 Endnotes

5 0 Appendix A: Status o CCS Technology

5 7 Appendix B: Coal Fuel Cycle Issues



c O a l p O w e r i n a w a r m i n g w O r l d v

1 Figure 1: U.S. CO2 Emissions by Source, 2006

2 Figure 2: Rising Coal Emissions Compared with Needed U.S. Economy-wide Emissions Reductions by 2050

3 Figure 3: Geologic Sequestration o CO2

5 Figure 4: U.S. Power Plants by Fuel Type

6 Figure 5: U.S. Coal Mining Employment

8 Figure 6: CO2 Emissions rom Coal- and Gas-ired Power Plants

9 Figure 7: U.S. Electricity Generation by Source, 2007

9 Figure 8: Status o Proposed U.S. Coal-ired Power Plants

11 Figure 9: Inside an IGCC Power Plant

13 Figure 10: Emissions rom Pulverized Coal and IGCC Coal Plants

14 Figure 11: Potential Geologic Sequestration Sites or CO2

16 Figure 12: Possible Routes o CO2 Leakage and Migration

17 Figure 13: Costs o Adding Carbon Capture to Coal-ired Power Plants

18 Figure 14: Loss o Plant Output Caused by Carbon Capture

18 Figure 15: Power Plant Construction Cost Escalation, 2000–2008

21 Figure 16: Scale o CCS Proposals

24 Figure 17: Distribution o U.S. Coal-ired Power Plants by Age

25 Figure 18: Construction and Retirement o U.S. Coal-ired Power Plants

26 Figure 19: Added Loss o Plant Output rom Carbon Capture Retroits

27 Figure 20: Cumulative Consumer Energy Bill Savings under a 20 Percent National Renewable Electricity Standard

28 Figure 21: Proposed Coal Plants Cancelled or Rejected by Regulators

31 Figure 22: Lie Cycle Global Warming Impact o Liquid Fuels Relative to Gasoline

35 Figure 23: Potential CO2 Emissions Reductions rom Energy Eiciency and Renewable Technologies

39 Figure 24: Regional Cap-and-Trade Markets

41 Figure 25: Coal Use in China, India, and the United States

Figures



v U n i O n O c O n c e r n e d S c i e n t i S t S

Acknowledgments

This report was made possible in part through the generous support o Educational Foundation

o America, The Energy Foundation, Fresh Sound Foundation, Inc., The Joyce Foundation,

The Korein Foundation, Adam Joseph Lewis, Oak Foundation, NoraLee and Jon Sedmak, and

Wallace Global Fund.

We would like to thank Steve Brick, Kurt Gottried, Bill Grant, John Neilsen, Bruce Nilles, Rol

Nordstrom, Keith Reopelle, David Schlissel, Daniel Schrag, John Thompson, and David Wooley or

many insightul comments on the drat report. We would also like to thank UCS sta that provided

helpul input on the report, including Ron Burke, Rachel Cleetus, David Friedman, Peter Frumho,Jeremy Martin, Patricia Monahan, Alden Meyer, Michelle Robinson, Suzanne Shaw, Lexi Shultz,

and Marchant Wentworth.

We thank our editor Bryan Wadsworth or making the report more readable and overseeing

production o the report, David Gerratt or the attractive design and layout, and Joe Sullivan and

Kristen Gra or developing and collecting the high-quality graphics and pictures.

The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily relect those o the organizations that

unded the work or o the reviewers. The opinions and inormation expressed herein are the

sole responsibility o the authors.




Executive Summary

igure 1: u.S. CO2 emssons by Soc, 2006

co o s o cO2—ou o o

U.S. o— o sou, u su soo.

Source: Energy Inormation Administration (EIA). 2008. Annual energy outlook 2008. And: EIA. 2007.Emission o greenhouse gases in the United States 2006.

I the United States continues burning coalthe way it does today, it will be impossibleto achieve the reductions in heat-trapping emissions needed to prevent dangerous levelso global warming. Coal-ired power plants

represent the nation’s largest source o carbon diox-ide (CO2, the main heat-trapping gas causing climatechange), and coal plant emissions must be cut sub-

stantially i we are to have a reasonable chance o avoiding the worst consequences o climate change.

treading a dangerOUS path Yet despite the urgent need to reduce CO2 emis-sions, the United States is poised to increase its emis-sions greatly—by building many more coal plants. Virtually all o these new plants, like existing ones, would lack so-called carbon capture and storage(CCS) technology—equipment that would allow a plant to capture CO2 beore it is released and thenstore it underground.

CCS is still an emerging technology. It has thepotential to substantially reduce CO2 emissions rom

t U Ss s os o u

o o o s,

o ou o U.S. .

Photo: Larry Lee Photography/Corbis

coal plants, but it also aces many challenges. In itscurrent orm the technology would greatly increasethe cost o building and running coal plants whilegreatly reducing their power output. In addition, care-ul selection and monitoring o geologic storage (or“sequestration”) sites, and the development o regula-tory standards and mechanisms to guide this process, will be needed to minimize the environmental risksassociated with CO2 leakage (including groundwatercontamination).

For CCS to play a major role in reducing CO2 emissions, an enormous new inrastructure must beconstructed to capture, process, and transport largequantities o CO2. And although CCS has been thesubject o considerable research and analysis, it has yetto be demonstrated in the orm o commercial-scale,ully integrated projects at coal-ired power plants.Such demonstration projects are needed to determinethe relative cost-eectiveness o CCS compared withother carbon-reducing strategies, and to assess its environmental saety—particularly at the very large scale

Aviation4%

Surface Transport

30%

Industrial17%

Commercial4%

Residential6%

Other ElectricityGeneration

7%

Coal Plants32%




igure 2: rsn Coal emssons Compad wth Ndd u.S.economy-wd emssons rdctons by 2050

i cO2 ssos o o o s ou o s s oj U.S. e ioo

aso, oss o U Ss o s oo ssos u

os s o so o o os s o . i , oj

ssos o o s o ou o o o ssos o o

oo—u soo, s, o, us, uu sos—

2020 2040. t U Ss ou o u s o ssos s 80 o

2000 s 2050 o o uos so u.

Source: Luers et al. 2007. How to avoid dangerous climate change: A target or U.S. emissions reductions.Projected emissions through 2030 rom EIA, Annual energy outlook 2007 and Annual energy outlook 2008, Reerence case, extrapolated to 2050 by UCS. EIA emissions projections are lower in EIA 2008, largely because o the

December 2007 passage o the Energy Independence and Security Act.

mouo

o

a

sos ous s,

uu

os

o o. ts

oo, k

d 2005,

sos

oo o

m

o, wv.

Photo: Vivian Stockman, OhioEnvironmental Coalition(ohvec.org)

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Business as Usual:Economy-wide (EIA 2008)

Business as Usual:

Coal Power Plants (EIA 2008)

Emissions ReductionRange (450 ppm CO2eq)

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

U . S .

A n n u a l E m i s s i o n s ( M M t C O

2 e q )

Business as Usual:

Economy-wide (EIA 2007)




o deployment needed or CCS to contribute signii-cantly to the ight against global warming.

Already, the United States gets about hal o itselectricity rom coal plants that lack CCS. Building more coal plants without CCS would not only in-crease the risk o irreversible and dangerous climatechange but also increase our nation’s dependence ona uel whose mining and use cause other environ-mental damages, human health problems, and dead-ly accidents. Furthermore, an expansion o our coalleet could inhibit the development o inherently cleaner, saer, and more sustainable technologiessuch as energy eiciency and renewable power (e.g., wind, solar).

he coal industry is even planning to develop new markets or coal in the orm o liquid and gas uelsor transportation and other purposes. “Liquid coal” would increase net CO2 emissions even i the conver-

sion process employed CCS technology, and wouldgreatly increase CO2 emissions without it. Coal-to-gastechnology could either increase CO2 emissions or de-crease them depending on whether it displaces otheruses o coal.

the way tO a cleaner, Saer UtUreGiven the critical importance o combating climatechange, all coal-related investments and policiesshould be judged by the ultimate standard o wheth-er they will reduce global warming pollution at the

co u so

(ccS) oo ou o

cO2 o o o s

o u j o

oo oos su s

o s sos,

u o ss, o s

us. no o o

s u o s

oo, u s o

s oso ojs

ou ou

o.

Source: Alberta Geological Survey.

pace and on the scale needed to avoid the worst con-sequences o climate change. Other considerationsshould include the environmental, human health andsaety, and socioeconomic impacts o such invest-ments and policies.

With these standards in mind, the United Statesshould:• Increaseresearchanddevelopment(R&D)for

CCS to evaluate the technology’s potential in theastest way possible. he United States should und5 to 10 ull-scale, integrated CCS demonstrationprojects at coal-ired power plants, using dier-ent types o generation and capture technologiesand dierent types o sequestration sites. Investing in demonstration projects is warranted given thepromise this technology holds and is needed todetermine whether wider deployment is appropri-ate, but it is premature to provide incentives or

widespread deployment.hese demonstration projects (and a detailedsurvey o possible sequestration sites) should beunded initially by a modest ee paid by operatorso existing coal plants and later by a small portiono the revenue generated by auctions o pollutionallowances under a cap-and-trade program. Sup-port should be ocused on CCS demonstrationprojects that actually reduce emissions rom exist-ing coal plants. In addition, the demonstration prog-ram should include the development o regulatory

igure 3: goloc Sqstaton o CO2




protocols or selecting and monitoring sequestra-tion sites. As the technology becomes proven atcommercial scale, it should be eligible to competeagainst other carbon-reducing technologies orunds intended to accelerate deployment.

• Stopbuildingnewcoal-firedpowerplantswith-outCCS. Each new coal plant built without CCSrepresents a major long-term source o CO2. It isnot sae to assume that new coal plants built today without CCS could cost-eectively add it later,because the cost o CCS (considerable even whenincluded in the plant’s original design) would bemuch higher i added as a retroit. he ederalgovernment should thereore adopt a strong per-ormance standard limiting CO2 emissions romnew coal plants, which will prevent the construc-tion o any plant not employing CCS rom the

outset. Until such a policy is put in place, stateregulators should evaluate proposed plants using a projected range o prices those plants would likely have to pay or their CO2 emissions under a cap-and-trade program.

• Stopinvestinginnewcoal-to-liquidplantsandreject policies that support such investments. Coal-to-liquid technology cannot reduce CO2 emissions (compared with petroleum-based u-els), but it could greatly increase those emissions.It should not, thereore, have any part in our ener-gy uture. All transportation uels should be heldto a low-carbon perormance standard that limitsglobal warming pollution and provides saeguardsagainst other environmental damage.

• Ensurethatanycoal-to-gasplantsemployCCSandthattheresultingfuelisusedtooffsetcoaluseratherthannaturalgasuse.Because coal-to-gas plants could either help or hinder our eortsto ight global warming, regulations are needed toensure that this technology leads to CO2 reduc-tions, not increases.

• Significantly increasebothdeploymentof and

R&D for energy efficiency and renewable en-ergy. States and the ederal government shouldadopt policies such as renewable electricity stan-dards, energy eiciency programs, and applianceeiciency standards that would accelerate the de-ployment o energy eiciency and renewable en-ergy technologies. he ederal government shouldalso greatly expand its R&D and demonstrationunding or these technologies (including energy storage technologies). Federal research money

has long ocused disproportionately on coal andnuclear power, greatly underunding inherently cleaner technologies despite their tremendouspotential. Given the urgency o the threat posedby global warming, this underunding must be

corrected.In combination, these deployment and

R&D investments in energy eiciency and re-newable energy will minimize the near-termcost o reducing carbon emissions, buy timeuntil the cost-eectiveness o CCS can bedemonstrated at commercial scale, ensure a diverse set o long-term low-carbon options, andavoid perpetuating the undue advantage coal haslong had over cleaner energy technologies.

• Adopt statutes and stronger regulations thatwillreducetheenvironmentalandsocietalcosts

ofcoaluse throughout the uel cycle. Our use o coal, rom mining through waste disposal, hasserious impacts on the saety and health o bothhumans and our environment. Policies are neededto reduce these impacts and place coal on a morelevel playing field with low-carbon alternatives.his would include a ban on mountaintop re-moval mining and tougher standards or mercury emissions, mine saety, and waste disposal. Any ederal policy that promotes coal use, including ongoing or expanded CCS subsidies, must be ac-companied by such measures.

• Put a price on CO 2 emissions by adopting astrong economy-wide cap-and-trade program that, in concert with other policies, will drive emis-sions reductions rom existing coal plants and helpensure that the price o coal relects its true costs.he revenues generated by the auction o pollu-tion allowances under this cap-and-trade programshould be used to 1) augment deployment o themost cost-eective low-carbon technologies and2) provide assistance to communities and workersaected by any coal plant or mine closures.

• Ensurethe transferof low-carbon technologiestoothercountries —especially developing coun-tries such as China and India—to reduce the seri-ous threat posed by the world’s expanding use o coal without CCS. he United States should alsoprovide financing or the international deploy-ment o low-carbon technologies such as integrat-ed gasification combined cycle (IGCC) and CCS(where such technologies are cost-eective relativeto other low-carbon alternatives).




Introduction

c h a p t e r O n e

t o 500 o o s U Ss (o s o 200 mw so ).

Source: Hydro-Québec. No date. Online at http://www.hydroquebec.com/sustainable-development/documentation/pd/autres/carte_emissions.pd . Accessed August 28, 2008.

Coal, a sedimentary organic rock witha high concentration o carbon (be-tween 40 and 90 percent by weight),is the most widely used uel or gen-erating electricity in both the United

States and the world. It has the advantages o being relatively abundant and widely distributed. Whiletotal U.S. coal reserves are diicult to estimate, it is

probable that this country has at least a 100-year sup-ply at today’s consumption levels1—ar more than ourdomestic supplies o oil and natural gas.

While coal-ired power plants cost more to buildthan plants that burn other ossil uels, the tradition-

ally low cost o coal has made it relatively inexpensiveand proitable or utilities to continue operating the500 or so existing coal plants that currently supply about hal o the nation’s electricity.2 he Merrimaccoal plant in New Hampshire, or example, earned animplied rate o return o 67 percent in 2005, accord-ing to a utility calculation.3

Coal contributes signiicantly to the economies

o a number o communities and states, through jobs and revenue rom mining and power plant op-erations. More than 80,000 people were employed by coal mines in 2006,4 and thousands more in coal-iredpower plants. Coal is currently mined in 26 states,

igure 4: u.S. Pow Plants by l Typ

HydroNuclearNatural GasOilCoal




though 62 percent o the coal used in the UnitedStates in 2006 came rom just three states: Kentucky, West Virginia, and Wyoming.5

a lOng liSt O diSadvantageSCoal’s advantages must be weighed against its many disadvantages:

• Te underground mining o coal is a dangerousproession, and underground and surace mining are both highly damaging to landscapes, water

supplies, and ecosystems.• About 40 percent o U.S. railroad reight trac is

devoted to the transport o coal. Viewed another way, ueling our coal-fired power plants or a sin-gle year requires the equivalent o a 104,000-mile-long train—long enough to circle the earth morethan our times.

• Te burning o coal releases more than 100 pol-lutants into the atmosphere. It is the largest sourceo sulur dioxide emissions (which cause acidrain), the second largest source o nitrogen oxides(which contribute to smog and asthma attacks),

and the largest source o fine soot particles (whichcontribute to thousands o premature deaths romheart and lung disease yearly).6 Coal plants are alsothe largest remaining source o human-generatedmercury, which contaminates lakes and streams,the fish that live in them, and anyone who eatsthose fish.7

• Cooling and scrubbing coal plants requires copi-ous volumes o water. Power plants in general areresponsible or approximately 39 percent o U.S.reshwater withdrawals, second only to agricultural

igure 5: u.S. Coal Mnnemploymnt

Jos U.S. o us o o

700,000 1920s

o o 83,000 2007.

Source: National Mining Association. 2007. Trends in U.S. Coal Mining, 1923–2007.

Su o’s o o s o s

us u o 104,000o —o ou

o e o ou s. Photo: PictureQuest

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,00

100,00

0

E m p l o y e d C o a l M i n e

r s




irrigation.8 While most o that water is returned tothe source, the act o withdrawal kills fish, insectlarvae, and other organisms, and aquatic ecosys-tems are urther damaged by the return o waterthat is both hotter than when it was withdrawn

and contains chlorine or biocides added to protectplant operations.9

• Mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia per-manently destroys mountains and adjacent val-leys, has destroyed hundreds o thousands o acreso orests, and has buried more than 700 miles o some o the most biologically diverse streams inthe country.10

• Coal mining and combustion both create wastesthat must be disposed. Combustion results inmore than 120 million tons o y ash, bottom ash,boiler slag, and sludge rom air pollution controls

annually—roughly the same amount as all mu-nicipal solid waste disposed in U.S. landfills eachyear.11 Tough uses have been ound or some o this material, most o it goes into landfills and sur-ace impoundments, rom which mercury, lead,cadmium, arsenic, and other toxic constituentso this waste can leak out and contaminate watersupplies.12 Mining wastes, particularly in the hun-dreds o coal slurry impoundments in Appalachia,also pose serious environmental threats.

• Most importantly, coal is the most carbon-inten-sive uel. Even newer coal plants produce morethan two times the CO2 emissions o a new natu-ral gas combined cycle plant and over 50 percentmore than the CO2 emissions o generating elec-tricity with oil.13 CO2 emissions are the predomi-nant human contribution to global warming, andcoal plants represent the single biggest source(about one-third) o the U.S. share o these emis-sions—about the same as all o our cars, trucks,buses, trains, planes, and boats combined.14 Tefinal third o U.S. CO2 emissions come rom os-sil uels used in natural gas- and oil-fired power

plants, industry, businesses, and residences.

cOal’S rOle in the climate criSiSGlobal warming poses a proound threat to humanity and the natural world, and is one o the most seri-ous challenges humankind has ever aced. he atmo-spheric concentration o CO2 has reached levels theplanet has not experienced or hundreds o thousandso years, and the global mean temperature has beenrising steadily or more than a century as a result. heIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

e , ouo o s o o s— o

s o o o o ouo oos—uss us o ouss o s ks ous o ouss o u

s o u ss. Photo: James Estrin/The New Times/Redux

co ss uu us o ous (o

so su os) a. i 2000, 300 o os

o s s o ou iz, Ky, o

o b S r, k 1.6 o s o

sus o 27,000 o. Photo: Paul Corbit Brown




igure 6: CO2 emssons om Coal- and gas-fd Pow Plantsco s—

s os

f— o

s u

cO2 ou s u

s s.

Source: National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2007.Cost and perormance baseline

or ossil energy plants.

Subcritical Supercritical Average of 3 IGCC Types

Natural GasCombined Cycle

C O

2 E m i s s i o n s ( l b s / M W

h n e t )

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,4001,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

and scientiic academies around the world (includ-

ing the U.S. National Academy o Sciences) have allstated that human activity, especially the burning o ossil uels, is a major driver o this warming trend.

he window or holding global warming pol-lution to reasonably sae levels is closing quickly. Forthe world to have a reasonable chance o avoiding the worst consequences o global warming, the UnitedStates must cut its heat-trapping emissions at least80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050.15 his re-quirement assumes that our emissions peak in 2010and then immediately begin to decline. I emissions

keep rising beyond 2010, we will need to make even

deeper cuts.Remarkably, despite the urgent need to reduce

CO2 emissions rom coal plants, the nation is current-ly making major long-term investments in new coalplants that will greatly increase CO2 emissions. Ater a couple o decades in which almost no new coal plants were built, utilities around the nation are proposing to build more than 100 such plants. he U.S. Depart-ment o Energy (DOE), which has been tracking coal plant announcements and periodically reporting on their status, estimated in February 2008 that 47

go ouo o

o o s o

sous us u soo

o so

o o os osus

o (..,

o o ss ou

s o s s ).

Photo: iStockphoto




coal plant proposals were “progressing” (meaning theplants were under construction, near construction,or in the permitting phase).16 Another 67 have beenannounced. Altogether, these 114 proposed plants would represent a 20 percent increase in the size o

our coal leet, substantially expanding the nation’s de-pendence on the resource that already dominates ourelectricity mix and has the most adverse environmen-tal impact.17

he impact o these new plants on global warm-ing pollution speciically would be enormous. I only hal were built, they would emit as much CO 2 in a year as 39 million cars, and would continue to do soor decades.18 Even worse, the DOE has projectedthat 167 coal plants would be built under a busi-ness-as-usual scenario (i.e., one that does not includeany policies to reduce global warming emissions),

which would result in a 33 percent increase in coalplant CO2 emissions over current levels by 2030.19 Such a scenario would make it impossible to achievethe steep, economy-wide emissions reductions weneed (see Figure 2, p. 2).20

Additionally, the coal industry has visions o converting coal into both a liquid (as a substitute ordiesel and gasoline in transportation) and a gas (as a substitute or natural gas). Peabody Coal, the nation’slargest coal producer, recently told inancial analyststhat it expects U.S. coal consumption to nearly triple

igure 8: Stats o Poposd u.S. Coal-fd Pow Plants

poss o o 114 ooss o o s—s o 65,000 s (mw)

o —s k U.S. d o e.

Source: National Energy Technology Laboratory.

C a p a c

i t y A d d i t i o n s ( M W )

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Operational

Announced

Progressing

igure 7: u.S. elctcty gnatonby Soc, 2007

t U Ss os o

o o o s o

o o oo.

Source: Energy Inormation Administration. 2008. Electric power monthly. August 25.

Other0.3%

Coal48.6%

Natural Gas21.8%

Nuclear19.4%

Other Renewables2.5%

Oil1.6%

Hydro5.8%

rom its current level o 1 billion tons per year by 2030. New power plants would comprise about 500million tons or more o the additional consumption,



0 U n i O n O c O n c e r n e d S c i e n t i S t S

“t o o cO2 s

o o o ous ,

ssous s o u o

s o , s o s ou us

o o o s cO2

s u sus.”

— Dr. James Hansen, director o NASA’s Goddard Institute

or Space Studies (written testimony submitted to the Iowa

Utilities Board, November 5, 2007)

with coal-to-gas contributing 340 million tons andliquid coal another 1 billion tons.21

what iS cOal’S UtUre rOle?In the months since the number o proposed coal

plants tracked by the DOE peaked at 151 in May 2007, a growing number o cancellations have beenannounced. In 2007, regulators rejected plants in

Florida, Kansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, andOregon. Eight o 11 proposed plants were cancelledin an investor buyout o XU in exas, and anothereight were cancelled or deeated in Illinois. In total,about 60 proposals were cancelled or deeated in 27

states in 2007.22 here are many technologies available to meet our

growing energy needs without building more conventional coal plants. In addition to technologies orincreasing energy eiciency, harnessing renewable en-ergy resources such as the wind and sun, and improv-ing the saety and security o nuclear power plants,advanced coal technologies not yet in use may providean opportunity or our coal reserves to continue play-ing a role in the nation’s energy uture.

his report examines the prospects and challengesacing these emerging coal technologies. We also o-

er recommendations or ensuring such technologieshave a air opportunity to compete or market share, while not jeopardizing our ultimate transition to re-sources that may be less expensive and pose ewer environmental and health risks.




