Legalectric

This is another one of those “HOW STUPID CAN THEY BE” posts, based on some searching today for what various regional gasbag groups are doing across the country. I was at the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord site, looking for geographic boundaries, and I stumbled on this in the Allowances Subgroup Conference Call Materials for June 3, 2008:

Carbon Sequestration Incentive

And now, here’s where I start my rant, this one point jumping out and hitting me over the head. First, let’s be really clear here — they’re talking about IGCC – Coal Gasification:

The goal of the program is too ease financing of a risky capital intensive technology.

Then, they go into CO2 Carbon Capture and Storage:

Federal Department of Energy (or appropriate agency) takes title to and liability for long-term storage of CO2 from selected projects.

DOESN’T ANYONE ON THIS COMMITTEE HAVE THE BRAINS OF A GNAT SUFFICIENT TO THINK ABOUT “TAKES TITLE TO AND LIABILITY FOR LONG-TERM STORAGE” AND THINK OF NUCLEAR WASTE?

For a while now, I’ve been saying that IGCC is the new nuclear, it’s a technology they want to build without experience, without all the questions answered, without the promoters and developers taking responsibility for what it is they’re promoting and building, and now, this hare-brained scheme? HOW STUPID CAN THEY BE?

If you want to know what happens with nuclear waste in this type of scenario:

NSP v. DOE – 224 F3d 1361

Short version? They don’t know what to do with nuclear waste and don’t know how to store it long term. In a CO2 context, it’s no different, they don’t know what to do with it and don’t know how to store it long term. Taking title and liability for long term storage does nothing for their inability to do it! We’re still left holding the bag. Recourse? Essentially none. Can’t make them store nuclear waste which