Advanced Coal Technologies Hold Promisebut Face Many Challenges

c h a p t e r t w O

A

t the moment, there is no commercially available control technology that canbe added to existing coal-ired powerplants in order to reduce their CO2 emissions in the way that scrubbers and

baghouses can be installed to capture sulur dioxide

and particulate emissions, respectively. However, car-bon capture and storage (CCS) is an emerging tech-nology that, especially when combined with advancedcombustion technology, would allow plant operatorsto capture CO2, transport it to a “geologic seques-tration” site, and pump it into the ground, whereit would ideally remain saely stored over the very long term.

his process has not yet been employed on a com-mercial scale at any power plant, though as we discussbelow and in Appendix A, several projects that wouldemploy commercial-scale CCS at power plants are

under development.23 Most o the component tech-nologies are already being used commercially in otherindustrial applications.

An important potential beneit o developing CCStechnology is that it may someday be applied to powerplants that burn or gasiy biomass (plant-based ma-terials). Such a power plant could actually be carbon-negative because the plant matter comprising thebiomass will have taken CO2 rom the air through the

process o photosynthesis, and CCS technology willthen capture the CO2 and store it underground. Hav-ing the ability to achieve negative CO2 emissions inuture decades may well be needed i we are to keepglobal CO2 concentrations at relatively sae levels.

igcc acilitateS carbOn captUre Almost all coal plants operating today use “pulverizedcoal” technology, which involves grinding the coal,burning it to make steam, and using the steamto generate electricity. A newer technology knownas integrated gasiication combined cycle (IGCC)

converts coal into a gas, runs the gas through a com-bustion turbine to generate electricity, and uses theexcess heat rom that process to generate additional

i so o (igcc) oo s o u ssu o o “ss.” ts s s

o u suu; o u ou o s o cO2

s . a s u s u (o s o s u) o .

Source: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Environmental ootprints and costs o coal-based integrated gasication combined cycle and pulverized coal technologies.

igure 9: insd an igCC Pow Plant

Coal

Oxygen

Syngas

Solid waste(Slag) requiringdisposal

Mercury To be disposedof as solid waste

Sulfur To be disposedof as solid wasteor used in industrialapplications

CO2 To be pumpedunderground

Optional CO2 separation

and removal

Waste heat

Electricity

Gas turbineElectricity

Steamturbine

GasifierGas cleaning

processes




electricity via a steam turbine (hence the term “com-bined cycle”).

here are only our coal-ired IGCC plants oper-ating in the world, two in the United States and two inEurope. O the 114 proposed coal plants cited above,32 would use IGCC technology rather than tradi-tional pulverized coal technology.24 However, some o these 32 plants are among the 17 announced IGCCplants that have been cancelled,25 and as o mid-2008only one such plant, in Indiana, was actively underconstruction.26 In Ohio, construction that began in2005 on a new IGCC plant to be ueled by petroleumcoke (or “petcoke,” a solid by-product o petroleumreining very similar to coal) was subsequently halted,reportedly or inancial reasons; legal challenges overits air permit may prevent construction rom recom-mencing.27 And construction on a Florida IGCC plant

to be ueled by coal and backed by a ederal loan guar-antee was suddenly cancelled just two months ater itsSeptember 2007 groundbreaking. he plant’s utility backers cited the growing likelihood that uture limitson CO2 emissions would increase operational costs.28

Recent market developments have made IGCCtechnology more commercially available. Proponentso the technology note that three large corporations—GE, Mitsubishi, and Siemens—now oer all o themajor IGCC components in a single package, reduc-ing the risk to power companies.29 However, as noted

above, several commercial-scale IGCC projects havebeen cancelled or ace an uncertain uture, raising ques-tions about whether the technology is in act commer-cially viable (at least under current climate policies).

IGCC technology is currently more expensivethan pulverized coal technology, but it has certainenvironmental advantages. While modern pollu-tion controls or nitrogen oxides, sulur dioxide, andparticulate matter can dramatically reduce emissionsrom pulverized coal plants (by 90 to 99 percent),IGCC plants are capable o even greater reductions.It is also easier and less costly to capture and disposeo mercury rom an IGCC plant than rom a pulver-ized coal plant, which will be increasingly importantas mercury restrictions come into eect in the yearsahead. Additionally, while IGCC plants still use a great deal o water, they use 20 to 35 percent less than

pulverized coal plants.30

he most important environmental advantageIGCC has over pulverized coal is that it is more ame-nable to carbon capture. he gasiication process al-lows or the separation and capture o CO2 prior tocombustion, when it is still in a relatively concentrat-ed and pressurized orm (see Appendix A). Pulverizedcoal plants can only capture CO2 ater combustion, when it is ar more diluted and harder to separate.So while carbon capture technology adds greatly tothe cost o an IGCC plant (discussed in more detail

t o

igcc s u

o

U

Ss; 260

mw u so

s o

pok po

So

t, l.

Photo: Teco Energy




below), it costs even more to add it to a pulverizedcoal plant.

Pre- and post-combustion technologies are bothexpected to capture between 85 and 95 percent o a plant’s CO2, but when actoring in the additional uel

used just to power the CO2 removal process, the actu-al amount o CO2 avoided per unit o electricity allsto the 80 to 90 percent range.31 Importantly, IGCCplants without carbon capture technology will emitabout as much CO2 as the most eicient new pulver-ized coal plants.32

None o the 32 proposed IGCC plants identi-ied by the ederal government includes carbon cap-ture technology.33 wo additional projects that wouldinclude carbon capture are not on the government’slist: a proposed coal-ired IGCC plant in Washing-ton State and a proposed petcoke-ired IGCC plant

in Caliornia (see Appendix A). Other IGCC projects with CCS have been announced in Australia, China,and Europe.34

he U.S. government had planned to subsidize a major IGCC demonstration plant with CCS technol-ogy called FutureGen. his project, a joint public-private partnership, would have constructed a 275MW plant in Mattoon, IL, but the DOE withdrew its support in January 2008 due to cost overruns. heDOE has since restructured the FutureGen programto provide unding or the CCS portion o multiplecommercial power plants rather than subsidizing an entire plant with CCS; these unds appear to beocused on, but not limited to, IGCC plants.35 Mean- while, the private-sector backers o the original Fu-tureGen plant in Illinois have been trying to keep thatproject alive, and a Senate appropriations subcom-mittee voted in July 2008 to restore $134 million inunding or that plant.36

Most analysts believe that the pre-combustionCCS technology that could be used at IGCC plantsis the most advanced and shows the greatest potentialor widespread deployment. One prominent study

has noted, however, that the race between pre- andpost-combustion technologies is not over, and it is tooearly to declare a winner.37

Ull-Scale, integrateddemOnStratiOnS O ccS atpOwer plantS are needed

With its potential to play a signiicant role in help-ing the world avoid the worst consequences o global warming, CCS technology is gaining attention andresearch unding around the world. Computer mod-

els cited by the IPCC indicate that CCS could eventu-ally contribute between 15 and 54 percent o the CO2 reductions needed by 2100,38 and could also lower by 30 percent or more the cost o stabilizing CO2 con-centrations.39 Most o the analyses reviewed by theIPCC indicate that the majority o CCS deployment would occur in the second hal o the century.40

More recent studies have ound that advancedcoal plants with CCS technology could make a signi-icant contribution to CO2 reductions at costs o ap-proximately $25 to $50 per ton o CO2.

41 (However,

as we will discuss in Chapter 3, most o these studiesuse optimistic cost estimates, which may overstate thelikely role o CCS compared with other low-carbontechnologies.)

In addition to the IGCC projects noted above that would include pre-combustion CCS technology, sev-eral projects have been announced that would testpost-combustion CCS at pulverized coal plants. Someo these are relatively small pilot projects that arealready under way.42 Others include larger-scale dem-onstration projects that would add CCS capability to

igure 10: emssons om Plvzd Coaland igCC Coal Plants

co oo o o s, igcc s

o ssos o oo ous u

o os, suu o, o oo, u ,

o o oous. (us s o uous o.)

Source: Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Environmental ootprints and costs o coal-based integrated

gasication combined cycle and pulverized coal technologies.

Pulverized Coal

(Subcritical)

IGCC

E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t ( l b / M W h )

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

Pollutant

CO SO2 NOX PM VOC




igure 11: Potntal goloc Sqstaton Sts o CO2

t U.S. d o e ss oo oos no a ou so us o s’

o o U.S. cO2 ssos u . ao oos ou u o s s, u

o ss, s us.

Source: National Energy Technology Laboratory. No date. Carbon sequestration atlas o the United States and Canada.

cO2 SouscO2 Suso Ss:d S oos

cO2 Suso Ss:O gs oos

cO2 Suso Ss:co Ss

Within the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership

(RCSP) regions and the northeastern United States, 4,365

acilities generate 3.809 billion metric tons o CO2.

CO2 storage capacity in saline ormations could be

as high as 3,378 billion metric tons or the RCSP

regions.

CO2 storage capacity in oil and natural gas ormations

is estimated at 82.4 billion metric tons or the RCSP

regions.

Capacity estimates or unmineable coal seams

range up to 183.5 billion metric tons or the RCSP

regions.




existing plants43 or incorporate CCS into new plants(see Appendix A).44 hese larger-scale projects willgenerally require policy changes or government incen-tives to go orward.

In terms o the kinds o geologic ormations con-

sidered most suitable or carbon sequestration, researchershave identiied depleted oil and gas ields, coal seamsthat cannot be mined, and deep saline aquiers. InNorth America, these ormations together represent a storage potential equivalent to hundreds o years’ wortho emissions based on the current U.S. emissions rateo six gigatons per year.45

he energy industry already has considerable ex-perience with injecting CO2 into oil and gas ields, where it is used to increase production in a processcalled enhanced oil recovery (EOR). his increasedproductivity can oset some o the costs o the cap-

ture and storage process, making power plants nearEOR sites the most commercially viable candidatesor CCS technology.

However, potential EOR sites are relatively lim-ited in number and not widely dispersed. Such sitesmay thereore represent only 2 to 7 percent o totalNorth American storage potential.46 In addition, theU.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has determined thatthe distances between the largest existing sources o CO2 (including coal plants) and potential storage sitesin large oil and gas ields would require the develop-ment o a processing and transportation inrastructurelarger than that o the current U.S. natural gas andpetroleum industry.47

CO2 can also be sequestered in deep saline aqui-ers, which could represent a ar more abundant and widespread storage option than EOR sites—possibly more than 90 percent o total North American storagepotential.48 However, much less is known about sa-line disposal than EOR. Researchers are also investi-gating carbon sequestration in basalt ormations,though these are not nearly as widely dispersed assaline aquiers.

Some have also proposed injecting CO2 into deepocean waters, but due to signiicant concern aboutthis strategy’s potential environmental impact andpotential lack o permanence, interest has declined.49 More recently, scientists have suggested injecting CO2 into the sediments on the ocean loor, where the nat-ural temperature and pressure conditions could prevent the CO2 rom rising and mixing with the ocean water.50 I it is determined that CO2 can be saely stored in deep-sea sediments (that is, under thou-sands o eet o seawater and a ew hundred meters o

sediment), this option would oer vast storage poten-tial51—though it would also involve the added cost o transporting the CO2 out to sea. he strategy has yetto be ield tested.

here are multiple small sequestration pilot proj-

ects planned or under way around the world,52 butthere are only our major geologic sequestration proj-ects or CO2 currently in operation. hree—in Algeria,Canada, and the North Sea—have been operating ora ew years; the ourth began storing CO2 o Norway’scoast in April 2008. wo o these projects inject CO2 into saline aquiers (North Sea and Norway), one in- jects CO2 into a depleted gas reservoir (Algeria), andone uses the CO2 or enhanced oil recovery (Canada).None o these projects involve CO2 captured romcoal-ired power plants, however.53

Six new projects that will inject CO2 rom various

sources into diverse geologic ormations have recently been awarded DOE grants. While these are consid-ered large-scale projects, most o them are smaller inscale than the our existing projects described above.54 wo plan to obtain CO2 rom post-combustion cap-ture added to existing coal plants.

he our existing sequestration projects describedabove each sequester between 0.75 million and 1.5million tons o CO2 annually, and the largest o thesix new DOE-unded ield tests will sequester about1 million tons annually.55 Unortunately, a single new 600-megawatt (MW) coal plant emits more than 4million tons per year—equivalent to the volume o approximately our Empire State Buildings.56 For CCSto play a major role in reducing global warming pol-lution, we would need thousands o sequestrationprojects the size o those described above.

the riSKS pOSed by cOmmercial ccSadOptiOn mUSt be addreSSedCCS technology comes with its own set o environ-mental and health risks, including the risk o slow leaks that would undermine its capacity or reducing

global warming pollution.57

Rapid leaks o CO2,either rom a storage site or pipeline, could pose a local danger since high concentrations o this gas canbe atal.58

CO2 could also migrate underground and contam-inate reshwater aquiers.59 his risk would increase inthe presence o abandoned oil and gas wells that canprovide conduits or migration. It is even possible thatinjecting massive quantities o CO2 into the groundcould trigger earthquakes, though the risk is consid-ered small.60




he permanence o CO2 storage is the greatestconcern rom a global warming perspective. Becausethis gas has the potential to contribute to global warm-ing or hundreds and possibly thousands o years, it isessential that long-term leakage rates be very small.

Detailed analyses o CCS have concluded thatlong-term storage is technically easible, and that therisks are not unlike those aced in other industrial ac-tivities.61 he authors o one prominent report con-cluded that they have “conidence that large-scale CO2

injection projects can be operated saely.”62

he IPCCconcluded that CO2 could generally be contained ormillions o years, with over 99 percent o the injectedCO2 likely to be retained or more than 1,000 yearsprovided the storage sites are well-selected, -designed,and -managed.63

hereore, the key to minimizing the risks o CCS will be implementing a regulatory system that im-poses strict standards on site selection, project design,operation, and long-term monitoring. Unortunately,there can be tension between the need to regulate new

bus oo suso s sk j

cO2 ou o s us o s

o os o o o s, oous

sso ss .

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Earth Sciences Division.

technologies and the need to keep the deploymentcosts o new technologies down, particularly withtechnologies that may be only marginally competitiveeconomically.

Experience with enorcement o coal mining andnuclear power regulations in the United States createsuncertainty about how current and uture regulators would balance the costs and risks o CCS, particularly i the economic stakes or the industry are high.64 hisuncertainty is increased by the act that diicult-to-

quantiy risks are imposed ar into the uture, whenthe economic viability o companies responsible ormanaging the risks cannot be known.

hese risks are compounded by unanswered liability questions. Because the risks associated with long-termCCS are diicult to quantiy, analysts expect privateinsurance to be costly or possibly even unavailable.Some have thereore proposed legislation limiting theliability o companies engaged in CCS or exempting themrom liability altogether, similar to the limits granted tothe nuclear power industry under the Price-Anderson

igure 12: Possbl rots o CO2 Laka and Maton




Act and subsequent extensions. As we have seen withthe nuclear industry, however, limiting liability hasadverse consequences: it reduces the incentive orcompanies to manage their operations saely, and e-ectively provides a subsidy that gives liability-limited

technologies a competitive advantage over technolo-gies that must be ully insured against liability.

he risks o CCS must also be considered inlight o the sheer scale o the industry. For example,even i CCS were responsible or just one-tenth o the needed CO2 reductions, the volume o liqueiedCO2 being actively managed could approximately equal the amount o oil currently lowing around the world.65 And i CCS becomes a global strategy orreducing CO2 emissions, the quality o regulation inother countries also becomes important. Regulationo China’s coal mining and emissions, or instance, is

considered ar weaker than U.S. regulation.he current status o CCS technologies and proj-

ects is reviewed in Appendix A, along with a moredetailed discussion o the risks. It should be noted thatother technologies and strategies or reducing global warming pollution also involve risks and uncertain-ties, including the risk that these technologies may notbe enough to avoid the worst consequences o global warming. CCS technology holds suicient promisethat commercial-scale demonstration projects can andshould be undertaken (see Chapter 3). hese projectscan inorm subsequent decisions about whether massdeployment o CCS is warranted and cost-eective.

Cost is another key challenge or the CCS tech-nologies currently under consideration, all o which would substantially increase the cost o energy produc-tion (even i the technology is part o the plant’s origi-nal design). According to one estimate, adding carbon

capture to a pulverized coal plant would increase itscost o energy between 60 and 78 percent. Adding carbon capture to an IGCC plant would increase itscost o energy between 29 and 36 percent.66 he in-creased cost o energy relects, among other things,

the substantially higher projected cost o building coalplants with CCS, especially pulverized coal plants (seeFigure 13).

While building an IGCC plant without carboncapture costs somewhat more than building a pulver-ized coal plant without capture, studies show that thecost advantage switches to IGCC plants when carboncapture is added.67 In either case, there would be addi-tional costs associated with transportation o the CO2 to a sequestration site, injection o the CO2, and long-term monitoring o the site.

he DOE has established a 2012 goal o reduc-

ing the incremental cost o adding CCS technology to 10 percent or an IGCC plant and 20 percent ora pulverized coal plant.68 hese reductions seem unre-alistically ambitious given the short time rame allot-ted or demonstrating the technology at commercialscale, the long lead time needed to build IGCC plants(ive to six years), and the recent escalation in capitalcosts or power plants and other large constructionprojects.

Another reason why the cost o energy risesdramatically when carbon capture is added is thatthe process o separating and compressing the CO

2

(which is necessary or transportation and sequestra-tion) is highly energy-intensive. Amine scrubbing, orexample—the current state-o-the-art capture methodor pulverized coal plants—is expected to reduce theplant’s energy output by a quarter or more (assuming CCS is built into the original plant design and not

igure 13: Costs o Addn Cabon Capt to Coal-fd Pow Plants

w igcc s ou

ccS o os o

oo (.., u

z o) s ou

ccS, ccS o igcc

s o os

os ss

o oo .

Sources: Massachusetts Institute o Technology,2007. The uture o coal: Options or a carbon-

constrained world. And: National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2007. Cost and

perormance baseline or ossil energy power

plants study, Volume 1: Bituminous coal and

natural gas to electricity .

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Subcritical Supercritical IGCC

MIT

NETL

P e r c e n t I n c r e a s e

i n T

o t a l P l a n t C o s t s




added as a retroit).69 he output o IGCC plants willalso be reduced by adding carbon capture, but not by as much (see Figure 14).70

hese eiciency losses mean that coal plants withCCS would require more coal to generate the same

amount o power as a plant without CCS, increasing the environmental and societal damage caused by coalmining and processing (see Chapter 8 and AppendixB). Stated in other terms, it is like having to buildone new coal plant just to power the carbon capture

process or every three to our conventional plants orevery our to eight IGCC plants. his, in turn, in-creases the risk o adopting CCS should long-termstorage not prove as eective as anticipated.

It should be noted that most studies have prob-ably underestimated the cost o adding CCS to coalplants because they do not relect the recent escala-tion in construction, material, and labor costs. Forexample, as discussed in Chapter 3, the estimated costo the 275 MW FutureGen project increased rom$950 million to $1.8 billion (or $6,545 per kilowatt)beore the ederal government withdrew its support.

Even though this irst-o-its-kind project was relative-ly small, its capital costs still proved to be two to threetimes higher than what most studies had anticipated.Several utilities have cited the increase in capital costsas one o the main reasons behind their recent deci-sions to cancel or delay coal plant projects (withoutCCS). Construction cost escalation has aected alltypes o generation, however, and uel costs have alsoincreased, complicating long-run projections o thecompetitiveness o generation options.

igure 14: Loss o Plant Otpt Casdby Cabon Capt

igure 15: Pow Plant Constcton Cost escalaton, 2000–2008

a o u o o s o sus u

s f o s ouu. t oss o ouu s

o ss o igcc s o uz o s.

Source: Massachusetts Institute o Technology. 2007. The uture o coal: Options or a carbon-constrained world.

po osuo

oss s

50 o 70 s

2000 ( os o

jus os), o

o o os.

m sus

o u s os

so k

ojos o u

o s u sos. o

, U.S. e

ioo aso

ssu o s

o o

oss u 2007,

15

os s o

oos.

Sources: Energy Inormation Administration. Annual energy outlook 2000 through 2008. And: Cambridge Energy Research Associates. 2008.Power capital costs index. And: Chupka, M.W., and G. Basheda. 2007. Rising utility construction costs: Sources and impacts. The Brattle Group. September.All indices are modied by UCS to be in constant dollars using a GDP deator.

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

L o s s o f P l a n t O u t p u t C a u s e d b y C C S

Subcritical Super critical IGCC

180

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80

C o n s t

a n t D o l l a r I n d e x

EIA Pulverized Coal Capital Cost

CERA

Brattle

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year




The United States Should AccelerateCCS Demonstrations

c h a p t e r t h r e e

G

iven the urgent need to address glob-al warming and the potential roleCCS technology can play in achiev-ing deeper emissions cuts, the U.S.government should provide direct

support to accelerate CCS demonstration projects. At

the same time, given the uncertainty surrounding thetechnology’s suitability or widespread deploymentand the environmental and saety costs associated withcoal use, the United States must also take steps to:• reduce those environmental and saety costs (see

Chapter 7 and Appendix B);

• accelerate investments in less risky low-carbontechnologies such as energy eciency and renew-able energy (see Chapter 6); and

• avoid policies that would bias investment deci-sions in avor o CCS rather than less risky low-carbon technologies.

One proposed mechanism or promoting CCSprojects is the adoption o a “low-carbon generationobligation” (LCGO), which would require all genera-tors o coal power to obtain a small but growing per-centage o their power rom coal plants with CCS.71 Generators would also have the option o purchasing marketable credits rom such plants instead o theactual power. In this way, the irst CCS projects wouldbe subsidized by the nation’s producers o coal power,in proportion to their dependence on coal. Such a pro-posal was included in S.309 (Sanders-Boxer; Global

Warming Pollution Reduction Act o 2007).However, this policy would require the building o a large number o coal plants with CCS in the yearsahead, even i the early results rom the irst demon-stration projects show that CCS is not sae or is arcostlier than the alternatives. Indeed, S.309 couldrequire more than 16,000 MW o new capacity sup-plied by coal plants with CCS—the equivalent o about 27 new 600 MW plants—by 2020.72 Making such a major commitment to a technology that hasyet to prove itsel at commercial scale appears unwar-

ranted at this time, particularly when we have yet toully pursue more cost-eective energy eiciency andrenewable alternatives.

Others have proposed various subsidies or CCS that would apply to a larger number o projects, or or longerperiods. hese proposals include mechanisms such as

ederal production tax credits,73 special carbon-allowanceallocations,74 and state regulatory subsidies, such as allow-ing companies to charge customers or construction work in progress. And as mentioned previously, somehave proposed exempting CCS projects rom liability.75

Unortunately, such proposals would tilt investmentdecisions toward continued dependence on coal—theuel with the most damaging impacts over its lie cycle—rather than to inherently cleaner low-carbon or zero-carbon options. Energy eiciency and renewable energy technologies, or instance, may not only have signii-cantly lower impacts and risks than coal with CCS,

but also lower costs. Any direct incentives or CCS mustthereore be limited to research and development(R&D) plus the speciic number o projects needed tomake the technology ready or deployment on a largescale (i such deployment proves warranted).

As the technology becomes proven at commercialscale, it should be eligible to compete against othercarbon-reducing technologies or additional support,by way o an evaluation process that considers bothdirect and indirect costs and risks over the ull lie cycle. We recommend that no energy technologies be exempted

rom liability; instead, energy producers should be re-quired to obtain private insurance (thereby internaliz-ing risks in their direct costs) and should be oeredappropriate incentives to minimize such risks.

ive tO 10 demOnStratiOnprOJectS are neededRather than provide blanket subsidies to deploy a technology that has not yet been proven at commer-cial scale, the ederal government should provide sup-port targeted to the speciic number o CCS projects




needed to determine the technology’s technical andeconomic easibility. Such an approach would openthe door to more widespread deployment o CCS butallow us to wait until the results are in beore we de-cide whether to walk through that door.

Our review o the issue and the literature suggeststhat unding between 5 and 10 CCS demonstrationprojects, using various technologies and relecting di-erent types o geologic sequestration sites, would provide enough data to make an inormed decision withina ew years about the appropriate level o investmentin this technology. All demonstration projects must o course involve very careul selection and long-termmonitoring o sequestration sites, which in turn requiresthe development o site selection and monitoring pro-tocols. Such protocols will not only improve the saety and useulness o the demonstration projects, but also

enable us to more rapidly deploy CCS technology lateri we decide to do so. he lack o such protocols hasoten been identiied as a major barrier to the eventual widespread deployment o CCS.76

A recent Massachusetts Institute o echnology (MI) study strongly avors additional support orCCS technology. hough the authors state that large-scale and integrated demonstration o CCS should bea national priority, they ind current support or suchdemonstrations to be woeully inadequate, and rec-ommend it be expanded to include “up to ive [CCS]projects o dierent types (power, uels, chemicals,synthetic gas; new plants, retroits).”77 he authors donot explicitly state how many demonstration projectsshould ocus on the power sector, though the abovelanguage suggests that three o the ive would apply toeither new or existing plants making uels, chemicals,and synthetic gas, leaving only two in the power sec-tor. We can thereore iner that the authors believea very limited number o CCS power plant projects would yield the inormation needed to support a widedeployment o this technology later.

he question o how many demonstration plants

should be built was examined in more detail in a recentreport published by the Pew Center on Global Cli-mate Change.78 he smaller-scale program proposedby the author would provide unding or 10 commer-cial-scale CCS demonstration projects at coal-iredpower plants and ive at industrial sites; the larger-scale program would und 30 demonstrations at powerplants and 10 at industrial sites. he author assertsthat the smaller-scale program would “establish reli-able CCS cost and perormance data” and build expe-rience with CCS, while the larger-scale program

would also “achieve signiicant reductions in CO2 capture costs and energy penalties, build broad publicacceptance o CO2 storage, and promote the timely development o CCS regulatory systems.”79

he larger-scale program does not, however, assume

that the proposed demonstration projects are built at thesame time. Rather, its projected reductions in costs andenergy penalties are based on “successive age-classes orgenerations o plants, each incorporating lessons romearlier plants.”80 Speciically, the author assumes a irst age-class o only our plants (with about 400 MW o netcapacity each), ollowed by three additional and larger age-classes,81 the last o which would be built in 2020.82

Executing this plan would require an extremely ambitious design and construction schedule o aboutthree years per age-class (i.e., starting today, each class would need to become operational in 2011, 2014,

2017, and 2020). In other words, the designers o each succeeding age-class would have an average o only three years to glean design lessons rom the previ-ous class, incorporate those lessons into the new de-signs, and obtain unding and approval or their proj-ects. Yet even some coal plants without CCS that arealready well along in their development phase are notprojected to commence operation until 2013 or later,suggesting that coal plants with CCS will require armore than three years per age-class. he process couldpresumably be accelerated i, as discussed below, dem-onstration projects ocused on the retroitting o exist-ing plants rather than the construction o new ones.

We recommend suiciently unding the irstage-class o CCS demonstration projects and assess-ing its eectiveness beore committing to subsequentage-classes. he question is how many demonstra-tion projects should be in that irst age-class, and thatdecision should be based on how many projects areneeded to test the dierent CCS technologies thatcould merit investment. IGCC technology with pre-combustion carbon capture should certainly be testedbecause it appears the most promising.

Post-combustion capture rom pulverized coalplants should also be tested, since we must dramati-cally reduce emissions rom existing plants i we areto avoid the worst consequences o global warming.Such demonstrations will help us determine whetherit is more cost-eective to retroit our old plants withpost-combustion capture, replace them with IGCCplants using pre-combustion capture, or replace them with other low-carbon technologies.

here are at least three dierent kinds o post-combustion capture technology worth demonstrating:




amine scrubbing, chilled ammonia, and “oxy-iring”(see Appendix A). Where the results can be expectedto dier signiicantly based on whether the projectuses bituminous or sub-bituminous coal, it may be worth unding demonstrations using each type.

We also recommend testing options or combin-ing biomass with coal, as well as exclusively biomass-ired IGCC power plants with CCS, because as wenote above such plants could actually achieve nega-tive carbon emissions. More unconventional types o carbon capture that are currently in the experimentalphase, such as the use o algae, should also be actively investigated.83 Finally, we recommend that whatevercapture technologies are ultimately demonstrated,these projects should address sequestration in a rangeo dierent geologic ormations (oil ields, saline or-mations, basalt ormations).

Given the number o technologies worth demon-strating, we believe the MI report’s recommendation tound less than ive CCS demonstrations in the powersector may be insuicient. On the other hand, the Pew report’s larger-scale program (unding 30 power plantprojects and 10 others) is unnecessarily large. Our rec-ommendation, unding 5 to 10 demonstration projects(with the high end comparable to the Pew report’s smaller-scale program),84 is both needed and suicient to testthe range o CCS technologies currently under devel-opment and to address a range o sequestration sites.

Ideally, these U.S. projects would be careully integrated with the ongoing international eort toinvestigate and demonstrate CCS technology. heInternational Energy Agency (IEA) has released a CCS development road map that contemplates theinvolvement o numerous countries in Asia, Europe,and North America and sets a target o 20 to 30 CCSdemonstrations at power plants (including coal, gasand biomass plants) by 2020.85 he European Unionhas established the EU Flagship Programme, with thegoal o constructing up to 12 CCS demonstrationplants by 2015.86 And various CCS projects related

to power plants are already under way or under con-sideration in Australia, Canada, China, and Europe.87 U.S. demonstration projects should avoid redundan-cy with these international eorts and ensure that themost promising CCS options are investigated.

demOnStratiOnS ShOUld achieveactUal emiSSiOnS redUctiOnSU.S. demonstration projects should ocus on reducing global warming pollution rom our existing leet o aging and highly polluting coal plants. As discussed

above, building new coal plants without CCS andthen retroitting them with the technology is notcost-eective, but studies have indicated that it may be cost-eective to rebuild (or “repower”) ineicientplants built decades ago.88 Such repowering projects would remove two o the central components o a pulverized coal plant—the boiler (where the coal isburned and steam created) and the generator (wherethe steam produces electricity)—and replace them with much more eicient models. Carbon capturetechnology could be cost-eectively integrated into a

plant at the same time.Repowering would allow demonstration projects to

take advantage o existing plant inrastructure such ascoal delivery acilities, water access acilities, chimneys,and power lines—structures that are expensive to buildrom scratch. his approach would also accelerate dem-onstration projects by eliminating the site decisionsand construction associated with building a new plant.

I a promising technology cannot be demon-strated except as part o a new plant, that plant shouldbe one that demonstrably replaces power rom an

Sou

nuo pojspoos ts o pojs

United States

MIT [1] 5coal plants, uels, chemicals,and synthetic gas with CCS

UCS 5–10 coal plants with CCS

Pew smaller-scale [2] 10 coal plants with CCS

Pew larger-scale [2] 30 coal plants with CCS

Multinational

EU [3] up to 12coal and other ossil-ueled

power plants with CCS

IEA [4] 20–30coal, gas, and biomass-ueled

power plants with CCS

igure 16: Scal o CCS Poposals

ccS oso ojs o szs oos

mit, p c o go c c, euo

Uo, io e a. nus o mit,

eU, iea oso ojs u oos o

o o s.

1 Massachusetts Institute o Technology. 2007.The uture o coal: Options or a carbon-constrained world .

2 Kuuskraa, V.A. 2007. A program to acceleratethe deployment o CO2 capture and storage(CCS): Rationale, objectives, and costs. Coalinitiative reports. Arlington, VA: Pew Centeron Global Climate Change.

3 European Technology Platorm or ZeroEmissions Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ETP ZEP).2008. The EU Flagship Programme or CO2 capture and storage (CCS), ZEP recommen-dations: Implementation and unding.

4 International Energy Agency. 2008. Energytechnology perspectives 2008: Scenariosand strategies or 2050.




existing coal plant. his would ensure that such dem-onstrations contribute to the overriding goal o reduc-ing emissions on the ambitious scale and timeline thatthe science shows us is needed.

Furthermore, CCS demonstration projects should

ully integrate carbon capture, transportation, andstorage. hese elements have been shown to work at a generally small scale in industrial applications; what isneeded now is to integrate them at commercial scale with an operating coal-ired power plant at one end o the process and a sae, well-monitored sequestrationsite at the other.

he Pew report deines commercial-scale as 400MW (ater the energy lost to carbon capture technol-ogy has been subtracted).89 A coal plant this size may be smaller than the typical new plant (many o whichare 600 MW or larger), but should be large enough

to assess the technology’s commercial viability, and insome cases may be larger than necessary. Commer-cial-sized projects might be useully preceded by pilot-scale projects or CCS technologies that have yet to bedemonstrated at such a scale.

he question o who will hold the intellectualproperty (IP) rights to the technologies emerging rom these demonstration projects will need to begiven careul consideration, since each project will involve both public and private investment. IP issuesbecome even more complex when there is the pros-pect o dierent nations jointly pursuing such proj-ects and where there is a need or developed nationsincluding the United States to transer technologiesto developing nations (see Chapter 10). On the onehand, it is important to reward companies or the risk they have taken investing in innovative technologies,especially at a time when we seek to accelerate thedevelopment o such technologies. On the other hand,it is also important to recognize the public’s interest in(and substantial unding o) innovative technologies,and to ensure that restrictive IP rights do not hindertheir widespread deployment.

demOnStratiOnS can be Undedby cap-and-trade revenUeSFunding or CCS demonstration projects shouldeventually come rom a small portion o the revenueaccrued by auctioning pollution allowances under a ederal cap-and-trade program (see Chapter 9). I thedemonstrations are successul in showing that CCScan be a viable commercial-scale climate solution,uture advanced coal and CCS projects should be

eligible to compete or a limited amount o auctionrevenues until the technology is ully commercialized.However, since it may be some years until a ederallaw is passed and auctioning actually begins, CCSdemonstration projects should be unded or the time

being by a small ee paid by operators o existing coalplants or by diverting existing subsidies.

he costs associated with 5 to 10 demonstrationprojects o the sort we have discussed are diicult toproject because there are no existing coal plants withCCS to serve as a model, and the costs will vary basedon the number o projects and the technologies se-lected. he Pew report orecasts costs that are likely close to the investment we recommend: its smaller-scale program (10 coal plant projects along with iveindustrial projects) would cost between $8 billionand $10.2 billion. hese estimates assume that add-

ing CCS to a 390 MW pulverized coal plant wouldcost between $480 million and $650 million, whileadding the technology to an IGCC plant with simi-lar output would cost between $310 million and$570 million.90 In both cases a substantial share o thiscost relates to the power lost when CCS is added; theadditional costs are associated with CO2 transporta-tion and storage, and with the ive industrial plants.

he Pew report concludes that this program couldbe unded over 10 years with a ee o $0.40 to $0.50per megawatt-hour (MWh) paid by the nation’s coal-ired power plants (plus a ee o $0.50 per metric tonon CO2 emissions rom industrial sources).91 his rep-resents a virtually imperceptible increase in the cost o coal power—by way o comparison, power rom anolder, ully depreciated coal plant costs approximate-ly $20 to $30 per MWh, while power rom a newerplant can cost $65 to $80 per MWh (not including a potential ee or CO2 emissions).

his source o unding should also be used tosupport detailed geologic surveys o possible U.S.sequestration sites. he MI report inds currenteorts inadequate, and recommends that the DOE

and USGS undertake a ormation-speciic review o possible sites in relation to major coal-burning acili-ties.92 he authors also recommend other nations dothe same, which they conclude can be done or about“$10–50 million or a given continent.”93 he resultso such a survey will be necessary to enable the widerdeployment o CCS later (i the demonstration proj-ects show it to be warranted), so its relatively modestcost should be added to the demonstration programbudget.




he Pew report recommends that the demonstra-tion program subsidize only the incremental costs as-sociated with CCS (including capital costs and costsassociated with lost production or a limited number o years), not the costs associated with the underlying gener-

ating technology. We generally agree with this approach,but strict application o such a policy could inappro-priately disadvantage IGCC technology. Without carboncapture, an IGCC plant costs more than a pulverizedcoal plant, but the cost advantage likely switches toIGCC when CCS is included. he demonstration pro-gram should thereore consider unding the incrementalcost o building an IGCC plant with CCS compared with building a conventional coal plant without CCS.

Beore the DOE withdrew its support in February 2008, the 275 MW FutureGen project was expectedto cost $1.8 billion ($6,545 per kilowatt), ar more

than its original estimate o $950 million (and twoto three times more than what many experts have es-timated CCS technology will ultimately cost).94 heMI report criticized FutureGen or a lack o clarity about project objectives and the inclusion o eaturesunnecessary or a commercial demonstration plant.95 Whatever the cause o this project’s cost overruns, itshould be expected that commercial demonstration o CCS will be costly, and that initial cost estimates mustbe taken with a grain o salt. However, a demonstra-tion project that adds CCS to an existing plant shouldcost signiicantly less than the FutureGen plant. heDOE’s “restructured” approach to CCS demonstra-tion moves in this direction by oering to und justthe CCS component o power plants rather than the whole plant.96

o put the potential cost o CCS R&D into per-spective, consider that the 114 coal plants withoutCCS currently being proposed represent a capitalinvestment o at least $144 billion (assuming a con-struction cost o $2,200 per kilowatt or a pulverizedcoal plant). From a purely iscal standpoint, investing that amount o money into technology we know is

incompatible with a carbon-constrained world is i-nancially ar riskier than investing $10 billion or sointo CCS demonstration projects that could yielda technology capable o ighting global warming. Avoiding the worst consequences o global warming clearly warrants investments o this scale, and not justin CCS technology but also—indeed, especially—inenergy eiciency, renewable energy, and energy stor-age technologies. In Chapter 7 we discuss the need to

complement CCS demonstration projects with great-ly enhanced unding or R&D and demonstrations o these inherently cleaner technologies too.

demOnStratiOnS cOUld yield initial

reSUltS by 2013–2015 As discussed above and in Appendix A, many CCSprojects are already in development around the world,including some large-scale eorts. Few have actu-ally commenced construction, and in some cases theproject backers have explicitly stated that they are waiting or changes in public policy to make suchprojects worthwhile. Still, this suggests that demon-stration projects could begin relatively quickly oncethe inancial incentive exists. Assuming projects couldcommence in 2010, those that do not involve theconstruction o an entirely new plant could be opera-

tional by 2013, while those that do could be opera-tional by 2015.

By the middle o the next decade, thereore, weshould have useul inormation that will help us de-cide whether CCS is as promising as its backers claimor whether we should invest in other, more promising technologies. In the meantime, progress in all o thesetechnologies should continue to improve their pricing and perormance.

recOmmendatiOnS On ccS

demOnStratiOnS• Te United States should support 5 to 10 CCS

demonstration projects covering the most prom-ising carbon capture technologies and geologicormations. Each project should produce actualreductions in CO2 emissions by retrofitting ex-isting coal plants or by displacing power romsuch plants. As the technology becomes proven atcommercial scale, it should be eligible to competeagainst other carbon-reducing technologies oradditional government support.

• Demonstration projects should be initially unded

by a small ee paid by operators o existing coalplants, and eventually unded by a small portiono the proceeds rom cap-and-trade auctions.

• Any demonstration program must include thedevelopment o regulatory protocols or selecting and monitoring sequestration sites.

• Te United States should simultaneously launcha detailed survey o potentially suitable geologicormations.




The United States Should Stop BuildingCoal Plants without CCS

c h a p t e r O U r

W

hile we need additional inor-mation to decide how much toinvest in coal plants that cap-ture CO2, it is already clear thaturther investments in new coal

plants that do not capture CO2 would be a mistake.

Federal policy should thereore prevent the construc-tion o any new coal plant unless it employs CCS.

new cOal plantS will Still prOdUceenOrmOUS amOUntS O cO2

As discussed earlier, virtually all the new coal plantsthat have been proposed will, just like their predeces-sors, release 100 percent o the CO2 they produce intothe atmosphere, where it will linger—and contributeto global warming—throughout this century and intothe next. Advocates o new coal plants requently ar-gue that new plants emit less CO2 than old ones and

may be seen as a “step in the right direction.” How-ever, this argument assumes that we can take ar more

time to make the needed emissions reductions than we can actually aord.

No one can argue the act that the existing U.S.coal leet is old and ineicient; the average age o eachplant is over 35 years, and the average eiciency isroughly 33 percent.97 In other words, or every three

tons o coal a plant burns, one ton is converted intoelectricity while two tons are lost as waste heat. hethird o the coal leet built beore 1970 has even lowereiciency—averaging only 28 percent—and higheremissions.98

In terms o eiciency, new IGCC plants are ex-pected to average about 38 percent.99 he eiciency o new pulverized coal plants varies depending ontype (see the text box): less advanced subcritical unitshave eiciencies o only 33 to 37 percent, more advanced supercritical units have eiciencies o 37 to40 percent, and the most advanced ultrasupercritical

units (operating in Europe and Japan) have operating eiciencies above 40 percent.100

igure 17: Dstbton o u.S. Coal-fd Pow Plants by At U.S.

o o

o s s

o—90

o s

o

20 s o,

o

o s

o

30 s o.

Source: Wilder, C.J. 2006.Presentation at EEI Coner-ence, November 7. Onlineat http://library.corporate-ir.

net/library/10/102/102498/

items/220201/txu_

110906.pd.

P e r c e n t o f U . S .

C o a l E l e c t r i c i t y C a p a c i t y

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

1%

9%

32%

34%

16%

8%

0–10 10–20 20–30 30–40 40–50 50–100

Age (years)




Pulverized Coal Plant Technologies

Remarkably, only 17 o the proposed pulver-ized coal plants would use supercritical technol-ogy, while 40 would use the least-eicient subcriticaltechnology.101 wenty-our proposed plants would usesubcritical circulating luidized bed (CFB) techno-

logy; these plants potentially represent a greater cli-mate threat than pulverized coal plants becausethey produce much higher levels o heat-trapping nitrous oxide.102

Even i the proposed plants were all substantially more eicient than today’s plants, that would not re-duce CO2 emissions by a single ton unless the newerplants actually replace older ones—which is not in-tended or most o the proposed plants. In the statesthat require power producers to show that a new coalplant is needed beore it can be built (many states donot), producers generally claim the new plants are

needed to meet growing electricity demand. In theabsence o policy changes, this would be consistent with the Energy Inormation Administration’s (EIA’s)2008 projection o a dramatically expanded U.S. coalleet by 2030: 100 gigawatts (GW) o new coal plantconstruction and the retirement o only 3.9 GW o older plants.103

One reason why the newly proposed plants areso costly is that they oten require the constructiono new power lines, coal delivery or handling acili-ties, and cooling water systems—all costs that couldbe avoided i these projects were actually designedas replacement plants rather than additions to theleet. In short, these new coal plants would each emit

igure 18: Constcton and rtmnt o u.S. Coal-fd Pow Plantst U.S. e

ioo

aso

ojs ,

uss os

,

o u

100 s

(gw) o

o

2030

o

s

o o .

Source: Energy Inorma-tion Administration. 2008. Annual energy outlook

2008.

• Most coal-ired power plants in the UnitedStates are classiied as “su” because

they operate at steam pressure levels and

temperatures below certain thresholds

(about 3,200 psi and 1,025°F, respectively).

These are the least advanced coal plants,

with an average eiciency between 33

and 37 percent.

• More advanced pulverized coal plants

are considered “su” because

they operate at higher pressures and

temperatures (about 3,530 psi and 1,050°F,

respectively). These plants have an average

eiciency between 37 and 40 percent.

• In Europe and Japan, a number o pulverized

coal plants known as “usu”

are capable o even higher pressures and

temperatures (about 4,640 psi and 1,112 to

1,130°F, respectively), resulting in an average

eiciency above 40 percent.

• A variation on pulverized combustion is

u uz (cb) technology,

which can burn low-quality coal or waste

uels and can co-ire biomass.

G W

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Cumulative Planned and Unplanned Additions

Cumulative Retirements




millions o tons o additional CO2 during a time when we need to dramatically reduce such emissions.

Moreover, even i a new coal plant did replace anolder one, it would still represent a costly, long-termcommitment to an energy technology with substan-

tially higher CO2 emissions than any non-coal op-tion. New coal plants are extraordinarily expensive(construction costs have risen 30 to 80 percent since2004),104 take years to build (most proposed plants would not begin operating until 2013 or later), andrequire decades o operation to return the massivecapital investment. Locking in such high emissionsor so long cannot be reconciled with the sustainedemissions cuts we must achieve to avoid the worstconsequences o global warming. And, as we discussbelow, these new plants are simply not necessary giventhe cleaner options available to us.

bUild nOw/retrOit later iSa dangerOUS Strategyhe MI report cited earlier shows that the cost andenergy penalties associated with adding CCS technol-ogy to a coal plant (which are considerable even whenthe technology is incorporated into the plant’s origi-nal design) increase substantially or a plant that wasnot designed to accommodate it.

igure 19: Addd Loss o Plant Otpt

om Cabon Capt rtofts

his is a particular problem or pulverized coalplants (the great majority o the 114 proposed plantsdiscussed above). he process o capturing CO2 di- verts a large amount o steam rom the boiler that would otherwise have been used by the steam turbine

to generate power. As a result, the boiler runs at ullcapacity but the turbine runs well below its most e-icient rate. his steam loss “unbalances the rest o theplant so severely,” in MI’s words, that the result isan even greater loss o eiciency.105 Instead o losing 25 to 28 percent o its maximum potential power, asa plant outitted with CCS at the start would, a plantretroitted with CCS would lose 36 to 41 percent o its power.106 his suggests that the cost o energy romthe retroitted plant would rise by considerably morethan the 59 percent increase associated with a new plant already equipped with CCS. As a result, the

MI report concludes that, “retroits are unlikely.”107 While the retroit penalty or IGCC plants is

expected to be less than or pulverized coal, certainundamental design eatures such as the gasiier andgasiier coniguration must change i carbon is to becaptured. I, or example, the IGCC plant is built with the wrong kind o gasiier, the plant could losear more o its power when CCS is added than i it hadchosen another type o gasiier with CCS in mind.108 Cost estimates or retroitting an IGCC plant withCCS are remarkably scarce; the MI report conclud-ed that there was insuicient inormation to evaluatemost o the available conigurations quantitatively.109

Another important consideration is the proxim-ity o the plant to an appropriate sequestration site.Many plants have been proposed in locations arrom the geologic ormations that could store theirCO2;

110 these plants would ace considerably higherCO2 transportation costs (generally by pipeline) thanplants in more suitable locations.

Moreover, given the act that many U.S. coal plantoperators have iercely resisted installing pollutioncontrols or sulur dioxide (SO2 “scrubbers”), their as-

surances that CCS will be added at some uture datemust be viewed with skepticism. Even though SO2 scrubbers have been available since the 1980s, only a third o U.S. coal plants have them,111 and their costs(though relatively high) are likely to pale in compari-son to the cost o adding CO2 capture to a coal plantbuilt without it—especially a pulverized coal plant.

Finally, the ailure o a plant’s backers to includethe cost o a uture CCS retroit in the plant’s pricetag prevents regulators, ratepayers, and investors romknowing its true cost. It would also be impossible to

t o u oss s o u ouu

o o o s ou u

ouu o s o s o u o.

Source: Massachusetts Institute o Technology. 2007. The uture o coal: Options or a carbon-constrained world.

L

o s s o f P l a n t O u t p u t

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Subcritical Supercritical IGCC

Retroft CCS

Purpose-built CCS




judge how the proposed plant compares with cleanerenergy alternatives.

bUilding cOal plantS withOUt ccS iS ainancial and envirOnmental miStaKehe act that so many coal plants have been proposeddoes not mean they are actually needed to meet U.S.electricity demand. he last time U.S. utilities en-gaged in a massive campaign to build base-load powerplants (i.e., plants designed to operate nearly continu-ously) was in the late 1960s and 1970s, when theutilities greatly overestimated demand growth andgreatly underestimated construction costs (particular-ly o nuclear plants). he results were oten inancially disastrous: utilities cancelled 184 proposed powerplants, including 80 nuclear plants and 84 coal plants,

just in the period rom 1974 through 1978.112

In oth-er cases costly coal plants were built years beore they were needed. Under traditional regulation, the powersector is typically allowed to recover all plant con-struction costs rom ratepayers, including an adminis-tratively determined return on investment. his givesutilities a inancial incentive to build plants whetherthey are needed or not, and to resist changing courseeven when circumstances warrant it.113

Fortunately, there are commercially available op-tions or avoiding and reducing emissions rom coal

igure 20: Cmlatv Consm eny Bll Savns nda 20 Pcnt Natonal rnwabl elctcty Standad

U 20

2020 o

s, osus

sos o

oo

o o ou

ou

uo

uu

u s oss

o $10.5 o

2020 $31.8 o

2030.

Source: Union o ConcernedScientists. 2007. Cashing in on

Clean Energy: A National Renewable

Electricity Standard Will Benet the

Economy and the Environment.

plants by either reducing electricity demand or sub-stituting low-carbon uels or coal. Demand can bereduced while meeting energy needs by improving theeiciency with which electricity is produced, trans-mitted, and consumed. Lower-carbon alternatives tocoal include natural gas, renewable resources such as wind, solar, geothermal, bioenergy, and hydropower,and potentially nuclear energy.114

Energy eiciency improvements have enormouspotential to reduce emissions at a low cost.115 In ad-dition, our analyses (and those o others) have shownthat non-hydroelectric renewable energy suppliesin the United States could be increased rom about2.5 percent o electricity use today to 20 or even 25percent by 2020 or 2025—osetting much o theprojected growth in power plant carbon emissions—

without raising consumer energy costs (and in somecases perhaps slightly lowering costs).116

Most power producers prevented rom building coal plants without CCS will ind that their custom-ers’ energy needs are better met through increasedconservation and eiciency and/or expanded renew-able electricity generation. In some cases, additionalnatural gas generation may also be warranted.

At the same time, states that have adopted new orstricter renewable electricity standards (which requirepower producers to obtain a speciic percentage o

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

E n e r g y

B i l l S a v i n g s ( B i l l i o n s 2 0 0 5 $ )

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Residential

Commercial

Industrial




igure 21: Poposd Coal Plants Canclld o rjctd by rlatos

w o 60 oos o s o j uos,

o 100 o s s oos us o os.

Sources: Sierra Club (http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/plantlist.asp), accessed August 15, 2008. And: SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=

Coal_plants_cancelled_in_2007), accessed July 11, 2008. And: Shuster, E. 2007. Tracking new coal-red power plants.

their electricity rom renewable resources) and energy eiciency standards have ound that their once-per-ceived need or additional coal-ired power has beendramatically reduced. At least 60 coal plant proposals were cancelled, abandoned, or rejected by regulatorsin 2007, illustrating just how weak the need or suchplants is.117 he DOE’s list o proposed coal projects, which included 151 as recently as May 2007, hadshrunk to 114 by February 2008.

Increasingly aggressive state eiciency and renew-able electricity standards combined with expected ed-eral legislation will urther reduce the need to considernew coal plants, buying additional time or CCS tech-nology—and non-coal alternatives—to develop. (We

discuss how greater investment in energy eiciency and renewable resources can meet our energy needsor years to come in Chapter 7.) Several large-scaleCCS projects are scheduled to become operationalin the 2012–2015 range—not much later than themany proposed coal plants without CCS would comeinto service (2013 or later), though conclusive proo that CO2 has been saely sequestered would requireadditional time.

One o the consequences o the current rush toconstruct coal plants is that many projects are ex-

periencing substantial delays in construction due toshortages o equipment, materials, and specializedlabor. he question beore the United States is not,thereore, what kind o new coal plants should meetour needs today, because any coal plant will take yearsto construct. he question is what kind o new coalplants—i any—should meet our needs in the middleo the next decade and beyond, during a period when we need to achieve dramatic emissions reductions.

CCS may or may not prove sae and cost-eective,but there is no justiiable argument or building new coal plants without it. In the event CCS is shown tobe unsae or too costly, the act o building new coalplants will have locked us into decades o higher CO2

emissions and the much more diicult and costly challenge o reducing emissions by replacing theseplants with cleaner alternatives. I, on the other hand,CCS is shown to be a viable solution, coal plants built with the technology will enable us to pursue emissionsreductions ar more cost-eectively than plants that would have to be retroitted with CCS.

Clearly, as long as there is no inancial penalty oremitting CO2 and no requirement or new coal plantsto be built with carbon capture, power producers havea strong economic disincentive to build such plants.

1

2

3–4

5–6

7–8




As a result, while a number o coal projects involving CCS have been announced (see Appendix A), many appear unlikely to proceed without a change in U.S. cli-mate policy. Barring the construction o coal plants without CCS would greatly accelerate the speed at which

the technology is developed, and bring us closer to hav-ing the necessary inormation to determine whether itis something we can and should widely deploy.

However, such a policy alone would do nothing to reduce emissions rom existing plants, and a policy that sets a high bar or new plants would create an in-centive to keep older, ineicient plants operating lon-ger. A requirement that new coal plants capture CO2 must thereore be combined with policies that driveemissions reductions in the existing leet. At the very least these policies should include a system or putting a price on carbon emissions, such as a cap-and-trade

program (see Chapter 9).

a StrOng perOrmance StandardOr new cOal plantS iS neededOne promising policy mechanism or preventing theconstruction o new coal plants without CCS is a CO2 perormance standard, which imposes a limit on how much CO2 a new coal plant could emit per megawatt-hour (MWh). Such standards have already beenadopted in both Caliornia and Washington State andproposed in several bills beore the 110th Congress. A ederal standard at least as strict as Caliornia’s and Washington’s should be enacted and immediately applied to all coal plants commencing constructionin the next ive years; a more stringent standard shouldbe applied to plants commencing construction aterthat time.

he current Caliornia standard requires that allnew base-load power plants emit CO2 at a rate nohigher than combined-cycle natural gas plants.118 hough the best new combined-cycle plants may emit as little as 800 lb. o CO2 per MWh, the Calior-nia Public Utilities Commission set the state standard

at 1,100 lb. per MWh to relect the higher emissionsrates o some existing combined-cycle plants.119 Wash-ington ollowed suit.120

Four ederal proposals would also establish peror-mance standards linked to the perormance o natu-ral gas plants. wo would limit emissions at the samelevel as Caliornia (one permanently and one as an in-terim measure);121 the other two, because they wouldbe modeled speciically on the perormance o new combined-cycle plants, would be somewhat stricterthan Caliornia’s standard.122

A standard o 1,100 lb. per MWh could be metby a coal plant using ar less than complete carboncapture. For example, the most eicient new coalplants, which emit 1,735 to 1,950 lb. per MWh with-out CCS, could meet the standard with a net capture

rate (that is, ater actoring in the added coal neededto power the capture process) between 37 and 44 per-cent.123 However, CCS has the potential to reduceemissions by a signiicantly greater degree. he IPCChas estimated that CCS could provide an 80 to 90percent reduction in CO2 per unit o energy.124 his would enable compliance with ar more stringent per-ormance standards—in the range o 190 to 380 lb.per MWh (assuming a relatively eicient plant thatemits 1,900 lb. per MWh beore capture).

Some current ederal proposals would set standardsin this range: S. 1227 (Kerry; Clean Coal Act o 2007)

and the second phase o S.1177 (Carper) call or a 285 lb. per MWh standard. S.309 (Sanders-Boxer), which is discussed in more detail below, would requirecoal plant operators to obtain an increasing percent-age o their power rom plants that meet a standard o 250 lb. per MWh.

CCS technology integrated with a large coal planthas yet to be commercially demonstrated, and strictapplication o a standard that demands net capturerates o 80 to 90 percent immediately could inhibitthe technology’s development. he 5 to 10 ederally supported demonstration projects we recommendshould be designed to achieve capture rates o 80to 90 percent (or the maximum rate easible or thetechnology being tested), but as demonstration proj-ects should not be penalized i the technology ails toachieve those rates.

Few (i any) coal plants with CCS are likely tobe built in the next ew years other than demon-stration projects, due to the higher costs and risksassociated with early adoption, the uncertainty about when the ederal government will put a price on CO2 emissions, and the availability o saer and less expen-

sive low-carbon alternatives (e.g., energy eiciency,renewable energy). Utilities and others that are already considering CCS projects are likely to seek unding through a ederal demonstration program, but any projects that commence construction outside such a program within the next ive years should be requiredto apply CCS to the ull emissions stream (ratherthan allowing part o their lue gases to bypass thecapture process, as some projects propose), and tomeet a perormance standard o at least 1,100 lb.per MWh.




Projects commencing construction ater 2013— when we would expect to know the results o theirst demonstration projects—should be required tomeet a perormance standard that relects the technol-ogy’s maximum achievable capture rate (currently

estimated to be between 80 and 90 percent on a MWhbasis). Given coal plants’ long operating lives andthe critical need to reduce their emissions as deeply as possible in the decades ahead, any long-term per-ormance standard should be based on what thegiven CCS technology is capable o achieving, not on what natural gas plants emit. A new coal plant thatcaptures 40 to 65 percent o its CO2 would still re-present a large source o new emissions, and becausesuch a plant would likely require ar more capitalthan a comparable natural gas plant, its construc-tion would lock us in to these emissions or a much

longer time.Since new coal plants would be intended to oper-

ate well into the carbon-constrained century ahead, itis not unreasonable to require them to emit less CO2 than a natural gas plant. Setting a perormance stan-dard based on what the given control technology canachieve rather than the perormance o a competing energy source is a cornerstone principle embodiedin the ederal Clean Air Act New Source Review andNew Source Perormance Standards. And as the priceo CCS technology gradually alls, it may even be rea-sonable to require it at new natural gas plants as wellas coal plants. CCS is already being investigated at gasplants in Europe.125

Any CO2 perormance standard must be paired witha strong cap-and-trade policy (see Chapter 9). Because theperormance standard would only apply to new plantsand does nothing to reduce emissions rom existing plants,a cap-and-trade program that applies to both new and

existing plants would ensure that overall emissions arereduced. By the same token, a cap-and-trade program isno substitute or a perormance standard. While sucha program would discourage the construction o some o the new coal plants that have been proposed, existing laws in the energy markets (such as the possibility thatthe cost o uture CO2 allowances may be passed throughto ratepayers) make a perormance standard necessary to avoid locking the United States in to decades o highemissions rom new coal plants already in the pipeline.

recOmmendatiOnS On cOal plant

cOnStrUctiOnhe United States should prevent the construction o coal plants that do not employ CCS technology by pursuing the ollowing policies:• Enact a CO2 perormance standard that requires

plants commencing construction between now and2013 to add CCS to their ull emissions streamand achieve a CO2 emissions rate o 1,100 lb. perMWh or lower.

• Enact a stricter standard that requires plantscommencing construction after 2013 to meet anemissions limit that reects maximum achievablecapture rates (currently estimated to be 80 to 90percent on a MWh basis).




The United States Should Not SupportCoal-to-Liquid Technology

c h a p t e r i v e

igure 22: L Cycl global Wamn impact o Lqd ls rlatv to gasoln

w uos o

o o u s

o o

u o ouo

o u o

so, oou (ctl)

u ou o ou

ssos ccS s o

o. e ccS were o,

ctl’s ssos ou s so’s. (es

o uos o

ssus us o os

sus us o s

s us; sok

ouo s o oso

o o s

us, s

o.)

Source: Environmental Protection Agency. 2007.Greenhouse gas impacts o expanded renewable

and alternative uel use.

C

oal-to-liquid technology uses gasiica-tion technology and chemical catalyststo make synthetic uels (oten called“liquid coal”) that can replace petroleum-based transportation uels, especially

diesel and jet uels. Over its ull lie cycle, however,

liquid coal produces roughly double the CO2 emis-sions o gasoline. CCS can reduce emissions during pro-duction, but because emissions rom vehicle tailpipescannot be captured, liquid coal with even the mostaggressive CCS possible will still result in lie cycleemissions at least as high as conventional petroleumuels.126 Liquid coal thereore has no potential to reduceglobal warming pollution relative to petroleum-baseduels—but it does have the potential to signiicantly increase global warming pollution i CCS is not appliedaggressively and eectively.

P e r c e n t C h a n g e R e l a t

i v e t o

G a s o l i n e

150%

100%

50%

0%

-50%

-100%

-150%

CellulosicEthanol

Hydrogenfrom Natural

Gas

Coal-to-Liquids with

CCS

Coal-to-Liquidswithout CCS

A much better option would be to use the sameprocess (gasiication and catalysts) to create transpor-tation uels rom non-ood biomass.127 Because thecarbon in biomass was recently absorbed rom theatmosphere through the process o photosynthesis,biomass-based uels have the potential to greatly re-

duce lie cycle emissions relative to petroleum-basedalternatives—as long as biomass production avoidssubstantial releases o CO2 rom direct or indirectchanges in land use.128 I this is done and CCS is suc-cessully applied during production, biomass-baseduels can become a carbon sink (i.e., removing morecarbon rom the atmosphere during production thanis emitted during combustion).

Because the processes o converting biomass andcoal into liquid uels employ similar technology, the twocan also be processed together to create a uel reerred




to as coal-and-biomass-to-liquid (CBL). But this optiondoes not alter the act that the best biomass-baseduels have substantially lower emissions than petro-leum, while liquid coal can only hope to achieveparity with petroleum. Processing coal and biomass

together simply dilutes the potential emissions bene-its o biomass-based uels.

A truly serious strategy or reducing global warm-ing pollution rom the transportation sector wouldregulate emissions rom all transportation uels. A low-carbon uel standard, or example, should requireuel producers to reduce emissions (on an average andenergy-equivalent basis) rom all the uels they pro-duce, but leave it to the market to determine the mostcost-eective means o achieving these reductions. Inaddition, this standard should be based on the ull liecycle o the uel, promoting carbon reductions at every

link in the supply chain. A low-carbon uel standard should be accompa-

nied by saeguards to prevent excessive water use, waterpollution, air pollution, loss o biodiversity, and otherharmul impacts (see Chapter 8). Water-intensive coal-to-liquid technology would not only increase the

environmental and societal costs associated with themining and transport o coal, but also exacerbate watersupply concerns in the arid western states where mostU.S. coal production occurs. China, which has invest-ed heavily in the technology, is now acing production

constraints because o limited water supplies.129 A low-carbon uel standard with appropriate sae-

guards or the environment and public health wouldrecognize and reward the potential o biomass-baseduels that are produced in a sustainable manner andsupplemented with CCS. In contrast, liquid coal andother high-carbon uels would be held accountable ortheir dangerous emissions and uel cycle impacts.

recOmmendatiOnS OntranSpOrtatiOn UelS• All transportation uels should be held to a low-

carbon perormance standard that limits global warming pollution and provides saeguards againstother environmental damage.

• Neither the ederal nor state governments shouldsubsidize or provide any other orm o support orcoal-to-liquid technology.




Coal-to-Gas Technology Could ReduceEmissions I It Displaces Other Uses o Coal

c h a p t e r S i x

C

oal can also be converted into a syn-thetic orm o natural gas, but whereasnatural gas emits less CO2 than every other ossil uel, coal-to-gas technol-ogy produces large quantities o CO2

that, i vented to the atmosphere, would approximate-

ly double the emissions o natural gas.130 CCS could considerably reduce emissions during

the production o coal-based gas, but there is no way to capture the CO2 emitted at the point o consump-tion. hereore, a coal-to-gas plant with CCS thatsupplies a gas-ired power plant will produce substan-tially less emissions than a coal plant without carboncapture, but substantially more than a coal plant withull carbon capture.

A startup company called GreatPoint Energy claims to have a new gasiication technology that cancreate synthetic gas rom coal (or petcoke or biomass)

at a much lower cost than existing technologies.131 Its process reportedly creates a stream o pure CO2 as a by-product, so an additional separation processis not required. he company’s data show that thecarbon ootprint or electricity produced using itssynthetic gas (and employing CCS) is larger than a natural gas plant but much smaller than a traditionalcoal plant.132

Gasiication technology proven to be relatively cost-eective at commercial scale and used to displaceexisting coal power (not natural gas) could represent

a bridge between the high emissions o today’s powersector and low-carbon, non-coal power in the decades

ahead. For example, coal-derived gas could be sent tonatural gas power plants through existing pipelines,reducing demand or electricity rom coal plants. A number o newer natural gas plants are not operat-ing at ull capacity due to the recent spike in naturalgas prices, so coal gasiication could allow these plants

to expand operations, leading to a net reduction inpower-sector emissions i power rom coal plants isdisplaced.

his technology could also allow or the testing o carbon sequestration technologies sooner and lessexpensively than by adding CCS to IGCC or pulverized coal plants. On the other hand, coal-to-gastechnology (as with coal-to-liquid) would increase theenvironmental costs associated with coal mining andtransportation, though this would be oset i coal-to-gas displaced traditional coal combustion. hetechnology warrants additional analysis to determine

the extent to which it could help reduce utureemissions.

recOmmendatiOnS On cOal-tO-gaStechnOlOgy• Commercial-scale acilities that convert coal into

a synthetic orm o natural gas must be equipped with CCS.

• Coal-derived gas should replace other orms o energy derived rom coal, not natural gas. Regula-tions or other mechanisms must be developed to

ensure that this technology leads to CO2 reduc-tions, not increases.




The United States Should Direct MoreDollars to Efciency and Renewable Energ

c h a p t e r S e v e n

W

hile determining what roleCCS can play in the nation’senergy uture, the United Statescan meet its growing electricity demand cleanly and cost-eec-

tively by increasing investments in energy eiciency

and renewable power. We have already shown how these technologies can help the United States not only avoid the need or new coal plants but also dramati-cally reduce the use o both natural gas and coal—allowing 181 older coal plants to be retired while sav-ing consumers billions o dollars every year.133

the pOwer SectOr ShOUld bereqUired tO mOre aggreSSivelydeplOy clean technOlOgyBlocking the construction o new coal plants with-out CCS would likely steer additional utility invest-

ment toward renewable power and energy eiciency,but not necessarily to the extent it should. Experienceshows that utilities are reluctant to invest even inproven technologies that they have not already used.Renewable electricity standards and other policies canhelp utilities overcome this reluctance.

Renewable energy projects are typically smallerthan conventional power plants and consist o components that can be mass-produced, making iteasier to achieve economies o scale that will reducecosts and make renewable power more competitive

with traditional projects. Renewable power also en-hances energy security and price stability by diver-siying our energy supply with resources that are notsubject to short-term price volatility or long-termprice increases.

Unortunately, energy eiciency aces particularly strong barriers to expansion. Because utilities earntheir income (and privately owned utilities make theirproit) by selling electricity, conservation and eici-ency programs cut into that income (unless state poli-cies compensate utilities or this lost income). State

and ederal policies must thereore require utilities toexpand their energy eiciency programs while reduc-ing their retail energy sales by a speciied amount.his is one o the most cost-eective ways we canmeet our energy needs and reduce CO2 emissions atthe same time.

As states adopt more and stricter laws requiring utilities to pursue energy eiciency and renewableenergy, some utilities that until recently thought ad-ditional coal generation was needed have ound thatis no longer the case.134 Increased ederal eiciency requirements and a ederal renewable electricity stan-dard would increase utilities’ ability to meet our en-ergy needs without new coal plants.

mOre ederal r&d Unding iS neededtO enSUre Other technOlOgieS cancOmpete airly with cOal

One o the greatest risks associated with pursuing CCS is that it will prevent the nation rom giving appropriate attention to truly clean and sustainableenergy options (wind, concentrated solar, photovol-taic solar, geothermal, tidal power, biomass, and bio-uels) and the myriad emerging technologies that canmake us more eicient in our use o energy. A recentstudy by the American Solar Energy Society (ASES)projected that the United States could obtain virtu-ally all the CO2 reductions needed up to 2030 by ag-gressively pursuing energy eiciency and renewable

power.

135

he option with the greatest potential by ar was energy eiciency (Figure 23).In addition, the ASES study conirms our own

analysis that shows the United States can meet its en-ergy needs and reduce emissions without relying onCCS, at least through 2030. And because it did notlook at all renewable options or energy storage tech-nologies, the ASES could well have underestimatedthe reductions possible with renewable energy.

On the other hand, the ASES study did not exam-ine the costs o its chosen scenario, did not consider




igure 23: Potntal CO2 emssons rdctons om eny efcncyand rnwabl Tchnolos

a oo o f oos ou ou ssos uos

2030 o s o 60 o 80 uos 2050.

Source: American Solar Energy Society. 2007. Tackling climate change in the U.S: Potential carbon emissions reductions rom energy efciency and renewable energy by 2030.

whether coal with CCS could play a cost-eective rolein reducing emissions, and did not look beyond 2030.It is possible that we may not be able to continue ex-panding energy eiciency and renewable energy at thesame rate beyond 2030. he public may not accepturther penetration o renewable technologies, rais-ing the cost o inding suitable sites, and intermittentresources such as solar and wind energy would likely require additional storage beyond 20 percent penetra-tion, with costs that are highly uncertain at this time.

However, a recent analysis by MI compared the

costs o CCS and energy eiciency and projected which energy technologies would meet global needsthrough 2050. While MI strongly supports thedevelopment o CCS, its modeling showed thatthe world would save ar more energy through ei-ciency measures than it would obtain rom coal plants with CCS.136

he development o energy eiciency and re-newable energy technologies has been impeded overthe years by the diiculty o competing with artii-cially inexpensive coal power (whose price does not

ully relect the enormous environmental and societalcosts associated with its use). Devoting a dispropor-tionate share o ederal R&D unding to CCS couldaccelerate the speed at which this technology evolvesrelative to cleaner options, urther inhibiting the development and deployment o energy eiciency andrenewable power. Given the high stakes involved incombating global warming, we should not reduceR&D investment in coal with CCS but rather greatly expand R&D investment in eiciency and renewabletechnologies.

he ederal government’s bias in avor o R&Dor coal and nuclear power was illustrated in a recentreport by the Government Accountability Oice(GAO). he GAO analyzed six years o electricity-related R&D (2002 through 2007) and ound thatnuclear energy received $6.2 billion in R&D unds,ossil uels received $3.1 billion (almost all o which went to coal-related programs), and renewable energy received $1.4 billion.

he GAO also looked at electricity-related taxexpenditures (deined as avorable tax treatment

U . S .

C a r b o n E m i s s i o n s ( M t C / y r )

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Year 2 0

0 5

2 0 0

6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 3

2 0 1 4

2 0 1 5

2 0 1 6

2 0 1 7

2 0 1 8

2 0 1 9

2 0 2 0

2 0 2 1

2 0 2 2

2 0 2 3

2 0 2 4

2 0 2

5

2 0 2 6

2 0 2 7

2 0 2 8

2 0 2 9

2 0 3 0

Path for 60% reductionPath for 80% reduction

Energy EciencyWindBiofuels

BiomassPhotovoltaic SolarConcentrated SolarGeothermal




such as tax credits). It ound that ossil uels re-ceived $13.7 billion in tax expenditures during theive-year period, while renewable energy received$2.8 billion.137 he GAO did not quantiy other ormso subsidies such as low-income loans provided by the

Rural Utilities Service, which have unded many coalplants owned by rural cooperatives (though in March2008 the U.S. Department o Agriculture announcedit was suspending this loan program through iscalyear 2009).138

he DOE not only underunds renewable energy technologies, but also largely ignores energy storagetechnology. Improved storage options including bat-teries, thermal storage, and compressed air storagecould greatly expand our use o intermittent renew-able resources such as wind and solar energy, andshould be the subject o aggressive research. I we

could cost-eectively store the energy producedrom renewable resources or just a ew days, we couldavoid having to store the CO2 produced by coalplants—yet the attention paid to energy storage palesin comparison with CCS.

Considering the act that global warming wasrecognized as a “serious threat to America’s nationalsecurity” in a recent report by a panel o retired gen-erals and admirals,139 it is a bit shocking to comparethe amount our ederal government spends on energy R&D o any kind ($1.6 billion in iscal year 2007) with that spent on deense-related R&D (more than$82 billion).140 Clearly, cleaner energy technologiesare not receiving anything like the level o R&D investment they should receive given the proound na-ture o the threat we ace. Investment in technologiesthat can reduce CO2 emissions should be greatly ex-panded, with the amount based on each technology’srelative potential to reduce emissions saely—not onthe relative strength o the industry most invested init. Based on that criterion, renewable power and en-ergy eiciency should receive more unding than coal with CCS.

Launching the accelerated CCS demonstrationprogram we support above, which could easily cost$10 billion over the next ew years, will deepen theederal government’s bias toward coal-related R&D

unless we greatly multiply the unding devoted tocleaner options. A uture heavily dependent on CCSmay not be the optimal scenario or achieving thedeep and rapid emissions reductions we need to pro-tect our climate (and coal use results in other serious

environmental and societal costs). I investing in CCSprevents the rapid development o more promising technologies, this strategy would actually handicapour ability to ight global warming. he United Statesmust thereore invest commensurate amounts in vari-ous energy eiciency, renewable energy, and energy storage technologies.

Given the act that global warming is one o thegreatest threats humanity has ever aced, investing about $10 billion in R&D and demonstrations o each technology that shows promise or reducing CO2 (including CCS) would not be an unreason-

able response. At the very least, each o the eici-ency, renewable, and energy storage technologiesthat have the potential to reduce emissions on the samescale as CCS should receive unding commensurate with CCS.

recOmmendatiOnS On energyinveStmentS• State and ederal governments should immediately

adopt policies requiring the power sector to increaseits investment in renewable energy and energy e-ciency. Tese policies should include new or stron-ger renewable electricity standards (which requireutilities to obtain a growing percentage o theirpower rom renewable sources) along with energy eciency requirements and appliance eciency standards aimed at reducing retail energy demandby a growing percentage each year.

• Te ederal government should provide ar moreR&D and demonstration unding or energy e-ciency, concentrated solar, photovoltaic solar, geo-thermal, wind, tidal, biomass, biouel, and energy storage technologies. Tis unding should reect

the scale and urgency o the threat posed by global warming, and should be allocated based on eachtechnology’s potential to reduce emissions with-out harming the environment or public health.




The U.S. Coal and Power Industries MustAddress the Damage Caused by Coalthroughout Its Fuel Cycle

c h a p t e r e i g h t

Uou o s s sous s sks,

u k u ss. Photos: Centers or Disease Control and Prevention (inset); IndexOpen

C

oal has traditionally been a low-costsource o power only because theenvironmental and human costs in-curred throughout its uel cycle have

never been relected in the price. As we transorm our energy inrastructure in response

to global warming and decide how much to invest incoal plants with CCS versus other options, we mustkeep the ull environmental and human costs o coalin mind. Some o these costs may decrease as we

implement CCS (which will reduce other air pollut-ants along with CO2), but others are likely to increase




because more coal must be mined and burned togenerate the same amount o electricity at a plantequipped with CCS as at one without it.

he United States should take steps to reducethese uel cycle costs wherever possible, and ensure

that any remaining costs are relected in the priceo coal power. Costs that warrant particularly seri-ous consideration as we debate the uture o coal aremountaintop removal mining, mine waste impound-ments (or “slurry ponds”), coal miner saety, and airpollutants other than CO2 that are emitted by coalplants (see Appendix B).

In addition, enorcement o existing regulationsmust be greatly improved, not only or inherent health,saety, and airness concerns, but also to put coal ona more level playing ield with resources that do nothave comparable uel cycle impacts. his would also

demonstrate that regulation o current activities canbe managed eectively beore adding the enormoustask o regulating carbon sequestration.

recOmmendatiOnS On envirOnmentaland SOcietal cOStSIn addition to stricter enorcement o the many lawsgoverning coal mining and combustion (e.g., theCoal Mine Health and Saety Act, the Surace Mining Control and Reclamation Act, the Clean Water Act,the Clean Air Act), the United States should:

• Enact a statute explicitly banning mountaintopremoval mining. No surace mining practice thatremoves the tops o mountains or buries streamsor valleys can be rendered sustainable, since by definition it prooundly changes the landscape ina way that reduces biodiversity and depletes orestand stream resources.

• Ensure that mine waste impoundments are renderedsae and environmentally secure. Mine operators

should be required to use best practices to mini-mize the quantity and toxicity o mine waste, andto construct new impoundments according tostringent saety standards. Existing impoundmentsshould be subject to aggressive regulatory over-

sight (including inspections to identiy saety orenvironmental risks such as inadequate dam con-struction, proximity to underground mines, andleakage o contaminants into groundwater).

• Increase R&D unding or strategies to reduce theenvironmental and societal costs o coal mining and use throughout its uel cycle, including min-ing accidents and mine waste management.

• I coal use declines as a result o ederal climatepolicy, provide coal-producing areas with eco-no-mic assistance that would be unded by a specific share o the proceeds rom cap-and-trade

auctions.• Require coal mine and power plant operators

to pay into a und created to clean up the envi-ronmental and societal damage caused by coalover the decades (which, in turn, will encouragethe industry to build these costs into the priceo coal).

• Require coal plant operators to use the “maximumachievable control technology” (the highest pollu-tion control standard under the Clean Air Act) toreduce emissions o mercury and other toxic pol-lutants rom new and existing plants.

• Require existing coal plants to urther reduceemissions o sulur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, andparticulate matter.

• When permitting new coal plants, require thatthe environmental impact statement covers theull uel cycle, including upstream impacts (rommining, uel treatment, and transport) and down-stream impacts (rom waste disposal).




The United States Should Adopta Strong Cap-and-Trade Policy

c h a p t e r n i n e

R

equiring new coal plants to capturetheir global warming pollution will notdrive reductions rom the existing coalleet. he ederal government shouldthereore adopt a cap-and-trade policy

that puts a cap on total emissions, creates an ongoing

inancial incentive to reduce emissions by establishing a price on each ton o CO2 emitted, and allows powerplant operators to trade pollution allowances. Such a program should complement other policies that canreduce emissions more cost-eectively than cap-and-trade alone.

Most observers expect the United States to adoptsome type o cap-and-trade policy in the next ew yearsthat will cap global warming pollution rom multipleeconomic sectors (or at the very least rom the powersector) and require polluters to own enough govern-ment-issued but market-tradable allowances to cover

each ton o CO2. Many states are already setting upregional cap-and-trade agreements, including the 10states participating in the Northeast Regional Green-house Gas Initiative (RGGI), the seven states partici-pating in the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), andthe six states that have begun a similar initiative in the

igure 24: ronal Cap-and-Tad Makts

t ss es, ws, ms o o o cO 2 ks.

ao ss of oss o s o ks. o uos

uoz o o o o s’s us.

Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2008. Regional initiatives. Online at http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/regional_initiatives.cm.Accessed August 28, 2008.

Regional

Greenhouse Gas

Initiative (RGGI)

RGGI Observer

Midwestern

Greenhouse Gas

Reduction Accord

Accord Observer

Western Climate

Initiative

Western Climate

Initiative Observer

Individual State

Cap-and-Trade

Program




Midwest. In addition, the U.S. Congress is consider-ing several bills that would establish a ederal cap-and-trade program. Details aside, such a program mustassign a price to emissions in the broader market sothat market orces can help drive emissions reductions

rather than continue to propel them upward.Cap-and-trade laws must also set caps low enough

to actually drive the dramatic emissions reductions we need. By the same token, cap-and-trade laws can-not allow excessive “osets,” which enable pollutersto und and receive credit or reductions at pollutionsources not covered by the cap (rather than reducing their own emissions or purchasing allowances romanother source covered by the cap). It is inherently diicult to prove that the reductions claimed by anoset project would not have happened anyway, andmore importantly, allowing the power sector to meet

the cap by unding reductions in other sectors will in-hibit the development o new, low-carbon alternativesto coal power. hese newer technologies will be lessable to attract capital and commitments because investors will have less certainty about the uture marketor low-carbon alternatives.

It is also important that cap-and-trade programsauction CO2 allowances rather than allocating themto polluters or ree. Europe’s experience with CO2 cap-and-trade illustrates the mistake o ree alloca-tions: power plant operators were given allowances orree and received windall proits as a result. his isone reason why the RGGI states are moving towardull or nearly ull auctioning o their allowances. Evenin states that regulate retail electricity rates but allow wholesale competition, windall proits could still re-sult i allowances were allocated or ree.

Giving allowances to coal plant operators wouldamount to yet another subsidy or coal power, urther

slowing the needed transition to cleaner technologies.By contrast, auctioning allowances would create a publicly controlled pool o unds that could be usedto accelerate the transition to cleaner technologies(through CCS demonstrations, or example) and

address any inequities this transition may cause. Re-building our energy inrastructure will require a sus-tained public investment, and auctioning allowancescan provide a sustained public revenue stream com-mensurate to the task.

recOmmendatiOnS On cap-and-trade• Congress should enact a cap-and-trade law re-

quiring CO2 reductions o at least 80 percent by 2050, with interim targets that ensure early andsustained reductions. (Until Congress acts, statesshould continue to develop regional programs

with similar targets.) Tere should be no loop-holes in the ederal law that would undermine itsreduction goals or delay the introduction o cleanenergy technologies.

• Revenues rom the auction o pollution allow-ances should be used to accelerate and ease thetransition to low-carbon energy technologies(e.g., by unding demonstrations o CCS andother carbon-reducing technologies, unding en-ergy eciency and renewable energy projects,aiding low-income energy consumers, helping workers or communities that may sufer economiclosses due to the transition to cleaner technolo-gies). Coal miners and mining communities couldace particular hardships i coal use contracts asa result o ederal climate policy, in which caseauction revenues should be dedicated to minerretraining assistance and economic diversificationaid or mining communities.




CCS Demonstration Results Should BeShared with Developing Nations

c h a p t e r t e n

igure 25: Coal us n Chna, inda, and th untd Stats

c’s us o o o s o U Ss, s s —

c s u u o o 500 mw o s k.

Source: Energy Inormation Administration. 2008. International coal consumption. June 26. Online atwww.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/coalconsumption.html. The chart uses historical data through 2005 and EIA projections or 2006 and 2007.

A

s risky as the potential expansion o theU.S. coal industry is, it pales in compar-ison with expansion in the developing world, especially in China and India.China is reportedly building the equiva-

lent o two new 500 MW conventional coal plants per

week,141 and the country already consumes ar morecoal than the United States.142 However, some prog-ress was made in reducing China’s global warming pollution in 2007, as the country replaced more than

14 GW o electricity generated by small, ineicientcoal plants with electricity generated by mostly larger,more eicient supercritical plants, saving 11 milliontons o coal and 30 million tons o CO2.

143 Unless developing countries begin aggressive

emissions reductions soon, it may become impossible

to avoid the worst consequences o global warming regardless o actions taken in developed countries.Our analysis shows that i emissions in the developed world peak in 2010 and are ollowed by sustained

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

C o n s u m p t i o n i n M i l l i o n s o f S h o r t T o n s

United States

China

India




and aggressive reductions o at least 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050, the developing world’s emis-sions will need to peak between 2020 and 2025 (ol-lowed by signiicant reductions).144 hereore, coalplants without CCS should not be built in any part

o the world.CCS technology may be essential to emissions re-

ductions in the developing world, especially i China’seconomy continues to grow so quickly that meeting its electricity demand requires building new powerplants o all types. (Manuacturing and constructionbottlenecks could make it impossible to keep pace with growing demand through eiciency and renew-able energy alone.)

his potential need or CCS in developing coun-tries is urther reason or the United States to acceler-ate its own demonstration program, and to do so at

a large enough scale to explore a range o dierenttechnological approaches (i.e., the 5 to 10 projects werecommend). Such a program will yield valuable in-ormation over the next ew years about CCS relativeto other options available to both the developed anddeveloping worlds.

Some clean energy advocates have argued that theneed to accelerate CCS adoption in China and otherdeveloping countries is one reason or a broader andlonger-term U.S. commitment to CCS—moving be-yond demonstrations to immediate deployment.145 However, there are potentially serious inancial andenvironmental risks to making such a commitmentbeore the technology has been demonstrated atcommercial scale. A more sensible strategy would beto irst demonstrate the technology and then, i thedemonstrations are successul, deploy it in those coun-tries where it is needed. hese demonstrations willhelp the United States decide which options aremost cost-eective and have the ewest risks relative toother technologies.

It has not been proven that rapid deployment o CCS is necessarily the best option or developing

countries. Because o limited resources, consumers inthese countries tend to purchase equipment withlower initial costs and lower eiciency, which meansthere are even greater opportunities or improving energy eiciency in developing countries than in theUnited States.146 From 1980 to 2000 or example,China showed steady improvement in energy eiciency,as its economy grew twice as ast as its energy con-sumption.147 his was a remarkable achievement con-sidering the act that energy use in most developing countries grows aster than the national economy.

China has also established the world’s most aggres-sive energy eiciency target: a 20 percent reduction inenergy consumption per unit o gross domestic prod-uct (GDP) between 2005 and 2010.148 I China canmeet this target, it will have reduced its CO2 emis-

sions (compared with “business-as-usual” projections)by 1.5 billion tons in just ive years, greatly exceeding the European Union’s commitment under the Kyotoprotocol to reduce emissions approximately 300 mil-lion tons over a 15-year period. Unortunately, China’senergy consumption per unit o GDP ell only 1.23percent in 2006—well short o the annual goal o 4percent—due to a surge in manuacturing and themovement o people rom rural to urban areas, whichhas increased the need or new inrastructure.149 ocounteract these trends and meet its eiciency target,China will have to establish additional government

policies and deeper levels o investment.Renewable energy represents a signiicant op-

portunity or all countries, and China and India arealready on their way to becoming global leaders in re-newable energy development. For example, China hasalready met its 2010 target o 5,000 MW o electricity rom wind power,150 and a recent study indicates thatthe country may also surpass its goal o obtaining 15percent o its total energy and 21 percent o its elec-tricity rom renewable resources by 2020.151 In thatamount o time, China’s installed capacity rom smallhydro, wind, biomass, and solar power is expected toreach 137 GW, which represents an investment o nearly $270 billion.152

One other actor to consider is that sae and suc-cessul CCS demands a thorough and well-undedregulatory system to ensure that sequestration sitesare properly selected and monitored, and that powerproducers continue to comply with capture andstorage requirements. his level o oversight will be a challenge in developed nations; it will be even har-der in rapidly developing ones. China’s regulatory authorities are already so overwhelmed by the lood

o new coal plants that many o those being builthave never even received construction approval romthe government.153

Nonetheless, the urgent need to prevent the con-struction o coal plants without CCS in the develop-ing world will require the United States and otherdeveloped nations to transer CCS technology to developing countries as it evolves. CCS demonstrationprojects are already under way in Australia, Canada,Europe, and the United States, while China and India are pursuing advanced IGCC and supercritical pul-




verized coal demonstrations (see Appendix A).154 heEuropean Union and the United Kingdom are already working with China on CCS research, development,and deployment that will produce a demonstrationplant in China by 2020.155 echnology transer is alsobeing promoted by the Carbon Sequestration Leader-ship Forum (CSLF), an international initiative repre-senting both developed and developing nations thatseeks “to make these technologies broadly availableinternationally.” 156

Developed nations must also ensure that interna-

tional inancial institutions provide appropriate sup-port or low-carbon technologies o all kinds, and

potentially help pay or emissions reductions in devel-oping countries when doing so is highly cost-eective.Expanding the transer o clean energy technologiesto developing countries and inancing their acceler-ated deployment is a core element o the “Bali action

plan” adopted in December 2007 by the parties tothe United Nations Framework Convention on Cli-mate Change (including the United States). he plancalls or “nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties in the context o sustain-able development, supported and enabled by technol-ogy, inancing and capacity-building, in a measurable,reportable and veriiable manner.”157 he scope andscale o the support to be provided by developed na-tions, and the criteria or awarding this support, arekey issues in the current negotiations on the post-2012 international climate treaty that countries aim

to inalize by the end o 2009.Finally, the World Bank and other international

sources o unding should phase out inancial sup-port or conventional coal plant construction in developing nations. Continuing to construct coal plants without CCS in the developing world undermineseorts to steer these nations onto a low-carbon path,and will make it harder to reverse their growing emissions in time to avoid the worst eects o global warming.

recOmmendatiOnS On internatiOnalaSSiStancehe United States should:

• Freely share the technological lessons learned romederally unded CCS demonstration projects withdeveloping countries, and ensure that technology transer is not hindered by unduly restrictive intel-lectual property rights.

• Participate in the development o internationalfinancing mechanisms that would promote andsupport the use o CCS (and other low-carbonenergy technologies) by developing nations.

•

Steer economic aid or developing countries towardtechnologies that will reduce CO2 emissions.

c s s 2010 o 5,000 mw

o o o. Photo: Joe Sullivan




Conclusion

c h a p t e r e l e v e n

o avoid the worst consequences o glo-bal warming, the United States musthave a coherent set o policies designedto dramatically reduce CO2 emissionsrom coal plants. First, we must imme-

diately stop the construction o coal plants that do notemploy CCS technology, so ederal policies shouldinclude a CO2 perormance standard and a cap-and-

trade program that will render coal plants withoutCCS a inancial liability.

Given the signiicant potential CCS technology has or reducing global warming pollution, the UnitedStates should undertake a demonstration programo 5 to 10 commercial-scale CCS projects, which will enable us to determine the technology’s meritsas quickly as possible. In the meantime, the UnitedStates should meet its growing energy needs by more aggressively deploying energy eiciency andrenewable energy.

An increased investment in CCS must be accom-panied by a dramatic increase in R&D unding oreiciency, renewable power, and energy storage. his will expand our options or responding to climate

change and will help ensure that ederal R&D unding does not unduly avor coal at the expense o alterna-tives with lower costs and ewer risks. We cannot yetsay whether coal with CCS, other technologies, or a combination o both will emerge as the economically and environmentally preerable long-term option orreducing emissions.

Furthermore, because an increased investment in

CCS may expand coal use—and all o the environ-mental and societal costs associated with its use—theUnited States must take simultaneous steps to mini-mize those costs. o that end, the ederal governmentshould ban mountaintop removal mining, securemine waste impoundments, and improve and enorcelaws related to mine saety.

Finally, the United States must put a market priceon CO2 emissions by adopting a strong cap-and-tradelaw designed to ensure the necessary emissions reduc-tions rom existing coal plants. Revenues rom theauction o pollution allowances can be used to accel-erate the transition to cleaner energy technologies andalleviate any inancial hardships that may be aced by miners and mining communities as a result.




1 National Research Council (NRC). 2007. Coal: Research and

development to support national energy poli cy. Washington,DC: National Academies Press, 44. Online at http://books.nap.

edu/catalog.php?record_id=11977 .

2 Energy Inormation Administration (EIA). 2008a. Frequentlyasked questions: Electricity. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmento Energy. Online at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_

aqs.asp#coal_plants.

3 Horan, D. 2006. 10 years later: Rethinking the role o distri-bution utilities. Presentation to the Massachusetts Restruc-

turing Roundtable, June 23. Online at http://raabassociates.org/Articles/Horan_6.23.06.ppt .

4 EIA. No date (a). Table 18: Average number o employeesby state and mine type, 2006, 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment o Energy. Online at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cnea/

coal/page/acr/table18.html . Accessed July 11, 2008.

5 EIA. No date (b). Table 1: Coal production and number o mines by state and mine type, 2006-2005. Washington, DC:U.S. Department o Energy. Online at http://www.eia.doe.gov/

cnea/coal/page/acr/table1.html.Accessed July 11, 2008.

6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008a. Air emis-sion sources. Washington, DC. Online at http://www.epa.gov/

air/emissions/index.htm. And: Schnieder, C.G. 2004. Dirty air,

dirty power: Mortality and health damage due to air pollution

rom power plants. Boston, MA: Clean Air Task Force. Online at

http://www.cat.us/publications/reports/Dirty_Air_Dirty_Power.pd.

7 EPA. 2008b. Clean Air Mercury Rule: Basic inormation. Wash-ington, DC. Online at http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercuryrule/

basic.htm.

8 National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). No date (a).IEP Water-Energy Interace: Power plant water management.Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department o Energy. Online at http://

www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/water/power-

gen.html . Accessed July 11, 2008.

9 Baum, E. 2004. Wounded waters: The hidden side o power plant

pollution. Boston, MA: Clean Air Task Force. February. Onlineat http://www.cat.us/publications/reports/Wounded_Waters.

pd .

10 EPA. 2003. Mountaintop mining/valley ills in Appalachia: Drat

programmatic environmental impact statement. Washington,DC. Appendix I, 91. Online at http://www.epa.gov/Region3/

mtntop/eis.htm.

11 NRC. 2006. Managing coal combustion residues in mines.Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 13-14. Online athttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11592.

12 NRC 2006, 3.

13 Based on ossil uel emissions rates and heat rates or newpower plants. From: EIA. 2008c. Annual energy outlook 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department o Energy. And: EPA. 2007a.Inventory o U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-

2005. Washington, DC. April 15. Online at http://epa.gov/

climatechange/emissions/downloads06/07CR.pd.

Endnotes

14 EIA. 2008b. Figure 97: Carbon dioxide emissions by sectorand uel, 2006 and 2030. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmento Energy. Online at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oia/aeo/excel/

igure97_data.xls.

15 A detailed analysis o the reductions needed to have a rea-sonable chance o avoiding the worst consequences o global warming, along with the assumptions made aboutreductions needed rom other developed nations and thedeveloping world is available in: Luers, A.L., M.D. Mastran-drea, K. Hayhoe, and P.C. Frumho. 2007. How to avoid dan-

gerous climate change: A target or U.S. emissions reductions .Cambridge, MA: Union o Concerned Scientists. September.Online at http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_

warming/emissions-target-report.pd .

16 Shuster, E. 2008. Tracking new coal-ired power plants. Pitts-burgh, PA: National Energy Technology Laboratory (U.S. De-partment o Energy). February 18. Online at http://www.netl.

doe.gov/coal/reshel/ncp.pd .

17 The new plants would represent 66 GW o new coal capacity,on top o the 335 GW o coal capacity already in place. From:EIA. 2007b. Table 2.2: Existing capacity by energy source,2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department o Energy. Online athttp://eia.doe.gov/cnea/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html .

18 Based on an EPA estimate o 12,100 lb. o CO2 /year rom theaverage car, assuming 32,780 MW o new coal construction

and CO2 emissions o 7,260 tons/MW or a new supercriticalpulverized coal plant based on EIA and MIT assumptions.From: EPA. 2008c. Personal emissions calculator. Washington,DC. Online at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/

ind_calculator.html.

19 EIA. 2008c. Annual energy outlook 2008. Washington, DC: U.S.Department o Energy. Year-by-year reerence case tables(2005-2030), revised March 5. This estimate is signiicantlylower than EIA’s orecast or 240 new 600 MW coal plants inEIA 2007a, due to lower electricity demand and higher levelso new nuclear plants and new renewable capacity resultingrom state renewable electricity standards.

20 A orthcoming UCS analysis will examine this issue quantita-tively.

21 Peabody Energy. 2007. E=mc2. Presentation to Lehman Broth-

ers CEO Energy/Power Conerence, September 6. Online athttp://www.peabodyenergy.com/pds/IRPresentation0907.pd .

22 Shuster, E. 2007. Tracking new coal-ired power plants.Pittsburgh, PA: National Energy Technology Laboratory(U.S. Department o Energy). May 1. Sierra Club hosts an on-line database tracking the status o coal plant proposalsaround the country (http://www.sierraclub.org/environmental

law/coal/plantlist.asp), and SourceWatch hosts a list o coalplant cancellations (http://www.source watch.org/index.php?

title=Coal_plants_cancelled_in_2007 ). Both websites accessedJuly 11, 2008. Not all o the cancelled projects had been on theDOE’s list o 151 proposals in 2007, and the DOE no longerpublishes the names o the plants it is tracking.




23 The Massachusetts Institute o Technology (MIT) CarbonCapture and Sequestration Technologies Program maintainsa database o CCS projects under development. See: MIT.2008a. Carbon dioxide capture and storage projects. Cam-bridge, MA. Online at http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/

projects/index.html.

24 Shuster 2008, 15.

25 Modern Power Systems. 2007. IGCC stumbles and alls in theUS: The spate o cancellations is becoming a lood. Novem-ber 26. Online at http://www.modernpowersystems.com/story.

asp?storyCode=2047980. Also see Sierra Club and Source-Watch lists o coal plant cancellations, online at http://www.

sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/plantlist.asp and http://

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_plants_cancelled_

in_2007 , respectively.

26 Callahan, R. 2008. Duke, Daniels start work on coal-gas plant.Associated Press. July 21. Online at http://www.indystar.com/

apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080721/LOCAL/807210459/1310/

ARCHIVE.

27 The Lima News. 2008. Environmental group suing Lima En-ergy. January 12. Online at http://www.limaohio.com/news/

lima_6772___article.html/energy_gas.html .28 Orlando Utilities Commission. 2007. OUC discontinues plans

or clean coal plant. Press release. November 14. Online athttp://www.ouc.com/news/releases/20071114-secb.htm.

29 Chaisson, J.M. 2007. Testimony to the Senate Science, Tech-nology and Innovation Subcommittee, April 26. Online athttp://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cm?Fuse

Act ion =He ari ngs .Testi mon y&H ear ing _ID =4 929 424 -2 d7 -

4182-802e-59d7b93dac&Witness_ID=b12d8eea-9ae-4b17-

8a0-a1a5324d1518.

30 MIT. 2007. The uture o coal: Options or a carbon-constrained

world . Cambridge, MA. Appendix 3-D.

31 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2005.IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Pre-pared by Working Group III o the IPCC. Metz, B., O. Davison,

H.C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L.A. Meyer (eds.). Cambridge,UK, and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 4. Onlineat http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/srccs.htm.

32 MIT 2007, 30.

33 NETL’s database titled “Tracking new coal-ired power plants”ormerly listed plant proposals by name, but has not done sosince the May 1, 2007, version.

34 MIT 2008a.

35 U.S. Department o Energy (DOE). 2008a. DOE announces re-structured FutureGen approach to demonstrate CCS technol-ogy at multiple clean coal plants. Press release. January 30.Online at http://www.doe.gov/news/5912.htm.

36 The News-Gazette. 2008. FutureGen alliance welcomes undingvote. July 9. Online at http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/

2008/07/09/uturegen_alliance_welcomes_unding_vote.

37 MIT 2007, xiii.

38 IPCC 2005, Section 8.3.3.

39 IPCC 2005, 44.

40 IPCC 2005, 356.

41 MIT 2007. And: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2007.The power to reduce CO2 emissions: The ull portolio. Discus-sion paper. Palo Alto, CA. August. Online at http://mydocs.epri.

com/docs/public/DiscussionPaper2007.pd . And: Creyts, J., A.Derkach, S. Nyquist, K. Ostrowski, and J. Stephenson. 2007.Reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions: How much at what

cost? New York, NY: McKinsey & Company. December. Online

at http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/greenhousegas.asp.

42 Environment News Service. 2006. Europe tests carbon cap-ture at coal-ired plant. Press release. March 15. Online athttp://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-15-

06.asp. And: Alstom. 2008. Alstom together with its USpartners EPRI and We Energies launches innovative projectto capture CO2 using chilled ammonia. Press release. Febru-ary 27. Online at http://www.alstom.com/pr_corp_v2/2008/

corp/49200.EN.php?languageId=EN&dir=/pr_corp_v2/2008/

corp/&idRubriqueCourante=23132.

43 NRG Energy. 2007. NRG and Powerspan announce large-scaledemonstration o CCS or coal-ueled power plants. Press re-lease. November 2. Online at http://www.snl.com/irweblinkx/

ile.aspx?IID=4057436&FID=5109620. And: Basin Electric

Power Cooperative. 2008. Basin Electric selects Powerspanor large-scale demonstration o carbon capture at AntelopeValley station. Press release. March 13. Online at http://www.

prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/w ww/

story/03-13-2008/0004773488&EDATE= . And: SaskPower. 2008.New ederal unding opens door to major carbon capturedemonstration project in Saskatchewan. Press release. Feb-ruary 27. Online at http://www.saskpower.com/aboutus/news/

?p=368.

44 Reuters. 2008. Tenaska plans $3 bln coal plant to capture car-bon. Press release. February 19. Online at http://www.reuters.

com/article/idUSN1931278220080220.

45 NETL. No date (b). Carbon sequestration atlas o the United

States and Canada. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department o Energy.Online at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/

reshel/atlas/index.html . Accessed July 11, 2008.46 NETL no date (b).

47 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. Geologic CO2 sequestra-tion research at the USGS. Reston, VA. May 5. Online at http://

energy.er.usgs.gov/health_environment/co2_sequestration/

co2_illustrations.html .

48 NETL no date (b).

49 Schmidt, C.W. 2007. Carbon capture & storage: Blue-skytechnology or just blowing smoke? Environmental Health Per-

spectives 115(12), December. Online at http://www.pubmed

central.nih.gov/articlerender.cgi?artid=2072827 .

50 House, K.Z., D.P. Schrag, C.F. Harvey, and K.S. Lackner. 2006.Permanent carbon dioxide storage in deep-sea sediments.Proceedings o the National Academy o Sciences 103(33). Au-

gust 15. Online at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/ 0605318103v1.

51 House et al. 2006.

52 IPCC 2005, 201. And: MIT. 2008b. Carbon dioxide storage onlyprojects. Cambridge, MA. Online at http://sequestration.mit.

edu/tools/projects/storage_only.html .

53 IPCC 2005, 201-205. And: StatOilHydro. 2008. Carbon storagestarted on Snohvit. Press release, April 23. Online at http://

www.statoilhydro.com/en/NewsAndMedia/News/2008/Pages/

CarbonStorageStartedOnSn%C3%B8hvit.aspx.




54 DOE. 2008a. Carbon sequestration regional partnerships.Washington, DC. Online at http://www.ossil.energy.gov/programs/

sequestration/partnerships/index.html .

55 NETL. No date(c). Carbon sequestration world projects. Onlineat http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/core_rd/

world_projects.html.Accessed July 11, 2008. And: DOE 2008a.

56 DOE. 2008b. DOE to demonstrate cutting-edge carbon cap-ture and sequestration technology at multiple FutureGenclean coal projects. Fact sheet. Washington, DC. January. On-line at http://www.ossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/

uturegen/uturegen_revised_0108.pd .

57 IPCC 2005, Section 5.7.2.

58 IPCC 2005, Section 5.7.4.1.

59 IPCC 2005, Section 5.7.4.2.

60 IPCC 2005, Section 5.7.4.4.

61 IPCC 2005, 12; MIT 2007, 43.

62 MIT 2007, xii.

63 IPCC 2005, 14.

64 Lochbaum, D.A. 2006. Testimony to the Senate Subcommit-

tee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Saety, June22. Online at http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_

saety/testimony-NRC-Regulatory-Processes.html . And: Wright,B. 2007. Testimony to the House Natural Resources Com-mittee on the Surace Mining Control and Reclamation Acto 1977, July 25. Online at http://resourcescommittee.house.

gov/images/Documents/20070725/testimony_wright.pd .

65 Smil, V. 2006. Energy at the crossroads. Background notes ora presentation at the Global Science Forum Conerence onScientiic Challenges or Energy Research, May 17-18. Onlineat http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/25/36760950.pd .

66 MIT 2007, 130. MIT’s cost estimates do not include the recentsigniicant increases in construction costs. I those increaseswere included, it would likely lower the incremental costs o deploying CCS on a percentage basis.

67 NETL. 2007a. Cost and perormance baseline or ossil energy

plants, volume 1: Bituminous coal and natural gas to electric-

ity, inal report . Revision 1. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Departmento Energy. August. Exhibit ES-5. Online at http://www.netl.

doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/Bituminous%20Baseline_

Final%20Report.pd.

68 NETL. 2007b. Carbon sequestration technology roadmap and

program plan 2007 . Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department o En-ergy. Online at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_

seq/reshel/project%20portolio/2007/2007Roadmap.pd .

69 MIT 2007, 147.

70 MIT 2007, 34, 129. And: Kuuskraa, V.A. 2007. A program to

accelerate the deployment o CO2 capture and storage (CCS):

Rationale, objectives, and costs. Coal initiative reports. Arling-

ton, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 10 and Ap-pendix A.

71 Hawkins, D.G. 2007. Testimony to the House Select Commit-tee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Septem-ber 6. Online at http://globalwarming.house.gov/tools/assets/

iles/0020.pd .

72 S.309, section 709, requires that each coal generator purchase0.5 percent o its power (or buy credits) rom plants with CCSby 2015, rising to 5 percent annually. Applying these tar-gets to the coal generation projected in EIA 2008 (March 5revision) would roughly translate into 1,514 MW o capturedcapacity by 2015 and 16,315 MW by 2020, assuming an 80percent capacity actor.

73 Chaisson 2007.

74 S. 2191, title III, subtitle F (Lieberman-Warner Climate SecurityAct o 2008).

75 MIT 2007, 58.

76 MIT 2007, 56

77 MIT 2007, 86.78 Kuuskraa 2007.

79 Kuuskraa 2007, 1.

80 Kuuskraa 2007, 31.

81 Kuuskraa 2007, 27.

82 Kuuskraa 2007, 31-32.

83 Experiments are under way in which power plant emissionsare run through a liquid medium in which algae is suspend-ed, allowing the algae to absorb the CO 2. See http://www.

greenuelonline.com.

84 We do not endorse the precise breakdown o projects sug-gested by the Pew report’s smaller-scale program. As longas dierent types o coal are tested (when that dierence

matters signiicantly to the technology in question), and aslong as dierent types o geologic storage sites are tested, wesee no reason why hal the projects should be located east o the Mississippi River and hal to the west. See: Kuuskraa 2007,24-25.

85 The IEA’s road map or CCS is part o “Energy technologyperspectives 2008: Scenarios and strategies or 2050,” an in-depth analysis o multiple emissions-reducing technologies.

This document and a brie summary o IEA’s CCS road mapare available online at http://www.iea.org/Textbase/techno/

etp/index.asp.

86 European Technology Platorm or Zero Emission Fossil FuelPower Plants (ETP ZEP). 2008. The EU Flagship Programmeor CO2 capture and storage (CCS), ZEP recommendations:Implementation and unding. February 21. Online at http://

www.zero-emissionplatorm.eu/website/index.html.

87 For Australia see: ZeroGen. 2008. Reconigured ZeroGenproject to deliver large-scale clean coal power plant by 2017.Press release. March 19. Online at http://www.zerogen.com.

au/iles/ReconiguredZeroGenproject_1.pd . For Canada see:SaskPower 2008. For China see: World Coal Institute. 2007.Peabody Energy joins China’s ‘GreenGen’ to develop near-zeroemissions coal plant. Press release. December 11. Online athttp://www.worldcoal.org/pages/news/index.asp?PageID=434

&NewsID=49#. For Europe see: Vattenall AB. No date. Vat-tenall’s project on CCS. Stockholm. Online at http://www.

vattenall.com/www/co2_en/co2_en/index.jsp. Accessed July14, 2008.

88 IPCC 2005, 152; MIT 2007, 29.

89 Kuuskraa 2007, 16.

90 Kuuskraa 2007, 17-20.

91 Kuuskraa 2007, 22.

92 MIT 2007, 97.

93 MIT 2007, 46.

94 Secter, B., and K. Kridel. 2007. Illinois lands clean-coal plant,but White House warns o rising costs. Chicago Tribune,December 18.

95 MIT 2007, 81-82.




96 DOE 2008b.

97 MIT 2007, 17.

98 Kuuskraa 2007, 8-9.

99 MIT 2007, 33.

100 MIT 2007, 20-21.

101 Shuster 2008, 15.

102 Basu, P. 2006. Combustion and gasiication in luidized beds.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 12.

103 EIA 2008c. The EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2008 reports sig-niicantly less new coal capacity than in 2007, mainly becauseo lower electricity demand, higher nuclear capacity addi-tions, and signiicantly higher renewable energy capacitydue to state renewable electricity standards.

104 Based on data rom regulatory ilings or proposed plants inIllinois, Kansas, North Carolina, and South Dakota.

105 MIT 2007, 28.

106 MIT 2007, 147.

107 MIT 2007, 29.

108 MIT 2007, 151.

109 MIT 2007, 149.

110 Dooley, J.J., and R.T. Dahowski. 2003. Examining plannedU.S. power plant capacity additions in the context o climatechange. In: Sixth International Conerence on Greenhouse Gas

Control Technologies, vol. 2. Oxord, UK: Permagon Press.

111 Hawkins 2007.

112 U.S. General Accounting Oice. 1980. Electric powerplantcancellations and delays. Washington, DC. December. Onlineat http://archive.gao.gov/0202/113933.pd .

113 Pierce, R.J. 1984. The regulatory treatment o mistakes inretrospect: Canceled plants and excess capacity. University

o Pennsylvania Law Review 132(497). And: Colton, R.D. 1983.Excess capacity: Who gets the charge rom the power plant?

Hastings Law Journal 34(1133).

114 For a discussion o our position on the role o nuclear powerin the ight against global warming, see http://www.ucsusa.

org/global_warming/solutions/nuclear-power-and-climate.

html .

115 For example see: McKinsey & Company. 2007. Reducing U.S.

greenhouse gas emissions: How much at what cost? Online athttp://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/greenhousegas.

asp. And: Ehrhardt-Martinez, K., and J. Laitner. 2008. The size

o the U.S. energy eiciency market: Generating a more com-

plete picture. Washington, DC: American Council or an Ener-gy Eicient Economy (ACEEE). May 15. Online at http://aceee.

org/pubs/e083.htm.

116 Union o Concerned Scientists (UCS). 2007. Cashing in onclean energy. Updated October. Online at http://www.ucsusa.

org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/cashing-in.html .And: Nogee, A., J. Deyette, and S. Clemmer. 2007. The pro-

jected impacts o a national renewable portolio standard.Electricity Journal 20(4). May. And: EIA. 2007d. Energy and

economic impacts o implementing a 25-percent renewable

portolio standard and a 25-percent renewable uel standard by

2025. Washington, DC: U.S. Department o Energy. August.Online at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oia/servicerpt/eeim/pd/sroia

(2007)05.pd .

117 Shuster, E. 2007. Tracking new coal-ired power plants.Pittsburgh, PA: National Energy Technology Laboratory(U.S. Department o Energy). May 1. Sierra Club hosts anonline database tracking the status o coal plant proposalsaround the country (http://www.sierraclub.org/environmental

law/coal/plantlist.asp), and SourceWatch hosts a list o coalplant cancellations (http://www.source watch.org/index.php?

title=Coal_plants_cancelled_in_2007 ). Both websites accessedJuly 11, 2008. Not all o the cancelled projects had been onthe DOE’s list o 151 proposals in 2007, and the DOE no longerpublishes the names o the plants it is tracking.

118 Caliornia Public Utilities Commission. 2007a. PUC sets GHGemissions perormance standard to help mitigate climatechange. Press release. January 25. Online at http://docs.cpuc.

ca.gov/Published/NEWS_RELEASE/63997.htm.

119 Caliornia Public Utilities Commission. 2007b. Interim opinionon Phase 1 issues: Greenhouse gas emissions perormancestandard. Decision 07-01-039, section 4.3. January 25. Onlineathttp://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/FINAL_DECISION/64072.

htm.

120 Washington’s perormance standard, S.B. 6001, could bemade stricter i regulators ind new combined-cycle gas

plants are achieving better emissions rates than 1,100 lbs.per MWh. See http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billino/2007-08/

Pd/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/6001-S.PL.pd .

121 S. 1168, section 101, applying ater 2015 (Alexander-Lieber-man; Clean Air/Climate Change Act o 2007), and S. 1177,section 6, applying rom 2015 to 2025 (Carper; Clean Air Plan-ning Act o 2007).

122 S. 309, section 708 (Sanders-Boxer; Global Warming PollutionReduction Act o 2007), and S. 1201, section 711 (Sanders-Lieberman; Clean Power Act o 2007).

123 Based on heat rates or ultra-supercritical, supercritical, andIGCC coal plants rom MIT 2007, 19 (Table 3.1) and 30 (Table3.5), and a carbon content or coal o 220 lb. per million Brit-ish thermal units (EIA 2008c).

124 Carbon capture processes are expected to be able to capture85 to 95 percent o the CO2 passing through a plant, but be-cause additional coal must be burned to power the captureprocess, the actual reduction per MWh would all between 80and 90 percent. (IPCC 2005, 4.)

125 Alstom. 2007. Alstom and Statoil to jointly develop projector chilled ammonia-based CO2 capture or natural gas inNorway. Press release. June 21. Online at http://www.alstom.

com/home/investors/regulated_inormation/archive_2007/_

iles/ile_48150_45690.pd .

126 EPA. 2007c. Greenhouse gas impacts o expanded renew-able and alternative uels use. Emission acts. April. Onlineat http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewableuels/42007035.pd .And: Wang, M., M. Wu, and H. Huo. 2007. Lie-cycle energyand greenhouse gas results o Fischer-Tropsch diesel pro-

duced rom natural gas, coal, and biomass. Presented at 2007Society o Automotive Engineers government/industrymeeting, Washington DC. Center or Transportation Research,Argonne National Laboratory. May. And: Gray, D., C. White, G.

Tomlinson, M. Ackiewicz, E. Schmetz, and J. Winslow. 2007.Increasing security and reducing carbon emissions o the U.S.

transportation sector: A transormational role or coal with

biomass. Pittsburgh, PA: NETL, U.S. Department o Energy.August 24. Online at http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/

press/2007/ 070829-NETL-USAF_Release_Feasility _Study.html. And: Bartis, J.T. 2007. Policy issues or coal-to-liquid develop-ment. Testimony to the Senate Energy and Natural ResourcesCommittee. May 24. Online at http://www.rand.org/pubs/

testimonies/CT281.




127 In this section, biomass uels reer speciically to Fischer- Tropsch uels made rom biomass (oten called “biomass-to-liquid” or BTL) and not to biouels more generally.

128 Lie cycle analysis o the global warming pollution rombiomass uels includes all the direct and indirect emissionsgenerated in producing the uel. Inputs rom arming, trans-portation, and energy required in the conversion o biomassto uel must all be considered, together with indirect eectsarising rom changes in land use. I, or example, biomass u-els are made rom energy crops that displace ood crops andindirectly lead to deorestation elsewhere, the lie cycle anal-ysis must include these indirect eects (which can dramati-cally increase lie cycle emissions). See: UCS. 2008. Land usechanges and biouels. May 9. Online at http://www.ucsusa.

org/clean_vehicles/uel_economy/land-use-and-biouels.html .

129 Fairley, P. 2007. China’s coal uture. Technology Review , January1. Online at http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18069.

130 Herzog, A. 2007. Testimony to the Senate Committee on En-ergy and Natural Resources, May 24. Online at http://energy.

senate.gov/public/_iles/HerzogTestimony.pd .

131 Perlman, A. 2007. Testimony to the Senate Committee on En-

ergy and Natural Resources, August 1. Online at http://www.greatpointenergy.com/GPE_testimony.pd .

132 GreatPoint Energy. No date. Carbon sequestration. Online athttp://www.greatpointenergy.com/carbon.htm. Accessed July14, 2008.

133 Clemmer, S., D. Donovan, A. Nogee, and J. Deyette. 2001.Clean energy blueprint: A smarter national energy policy or

today and the uture. Cambridge, MA: Union o ConcernedScientists. October. Online at http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_

energy/clean_energy_policies/clean-energy-blueprint.html .

134 Great River Energy. 2007. Great River Energy to withdrawrom Big Stone II project. Press release. September 17. Onlineat http://www.greatriverenergy.com/press/news/091707_big_

stone_ii.html#P0_0.

135 The reductions achieved by 2030 would put the nation on

a path to achieve reductions o nearly 80 percent by 2050using eiciency and renewables. See: Kutscher, C.F. 2007.Tackling climate change in the U.S.: Potential carbon emissions

reductions rom energy eiciency and renewable energy by

2030. Boulder, CO: American Solar Energy Society. Online athttp://www.ases.org/images/stories/ile/ASES/climate_change.

pd .

136 MIT 2007, 11, Figure 2.5.

137 U.S. Government Accountability Oice (GAO). 2007. Federal

electricity subsidies: Inormation on research unding, tax ex-

penditures, and other activities that support electricity produc-

tion. Washington, DC. October. Online at http://www.gao.

gov/new.items/d08102.pd.

138 Muson, S. 2008. Government suspends lending or coalplants. Washington Post , March 13. Online at http://www.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/12/

AR2008031203784.html .

139 The CNA Corporation. 2007. National security and the threat

o climate change. Alexandria, VA. Online at http://www.

securityandclimate.cna.org.

140 American Association or the Advancement o Science(AAAS). 2007. Table 3: Major unctional categories o R&D.Washington, DC. October 5. Online at http://www.aaas.org/

spp/rd/upd1007t3.pd .

141 MIT 2007, ix and chapter 5.

142 MIT 2007, 63.

143 The Energy Foundation. 2008a. China Sustainable EnergyProgram update newsletter. Beijing. May.

144 Luers et al. 2007, 12.

145 For example, see Hawkins 2007.

146 For example, see: Expert Group on Energy Eiciency. 2007.Realizing the potential o energy eiciency: Targets, policies,

and measures or G8 countries. Washington, DC: United Na-tions Foundation. Online at http://www.unoundation.org/

energyeiciency/index.asp. And: Moskovitz, D. 2006. MeetingChina’s energy eiciency goals means China needs to startbuilding eiciency power plants (EPP). Hallowell, ME: TheRegulatory Assistance Project. April. Online at http://www.

raponline.org/Feature.asp?select=23.

147 The Energy Foundation. 2007. Energy in China: The myths,

reality and challenges. 2007 annual report. 8. San Francisco.Online at http://www.e.org/documents/2007_EF_Annual_

Report.pd .

148 The Energy Foundation. 2008b. China emerging as newleader in clean energy policies. Fact sheet. Beijing. March 12.Online at http://www.echina.org/FNewsroom.do?act=detail&

newsTypeId=1&id=107 .

149 The Energy Foundation. 2008c. Online at http://www.echina.

org/FHome.do.

150 The Energy Foundation 2008a.

151 Martinot, E., and L. Juneng. 2007. Powering China’s develop-

ment: The role o renewable energy . Washington, DC: World-watch Institute. November. Online at http://www.worldwatch.

org/node/5496.

152 The Energy Foundation 2008b.

153 MIT 2007, 68.

154 Morrison, G. 2008. Roadmaps or clean coal technologies:IGCC, supercritical, and CCS. Presentation at the Energy Tech-nology Roadmaps Workshop, International Energy Agency,Paris, May 15-16.

155 This project, known as the Near-Zero Emissions Coal (NZEC)project, maintains a website at http://www.nzec.ino/en/what-

is-nzec . Accessed on July 14, 2008.

156 More inormation about the Carbon Sequestration Leader-ship Forum can be ound at http://www.cslorum.org/index.

htm.

157 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC). 2007. Bali action plan. Decision CP.13. Bonn. De-

cember. Online at http://unccc.int/iles/meetings/cop_13/ application/pd/cp_bali_action.pd .




Status o CCS Technology

a p p e n d i x a

here are three components to carboncapture and storage (CCS) as applied tocoal-ired power plants: the capture o thecarbon dioxide (CO2) rom the coal plant;

its transport (almost always by pipeline) to a suitablegeologic storage, or sequestration, site such as an oil orgas ield or saline aquier (a ormation illed with salt- water not useul as drinking water); and the injection

o the CO2 into that site. his appendix discusses eacho these components, but devotes the most attentionto carbon capture (which is the mostly costly com-ponent) and sequestration (which poses the greatestenvironmental risk).

he technologies involved in CO2 capture, trans-port, and sequestration have all been demonstrated atsome level (though new capture technologies are stillemerging). However, they have not been demonstrat-ed at anything like the scale contemplated by its back-ers. Moreover, CCS has not been demonstrated in anintegrated orm (i.e., with a ull-size, commercially operating coal plant at one end and a well-monitoredsequestration site at the other).

cO2 captUrehere are three types o CO2 capture technology un-der development today: pre-combustion, post-com-bustion, and “oxyuel.” he Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that availableCCS technologies can capture between 85 and 95percent o the CO2 rom a coal plant, but becausethis process requires its own source o energy—addi-

tional coal consumption—the amount o CO2 actu-ally avoided per kilowatt-hour o electricity produced would all to between 80 and 90 percent.1

Below we describe speciic CCS pilot or demon-stration projects that have been announced in eachtechnological category. here are other CCS programsthat have not yet announced an actual constructionproject or determined which technology will be em-ployed; or example, the European Union (EU) as-pires to have as many as 12 demonstrations in place by 2015, and a public-private partnership has launched

an initiative called the EU Flagship Programme tohelp achieve that goal.2 China has launched a pro-gram supported by the EU and the United Kingdom(UK) called Near Zero Emission Coal, which intendsto construct a coal plant with CCS, but is still con-sidering a range o technologies.3 And the UnitedStates has been supporting research and development(R&D) into CCS or some time, especially through

the Department o Energy’s National Energy ech-nology Laboratory (NEL).4 It should be noted thatCCS is also being investigated in contexts other thancoal-ired power plants, such as natural gas processing acilities.5

In many cases, the proposed projects are waiting or policy changes or subsidies that will make themmore cost-eective. As long as CO2 can be emittedor ree, adding CCS substantially increases the costo energy rom coal plants, making it impossible orplants with CCS to compete against new coal plantsbuilt without CCS. Even in places where there is al-ready a price applied to CO2 emissions, such as in theEU, it is generally assumed that the risks and costs as-sociated with CCS demonstrations will prevent suchprojects rom moving orward without governmentsupport.

Pre-combustioncapture. When integrated gasiica-tion combined cycle (IGCC) plants gasiy coal, they create a synthetic gas, or “syngas,” that contains hydro-gen and carbon (mostly in the orm o carbon monox-ide, CO, but also some CO2). Using a process called

a shit reaction, the CO in the syngas can be shitedto CO2, which can then be removed beore the syngasis burned in a combustion turbine. Because pre-com-bustion CO2 is still in a relatively concentrated andhigh-pressure orm, it can be removed at a lower costthan post-combustion processes.

Without employing a shit reaction, some CO2 can be captured rom an IGCC plant by capturing that raction o the syngas that is already CO2. hissort o “unshited” partial carbon capture might cap-ture between 15 and 30 percent o the plant’s CO2.

6




None o the our IGCC coal plants operating inthe world currently employs carbon capture, thoughthe two operating in Europe have announced plansto conduct pilot projects at their acilities.7 Also, theDakota Gasiication Company operates a coal gas-

iication plant in Beulah, ND, that makes syntheticnatural gas (rather than generating electricity) andemploys pre-combustion technology to capture abouthal o its CO2 emissions. he CO2 is then transport-ed by pipeline more than 200 miles to Weyburn, SK, where it is pumped into an aging oil ield—one o the world’s largest carbon sequestration demonstra-tion projects (discussed in more detail below).8 It is worth noting that the same technologies used in pre-combustion capture are already widely used or thelarge-scale production o hydrogen in the ertilizerand reining industries.9

Commercial-sized IGCC plants that would em-ploy substantial levels o CCS have been announcedaround the world.10 he Wallula Energy ResourceCenter in the state o Washington, or instance, couldbecome the site o a 914-megawatt (MW) acility at which backers have pledged to capture “at least65%” o its CO2 (allowing it to meet Washington’sCO2 emissions perormance standard) and sequesterthe carbon in deep basalt ormations.11 A joint ven-ture by BP and Rio into has applied or a permit toconstruct a 390 MW IGCC plant in Caliornia that would mainly use a coal-like petroleum by-productcalled petroleum coke or “petcoke.” he plant wouldcapture 90 percent o its CO2 or use in enhanced oilrecovery (discussed below).12

An Australian IGCC/CCS project called ZeroGenis moving orward in two phases, starting with an 80MW plant scheduled or 2012 and a 300 MW plantscheduled or 2017.13 he German power company RWE has announced a 360 MW IGCC/CCS plantscheduled to be built in 2015.14 In the UK, powerproducer Poweruel and a Shell subsidiary have an-nounced plans or a 900 MW IGCC/CCS plant that

would become operational in 2013.15

And China isplanning an IGCC/CCS project called GreenGen, which would begin as a 250 MW plant and expand to650 MW in a later phase. Peabody Energy, the largestU.S. coal company, recently joined this initiative.16

O course, the act that such projects have beenannounced does not guarantee they will be built,and other announced IGCC/CCS projects have al-ready been cancelled or are being restructured. hisincludes the high-proile FutureGen project, a now-deunct partnership between the U.S. Department o

Energy (DOE) and a consortium o large coal pro-ducers and electricity generators. FutureGen was tobe this country’s lagship CCS demonstration project,involving a 275 MW IGCC plant located in Illinoisthat would have captured a minimum o 1 million

tons o CO2 per year, or about 90 percent o its emis-sions.17 he CO2 would then have been sequestered indeep saline ormations at or near the generation site.he DOE withdrew its support or this project whencosts reached $1.8 billion, nearly double the originalestimate;18 however, a restructured FutureGen projecthas been announced that aims to provide ederal und-ing or the CCS portion o multiple coal plants.19

Power producer NRG had announced plans in2007 to build a 755 MW IGCC plant in New York with 65 percent capture—provided that public subsi-dies and carbon pricing would make the project

commercially viable—but when state oicials with-drew their support in 2008, NRG concluded that“the necessary unding was not there” and cancelledthe project.20 BP and Rio into recently cancelledtheir 500 MW IGCC/CSS Australian project calledKwinana ater geologic studies indicated the selectedsequestration site was not actually suitable.21

Post-combustion capture. Conventional pulverizedcoal plants can capture their CO2 only ater the coalhas been burned, which is more challenging than pre-combustion capture because o the low concentrationand low pressure o the CO2 in the resulting exhaustgases. his is because air, which consists mostly o nitrogen, is used to uel the combustion and dilutesthe CO2. However, CO2 can still be captured rom a plant’s lue gases using chemical processes. So-calledamine scrubbers are considered the state-o-the-arttechnology or this purpose and are widely used in vastly smaller applications than power plants (e.g., toobtain CO2 or industrial purposes or carbonated bev-erages). Amine scrubbing uses a great deal o energy,however. Another method using chilled ammonia is

being tested to see i it can capture CO2 using less en-ergy. Partial capture o CO2 can be achieved by rout-ing just a portion o the lue gases through a captureprocess.

A ew small post-combustion test projects are un-der way, have recently been completed, or are about tobegin. he Esbjerg pulverized coal plant in Denmark,or example, currently routes 0.5 percent o its luegases (called a slipstream) through amine scrubbersas part o a pilot project supported by the EU.22 WeEnergies is testing carbon capture rom a slipstream




equivalent to 1.7 MW at a Wisconsin pulverized coalplant using chilled ammonia.23 AEP has announcedthat it will conduct a larger trial o chilled ammo-nia capture in 2009, which will be applied to a slip-stream representing 20 to 30 MW o its 1,300 MW

Mountaineer pulverized coal plant in West Virginia;the captured CO2 will be sequestered in an onsitesaline ormation.24

Four plants have been announced in North Amer-ica that would extend CCS technology beyond thepilot phase by adding it to a substantial portion o theemissions rom existing pulverized coal plants. First, AEP has announced it will ollow up its Mountain-eer plant test with a larger one in 2011, on emissionsequivalent to 200 MW at its 450 MW Northeas-tern Station coal plant in Oklahoma. AEP expectsto seek DOE unding or this project, which would

capture about 1.5 million tons o CO2 yearly and se-quester it in nearby oil ields—with the added objec-tive o enhanced oil recovery (EOR, which is intendedto orce oil up toward wells that have been declining in productivity).25

NRG has announced a CCS test on a 125 MW share o its WA Parish pulverized coal plant in SugarLand, X, which would attempt to capture about 1million tons o CO2 annually beginning in 2012 anduse it or EOR. NRG states that it will “work withgovernment and non-government entities to provideadditional unding or the project.”26

Basin Electric is evaluating proposals or a demon-stration project that would capture more than 1 mil-lion tons o CO2 annually rom a 120 MW share o its Antelope Valley lignite plant in North Dakota. heplant is to be located next to the Dakota GasiicationCompany plant that already captures its CO2, and thetwo plants would share CO2 compression equipmentand pipelines. Basin Electric has also stressed the needor ederal support to make this project viable.27

SaskPower, owned by the province o Saskatchewan,has announced plans to proceed with a $1.4 billion

(Canadian) project to repower its 130 MW Boundary Dam coal plant. he carbon capture process will re-duce the plant’s output, resulting in a 100 MW plantthat captures about 1 million tons o CO2 annually and uses the CO2 or EOR. However, even with a promise o $240 million (Canadian) rom the ederalgovernment, SaskPower has said it still needs oilindustry partners to buy the captured CO2 or EOR in order to make the project cost-eective.28

Outside North America, the Swedish power com-pany Vattenall has recently announced two major

projects that would add CCS to existing coal plants.One would reduce the output o Denmark’s Nordjyl-land plant rom 376 to 305 MW by 2013, while cap-turing 1.8 million metric tons o CO2 yearly. Vattenallalso plans to add post-combustion capture to 250 MW

o the German lignite plant at Janschwalde.29 hecompany is already a world leader in investigating CCS with oxyuel combustion (see below).

New pulverized coal plants with post-combus-tion capture have also been announced. For exam-ple, enaska has proposed a $3 billion project nearSweetwater, X, involving the construction o anapproximately 600 MW supercritical coal plant that would capture 90 percent o its CO2, which wouldbe pumped into the Permian Basin or the purpose o EOR.30 he company has stated that it will not decide whether to build the plant until 2009, depending on

several actors including inancial incentives and mar-ket prices or carbon emissions.31

he UK is holding a competition that will awardgovernment unding to support the construction o a commercial-scale coal plant with post-combustionCCS, and has announced our inalists or the subsi-dy.32 In addition, a consortium o U.S. power produc-ers and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)has proposed a program called UltraGen that wouldsupport the building o two pulverized coal plants with CCS that would come online in 2015 and 2020,respectively. he irst would be an 850 MW plant that would run a quarter o its emissions stream throughthe capture process, ollowed by a 650 to 700 MW plant that would run hal its emissions stream throughthe capture process. Host sites or these plants are be-ing sought, with the incremental capture costs to becovered by the consortium.33

Oxyfuelcombustion. I coal is combusted using near-ly pure oxygen rather than air, the resulting exhaustis mainly CO2 and water vapor. he higher concen-tration o CO2 lowers the costs o carbon capture

(though there are additional costs associated with ob-taining the needed oxygen).

A pilot project by Vattenall to test oxyuel com-bustion at a pulverized coal plant is under constructionin Germany and scheduled to become operational inSeptember 2008. Vattenall has also announced anoxyuel demonstration project at the Janschwalde lig-nite plant in Germany (where it is also planning a demonstration o more traditional post-combustioncapture). he Janschwalde oxyuel demonstrationinvolves replacing the existing boiler with a 250 MW




oxyuel boiler, and will result in the capture o 1.1million metric tons o CO2 yearly.34

Smaller oxyuel pilot projects have been announcedin the United States and Australia. he state o New York, or example, is supporting the public/private

Oxy-Coal Alliance, which will test oxyuel combus-tion by building a 50 MW coal plant with CCS in Jamestown, NY. he project depends on obtaining $100 million in ederal unding and the passage o new state laws to regulate CCS.35 Oxyuel and CCSare also being tested at a 50 MW natural gas powerplant in Caliornia, with substantial unding romboth the ederal and state governments. he plant willcapture 1 million tons o CO2 over our years as parto a sequestration demonstration project.36 he CO2 will be sequestered in a geologic ormation beneaththe plant, with oversight provided by the Caliornia

Energy Commission and unding rom the DOE.37

Another oxyuel/CCS project at a coal plant is un-der way in Australia. his joint venture among Japa-nese and Australian companies, with support romthe Australian government, will retroit the Callide-A plant with a 30 MW oxyuel test by 2010.38

SaskPower had previously considered building a 300 MW oxyueled coal plant with carbon capturebut cancelled these plans when the estimated costreached $3.8 billion (Canadian).39 As noted above,SaskPower is now pursuing an air-ired post-combus-tion CCS retroit project instead.

cO2 tranSpOrtatiOnMost CCS proposals involve transporting the CO2 toa sequestration site by pipeline, though it can also betransported by tanker. he United States already hasmore than 2,500 km o CO2 pipelines in the westernpart o the country (which are used in EOR opera-tions), so this is not an untested technology.40 Pipelinecosts increase in a linear ashion as distance increases,so coal plants located near sequestration sites will havea signiicant cost beneit over those that are not.41

cO2 SeqUeStratiOnhere are our major carbon sequestration projectscurrently under way: the Sleipner project in the NorthSea, the In Salah project in Algeria, the Weyburn proj-ect in southern Saskatchewan (all three o which havebeen operating or several years),42 and the recently begun Snohvit project o the coast o Norway.43 he Weyburn project, which has the added goal o EOR,buys its CO2 rom the Dakota Gasiication Company plant mentioned above and is the only project using

CO2 obtained rom coal. (he other projects all re-ceive their CO2 as a by-product o natural gas pro-duction.) he annual quantity o CO2 sequestered atthese projects ranges rom 0.75 million metric tons(Snohvit) to 1.5 million metric tons (Weyburn).44

Smaller sequestration projects are also under way around the world and other large projects are pend-ing.45 In the United States, seven regional partnershipshave been ormed to pursue large-scale sequestrationprojects—six o which were recently awarded grantsby the DOE.46 wo o these regional projects, in theSoutheast and North Dakota, will receive CO2 rompost-combustion capture at existing coal plants. hePlains CO2 Reduction Partnership, based at the Uni- versity o North Dakota, may receive its CO2 romthe Antelope Valley lignite plant mentioned above,but inal plans have not been announced.

I carbon sequestration is to play a meaningul rolein reducing global warming pollution, it will have toovercome a number o challenges: scale, slow leakage(which would contribute to warming), ast leakage(which would pose a threat to public saety), con-tamination o groundwater supplies, seismic events,cost, and public acceptance. Moreover, not all areas o the country have suitable geologic ormations; plantsbuilt in areas without local sequestration options willace additional transportation costs.

Scale. While none o the existing or proposed pro-

jects sequester more than 1.5 million tons o CO2 yearly, it should be noted that a single 600 MW supercritical coal plant emits about 4 million metrictons annually. he Massachusetts Institute o ech-nology (MI) estimates that i 60 percent o theCO2 currently generated by U.S. coal plants werecaptured and compressed or sequestration, its vol-ume would equal the total U.S. oil consumption o 20 million barrels per day.47 hereore, in order orCCS to make a major contribution to long-term emis-sions reductions (i.e., 3.6 billion metric tons per year

by 2050),48

the world would need 3,600 sites eachsequestering 1 million metric tons per year (roughly the size o each o the our major operating projectsdescribed above).49

Meeting the challenge o scale requires consider-able R&D just to identiy potential sequestration sites.Studies suggest that the world does have the capacity to store massive quantities o CO2 underground, es-pecially in saline ormations,50 but identiying speciicsites that can be counted on to store the CO2 indei-nitely represents a massive undertaking.




Leakageandmigration. he IPCC concludes thatthe raction o CO2 that will be retained in an ap-propriately selected and managed sequestration site is“very likely” to exceed 99 percent over 100 years and“likely” to exceed 99 percent over 1,000 years. Various

trapping mechanisms in a well-selected site, such as animpermeable caprock that prevents the CO2 rom ris-ing, would gradually immobilize the CO2 and couldretain it or millions o years.51 Injection into oil andgas ields, saline aquiers at depths greater than 800meters, and seismically stable areas are consideredmost appropriate. However, it may not always be easy to ensure that a caprock is truly impermeable, particu-larly in areas o prior oil and gas production or explo-ration where wells have already pierced the caprock.

Slow leakage rom sequestration sites would o course contribute to global warming. Sudden leak-

age o large amounts o CO2 rom a sequestration site(or pipeline) would pose a serious danger to the localpopulation, as CO2 is heavier than air and can accu-mulate in atal concentrations. he IPCC concludesthat these local dangers are comparable to the risks o current activities such as natural gas storage.52

Another potential risk posed by sequestered CO2 is that it could migrate rom a saline aquier or otherormation into which it is injected into a reshwa-ter aquier, contaminating what would otherwise bea useul drinking water supply. his would be par-ticularly dangerous i the CO

2were accompanied by

other contaminants rom coal plant emissions, or i it were to dissolve and transport toxic compounds thatalready existed underground.

Recent research has ound that CO2 injected intoa saline aquier ormed rom sandstone acidiies the water considerably, causing certain minerals in thesandstone to dissolve. Because some o these minerals

typically seal pores and ractures in the overlying rock ormations, their dissolution could allow the CO2 andacidiied saline to migrate into potable water supplies.he acidity could also dissolve cement seals used toclose abandoned oil and gas wells, creating other pos-

sible migration routes.53

Every sequestration project thereore requireslong-term measurement, monitoring, and veriicationo how much CO2 has been injected and where it hasgone. Seismic surveys conducted at sequestration sitescan delineate the boundary o the CO2 plume and candetect some indicators o leakage.54 Whatever systemsare put in place will have to be capable o tracking CO2 over a very large area—the plume rom a projectinjecting 1 million tons o CO2 every year or 20 yearsinto a saline aquier would spread horizontally or 15square miles or more,55 but the average coal plant pro-

duces 4 million tons o CO2 per year.

Seismic events. here is some risk that pumping such large volumes o CO2 underground could trig-ger damaging earthquakes, though MI states thatthe risk is “extremely low.”56 CO2 that is already be-ing pumped underground or the purpose o EOR hasnot caused any seismic events. Nevertheless, given themassive scale o sequestration being contemplated,the risk o CO2-induced earthquakes must be moreully studied.

he environmental and saety risks associated with CCS can likely be made comparable to othermajor industrial undertakings. But it will requirea large investment to identiy the most appropriatesites, an ongoing commitment to monitoring thosesites or the very long term, and a regulatory structureto establish and enorce appropriate perormance andsaety standards.




E n d n o t E s t o A p p E n d i x A

1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2005.IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Pre-pared by Working Group III o the IPCC. Metz, B., O. Davison,H.C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L.A. Meyer (eds.). Cambridge,UK, and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 4. Online

at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/srccs.htm.2 European Technology Platorm or Zero Emission Fossil Fuel

Power Plants (ETP ZEP). 2008. The EU Flagship Programmeor CO2 capture and storage (CCS), ZEP recommendations:Implementation and unding. February 21. Online at http://

www.zero-emissionplatorm.eu/website/index.html .

3 Near-Zero Emissions Coal Initiative. No date. What is NZEC?Online at http://www.nzec.ino/en/what-is-nzec/.Accessed onAugust 9, 2008.

4 National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 2007. Car-

bon sequestration technology roadmap and program plan

2007 . Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department o Energy. Online athttp://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/reshel/

project%20portolio/2007/2007Roadmap.pd .

5 Massachusetts Institute o Technology (MIT). 2008a. Carbon

capture and storage projects. Cambridge, MA. Online athttp://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index.html.

6 Cortez, D.H. 2007. Direct testimony to the Indiana Regula-tory Commission. Cause no. 43114, May 15. And: Cortez, D.H.2006. Rebuttal testimony to the Minnesota Public UtilitiesCommission. Docket no. 05-1993, October 10.

7 Nuon. 2008. Nuon starts CO2 capture pilot. Press release. October10. Online at http://www.nuon.com/press/press-releases/

20071010/ index.jsp. And: Utgard, B. 2008. Spain pioneers pre-combustion carbon capture. Oslo: Environmental Founda-tion Bellona. February 22. Online at http://www.bellona.org/

articles/articles_2008/spain_carbon_capture_pioneers.

8 Basin Electric Power Cooperative. No date. CO2 sequestra-tion. Bismarck, ND. Online at http://www.basinelectric.com/

Energy_Resources/Gas/CO2_Sequestration/index.html . AccessedAugust 9, 2008.

9 IPCC 2005, 25.

10 MIT 2008a.

11 Wallula Energy Resource Center. No date. Integrated gasii-cation combined cycle (IGCC). Online at http://www.wallula

energy.com/index.tpl?dsp=what . Accessed August 9, 2008.

12 Hydrogen Energy. 2008. Nation’s irst application or a revo-lutionary hydrogen uel electric generating acility withcarbon capture and sequestration to be iled beore the Cali-ornia Energy Commission. Press release. July 30. Online athttp://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/hydrogen_energy/index.

html.

13 ZeroGen. 2008. Reconigured ZeroGen project to deliverlarge-scale clean coal plant by 2017. Press release. March 19.Online at http://www.zerogen.com.au/iles/ReconiguredZero

Genproject_1.pd.

14 MIT. 2008b. RWE Zero-CO2 act sheet. Cambridge, MA. Onlineat http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/rwe_zero_co2.html .

15 GE Energy. 2008. GE technology maximises uel options orproposed cleaner coal plant. Press release. July. Online athttp://www.poweruel.plc.uk/id2.html .

16 Peabody Energy. 2007. Peabody joins China’s ‘GreenGen’ todevelop near-zero emissions coal plant. Press release. Decem-ber 11. Online at http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c

=129849&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1086004&highlight=#splash.

17 U.S. Department o Energy (DOE). 2007. Drat environmen-

tal impact statement or FutureGen project. Washington, DC. Table S-7. Online at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/docs/deis/

eis0394D/index.html.

18 Wald, M. 2008. Higher costs cited as U.S. shuts down coal

project. New York Times. January 31. Online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/business/31coal.html?sq=FutureGen

&st=nyt&scp=2&pagewanted=print .

19 DOE. 2008a. DOE announces restructured FutureGen ap-proach to demonstrate CCS technology at multiple clean coalplants. Press release. January 30. Online at http://www.energy.

gov/5912.htm.

20 NRG. 2008. NRG cancels plans or IGCC plant in western NewYork: Decision ollows NYPA ending support or clean coalproject. Press release. July 16. Online at http://www.snl.com/

irweblinkx/ile.aspx?IID=4057436&FID=6390248.

21 Foley, B., and E. Gismatullin. 2008. BP, Rio cancel $2 billionAustralian power project. Bloomberg L.P. May 12. Online athttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&reer=

australia&sid=ag.zXqGzi22g.

22 Environment News Service. 2006. Europe tests carbon cap-ture at coal-ired plant. March 15. Online at http://www.ens-

newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-15-06.asp.

23 We Energies. 2008. Alstom, EPRI, We Energies launch inno-vative pilot project to capture CO2. Press release. February27. Online at http://www.we-energies.com/home/co2_Press

release_02-27-08.pd.

24 AEP. 2007. AEP to install carbon capture on two existing pow-er plants: Company will be irst to move technology to com-mercial scale. Press release. March 15. Online at http://www.

aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/deault.aspx?dbcommand=

displayrelease&ID=1351.

25 AEP 2007.

26 NRG. 2007. NRG and Powerspan announce large-scale dem-

onstration o CCS or coal-ueled power plants. Press release.November 2. Online at http://www.snl.com/irweblinkx/ile.

aspx?IID=4057436&FID=5109620.

27 Basin Electric. 2008. Basin Electric, Powerspan bring the utureo coal to ND. Press release. June 18. Online at http://www.

bepc.com/News_Center/News_Releases/Basin_Electric%2C_

Powerspan_brin.html.

28 Johnstone, B. 2008. SaskPower’s clean coal project lacks mon-ey rom oil industry.Leader-Post.May 27. Online at http://www.

canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=0955b38-

2d1-436-9d99-02304eee553.

29 Vattenall. 2008. Bridging to the uture: Newsletter on Vatten-all’s project on carbon capture and storage. Online at http://

www.vattenall.com/www/co2_en/co2_en/Gemeinsame_

Inhalte/DOCUMENT/388963co2x/401837co2x/P0273857.pd .

30 Tenaska. 2008. Tenaska proposes nation’s irst new conven-tional coal-ueled power plant to capture carbon dioxide.Press release. February 19. Online at http://www.tenaska.

com/newsItem.aspx?id=30.

31 Reuters. 2008. Tenaska plans $3 bln coal plant to capture car-bon. February 19. Online at http://www.reuters.com/article/

idUSN1931278220080220.

32 Reuters. 2007. Britain seeks to set pace in carbon capture quest.June 30. Online at http://www.reuters.com/article/environment

News/idUSL302998920080630?eedType=RSS&eedName=

environmentNews.




33 Dalton, S. 2007. Testimony to the House Select Committeeon Energy Independence and Global Warming, September6. Online at http://globalwarming.house.gov/tools/assets/

iles/0016.pd .

34 Vattenall 2008.

35 New York Governor’s Oice. 2008. Governor Paterson an-

nounces support or new advanced coal power plant orJamestown—irst o its kind in the world. Press release. June10. Online at http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/press_

0610081.html.

36 Clean Energy Systems. 2008. CES technology to anchor large-scale carbon capture and storage project. Press release. May8. Online at http://www.cleanenergysystems.com/news/may_

2008/may_8_2008.html .

37 DOE. 2008b. DOE awards $126.6 million or two more large-scale carbon sequestration projects. Press release. May 6. Onlineat http://www.ossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2008/08012-

DOE_ Funds_Large-Scale_Projects.html.

38 CS Energy. 2008. Callide oxyuel project: Clean coal proj-ect set to commence. Press release. March 30. Online athttp://www.csenergy.com.au/_CMSImages/csenergy/pds/

080330%20oxyuel%20JV%20signing.pd .

39 SaskPower. 2008. New ederal unding opens door to majorcarbon capture demonstration project in Saskatchewan.February 27. Online at http://www.saskpower.com/aboutus/

news/?p=368.

40 IPCC 2005, 181.

41 IPCC 2005, 31.

42 IPCC 2005, 202-204.

43 StatOilHydro. 2008. Carbon storage started on Snohvit. Pressrelease. April 23. Online at http://www.statoilhydro.com/en/

NewsAndMedia/News/2008/Pages/CarbonStorageStartedOn

Sn%C3%B8hvit.aspx .

44 NETL. No date (a). Carbon sequestration world projects.Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department o Energy. Online at http://

www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/core_rd/world_

projects.html. Accessed on July 11, 2008.

45 MIT. 2008c. Carbon dioxide storage only projects. Cambridge,MA. Online at http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/stor-

age_only.html .

46 DOE. 2008c. Carbon sequestration regional partnerships.Washington, DC. Online at http://www.ossil.energy.gov/

programs/sequestration/partnerships/index.html.

47 MIT. 2007. The uture o coal: Options or a carbon-constrained

world . Cambridge, MA. ix. Online at http://web.mit.edu/coal/.

48 This level o reduction represents one o the seven “wedges”o emissions reductions needed to stabilize global emissions,as explained in: Pacala, S., and R. Socolow. 2004. Stabilizationwedges: Solving the climate problem or the next 50 yearswith current technologies. Science 305(968-972). August 13.

49 MIT 2007, 43.

50 IPCC 2005 , chapter 5.

51 IPCC 2005, 14.

52 IPCC 2005, 12.

53 Kerr, R.A. 2006. A possible snag in burying CO2. News item.Science, June 30.

54 MIT 2007, 48.

55 NETL. No date (b). Carbon sequestration: What is the currentstatus o monitoring, mitigation, and veriication (MM&V)techniques? Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department o Energy.Online at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/

FAQs/mmv-status.html . Accessed August 9, 2008.

56 MIT 2007 , 52.




Coal Fuel Cycle Issues

a p p e n d i x b

Fuel cycle costs related to coal use all intothree general categories: mining, transporta-tion, and combustion.

• Mining costs vary by region and mining method,and include occupational accidents, “black lung”disease, loss o wildlie habitat caused by suracemining, subsidence caused by underground min-

ing, blasting damage to area structures, air pollu-tion generated by blasting and mining equipment,increased regional ooding due to runof rommined areas, acid drainage, pollution caused by mine waste, and emissions o methane (a potentheat-trapping gas).

• ransportation costs can be divided into threesubcategories: costs related to the long trainsand barges that carry most coal to its destination(including uel consumption, accidents, and par-ticulate emissions); costs related to coal slurry pipelines (including water use and contamina-tion); and costs related to coal-hauling trucks(including accidents, particulate emissions, androad damage).

• Combustion costs include major air-quality prob-lems caused by the emission o air pollutants oth-er than CO2 rom coal-fired power plants: sulurdioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, andmercury, among others. ogether they contributeto a long list o health- and environment-relatedcosts, including illness and premature death dueto heart and lung disease; neurological damage;

damage to orests, lakes, and streams caused by acid rain; ecosystem and crop damage caused by ground-level ozone; and impaired visibility. Coal-fired power plants also place significant demandson groundwater and surace water supplies, afect-ing both water quantity and quality, and createlarge amounts o solid and liquid wastes that canleach heavy metals and other toxic substances intoground and surace waters.his appendix discusses our aspects o the coal

uel cycle with particularly serious risks that must be

addressed—especially i the United States continuesto expand and extend coal’s role in the energy sectorby subsidizing the coal industry: mountaintop remov-al mining, mine waste impoundments, mine saety,and non-CO2 air pollutants rom coal plants.

mOUntaintOp remOval mining While coal mining has long caused environmental

damage, the most destructive mining method by aris a relatively new one called mountaintop removal,currently practiced in southern West Virginia andeastern Kentucky. his method permanently destroysa mountain and its adjacent valleys and streams in ex-change or a ew short years o coal production.

Once all o the trees have been stripped rom themountaintop, its top several hundred eet are blastedaway with explosives, oten damaging the oundationsand wells o local residents and occasionally causing deadly accidents. he rock debris is dumped into anadjacent valley, burying the streams and destroying everything that once grew there. he practice leavesbehind a lattened area with soils so poor they canonly support grasses. Grasslands are not native to this wooded area, so the resulting landscape represents a prooundly changed environment.1

Mountaintop removal has already (and permanently)transormed parts o Appalachia. According to a 2002ederal study, the amount o deorestation related tothe mining o the past 10 years and the next 10 years will amount to about 1.4 million acres, or about 11.5percent o the area being studied.2 It has been projected

that the loss and ragmentation o so much ecologi-cally valuable orest could put some 244 species at risk.3 More than 700 miles o some o the most biologically diverse streams in the country have been buried, andanother 1,200 miles have been directly aected by sed-iment. It is predicted that in the next 10 years another1,000 miles o streams will be directly aected, along with many more miles downstream indirectly aectedby a loss o nutrients and increased pollution.4

Another legacy o mountaintop removal is in-creased looding. Runo rom the disturbed areas,




which are lacking in vegetation and even soil, is esti-mated by one study to be three to ive times higherthan runo rom undisturbed areas, causing a muchgreater risk o local looding.5 In act, a jury recently ound that some o the 2001 looding in Appalachia

was caused by mountaintop removal.6 Surace mining in Appalachia accounts or only

13 percent o the U.S. coal supply. Mountaintopremoval as a percent o total surace mining is hardto estimate, but probably represents less than hal the total, thereby accounting or less than 7 percento the nation’s coal. I the practice were banned, it would not take long to replace this level o productionelsewhere. While other types o mining operationsalso present environmental problems, the damage isar less dramatic than that caused by mountaintopremoval.

mine waSte impOUndmentSHighly mechanized mining methods, including mountaintop removal and “longwall” undergroundmining, pick up a great deal o non-coal materialalong with the coal. In some cases, 50 percent o whatis mined is disposed o as waste.7 he coal is separatedrom this waste material with water and solvents thatproduce a huge amount o wet coal “slurry” contain-ing dirt, stone, ine coal, and a variety o toxic com-pounds rom both the coal and the solvents.

his waste is disposed o in impoundments (orso-called slurry ponds) typically constructed by block-ing o part o a valley with a dam ormed rom wasterock. hese dams are 10 times more likely to ail thanregular earthen dams. Hundreds o millions o gallonso mine waste go into such “ponds,” o which there aremore than 700 in Appalachia already.8

he danger posed by mine waste impoundmentsis more than just hypothetical. A 1972 impoundmentdam ailure in Bualo Creek, WV, resulted in a loodo slurry that killed 125 people and let 4,000 home-less.9 Another West Virginia impoundment is located

about one mile uphill rom an elementary school.10

Mine waste could also break through the bottom

o an impoundment. A 2000 breach in Inez, KY, al-lowed 300 million gallons o waste (roughly 30 timesthe volume o oil released by the Exxon Valdez) tospill into abandoned underground mine shats andthen into the Big Sandy River, killing 1.6 million ishand contaminating the water supply o 27,000 peoplein downstream communities. Fortunately, no people were killed. oday, there are 240 impoundments simi-larly built above abandoned mines.11

mine Saetyhough mining deaths have declined over the years,rom 260 in 197012 to 33 in 2007 (partly due to joblosses),13 coal mining remains a dangerous occupa-tion, with atality rates at least ive times higher than

the average or all private industries.14 Oicials withthe United Mine Workers have speculated that someo the recent high-proile mine accidents may be re-lated to the act that rising coal prices have encour-aged the reopening o marginally proitable mines with poor saety records. Another actor may be a change in enorcement philosophy at the Mine Saety and Health Administration, which has reportedly taken a less aggressive approach under the George W.Bush administration, ocusing more on training thanenorcement.15

Deaths caused by black lung disease have also beendeclining since the early 1980s, but between 1999and 2004 black lung disease still caused an average o 355 deaths yearly.16 Some newer underground mining technologies that raise coal dust levels may increase a miner’s risk o contracting this disease.17

nOn-cO2 emiSSiOnS A remarkable number o our nation’s most stubbornand dangerous air quality problems can be traced tocoal. Fine particulate pollution rom U.S. powerplants (most o them coal-ired) contributes to heart

and lung diseases, including lung cancer, that shave anaverage o 14 years o the lives o nearly 24,000 peo-ple annually. Power plant pollution also causes 38,200non-atal heart attacks yearly, tens o thousands o emergency room visits, and hundreds o thousands o asthma attacks, cardiac problems, and respiratory problems.18

Fine particulate matter is in large part generatedby the sulur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emittedrom coal plants. hese pollutants also create acid rainthat contributes to ongoing damage to our orests,streams, and lakes. In addition, nitrogen oxides con-

tribute to the ormation o ground-level ozone, orsmog, which is associated with decreased lung unc-tion, asthma attacks, susceptibility to respiratory in-ections, and increased hospital admissions, as well asdamage to crops, orests, and ecosystems.19

Coal plants are also the largest U.S. source o man-made mercury emissions.20 Mercury is a potentneurotoxin that accumulates in the tissues o ishand people who eat ish. It is a particularly seriousthreat to etuses and young children, in whom itmay cause developmental and neurological damage.




Millions o U.S. women o reproductive age havemercury levels in their blood that could pose a risk to a developing etus.21

o a large extent, these health and environmentalproblems are caused by older coal plants that lack pol-

lution controls. New regulations under the Clean Air Act, along with a recent court decision requiring tighter ederal regulation o mercury emissions, willorce many operators o such plants to install pollu-tion controls, pay a higher price or pollution allow-

ances, or close their older plants altogether. Whenmaking this choice, plant operators will need to bearin mind that ederal limits on CO2 emissions are in alllikelihood inevitable—a consideration that may drivethe closure o older coal plants that would otherwise

be retroitted with sulur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, par-ticulate, and mercury controls. Some o these olderplants could be replaced with new, more eicient onesthat capture their CO2 and greatly reduce other pol-lutants in the process.

E n d n o t E s t o A p p E n d i x b

1 EPA. 2003. Mountaintop mining/valley ills in Appalachia: Drat

programmatic environmental impact statement. Washington,DC. Appendix I, 91. Online at http://www.epa.gov/Region3/

mtntop/eis.htm.

2 EPA 2003, appendix I, v.3 EPA 2003, appendix I, 87.

4 EPA 2003, III.D-1 – III.D-8 and appendix I, 67.

5 Goodell, J. 2006. Big coal: The dirty secret behind America’s

energy uture. New York, NY: Houghton Milin Co. 38.

6 West Virginia Highlands Conservancy. 2006. Jury says timbering,mining contributed to looding. The Highlands Voice 38(5),May. Online at http://www.wvhighlands.org/Voice%20PDFs/

VoiceMay06.pd.

7 NRC. 2002. Coal waste impoundments: Risks, responses, and

alternatives.Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2.

8 McAteer, J.D., and T.N. Bethell. 2004. Coal: Planning its utureand its legacy. Cited in technical appendix to: Ending the

energy stalemate: A bipartisan strategy to meet America’s

energy challenges. Washington, DC: The National Commissionon Energy Policy. December. 28-30. Online at http://www.

bipartisanpolicy.org/iles/news/inalReport/IV.2.b-Coal-

PlanningitsFut.pd.

9 McAteer and Bethell 2004, 28.

10 Goodell 2006, 40.

11 McAteer and Bethell 2004, 29-30; Goodell 2006, 26; and:Hawkins, D.G. 2006. Testimony to the Senate Committee onEnergy and Natural Resources, April 24. 12.

12 McAteer and Bethel 2004, 15.

13 Mine Saety and Health Administration (MSHA). 2008. Coalatalities by state (calendar year). Arlington, VA: U.S. Depart-ment o Labor. July 29. Online at http://www.msha.gov/stats/

charts/coalbystate.asp.

14 Humphries, M. 2003. U.S. coal: A primer on the major issues.Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. March 25.30. Online at https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/

10207/1666/RL31819_20030325.pd?sequence=1.

15 McAteer and Bethell 2004, 17. Also see: http://www.alcio.org/

issues/saety/memorial/upload/_37.pd.

16 American Lung Association. 2008. Occupational lung diseases.In: Lung disease data: 2008. New York, NY. Online at http://www.

lungusa.org/at/c/{7a8d42c2-cca-4604-8ade-75d5e762256}/

ALA_LDD08_OLD_FINAL.PDF.

17 Rider, J.P., and J.F. Colinet. 2001. Reducing worker exposure todust generated during longwall mining. In: Proceedings o

the Seventh International Mine Ventilation Congress, Krakow,Poland. Online at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/pubs/

pubreerence/outputid689.htm.

18 Schneider, C.G. 2004. Dirty air, dirty power: Mortality and health damage due to air pollution rom power plants. Boston,MA: Clean Air Task Force. June. Online at http://www.cat.us/

publications/reports/Dirty_Air_Dirty_Power.pd.

19 Schneider 2004, 8.

20 EPA. 2008. Clean Air Mercury Rule: Basic inormation. Wash-ington, DC. Online at http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercuryrule/

basic.htm.

21 Centers or Disease Control (CDC). 2004. Blood mercury levelsin young children and childbearing-aged women – UnitedStates, 1999-2002. November 5. Online at http://www.cdc.

gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5343a5.htm.



Coal-fired power plants are the United States’ largest source of global warming

pollution, yet our nation is poised to greatly increase this pollution by building

many new coal plants. Only a few of the proposed plants would use emerging

pollution control technology called carbon capture and storage (CCS); the rest could lock

the country into decades of higher carbon emissions and prevent us from making the cuts

needed to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

In this report, the Union of Concerned Scientists discusses the dangers of current U.S.

coal policies and sets forth the changes vital to building a safer energy future. We call for

accelerated research into CCS, including 5 to 10 demonstration projects, as well as an

immediate end to the construction of new coal plants not using such technology.

Additional policy changes should include: eliminating subsidies and other support for

coal-to-liquid facilities; ensuring that any coal-to-gas technologies actually reduce global

warming pollution; accelerating investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency;

reducing the environmental damage caused by coal mining and use; establishing a cap-
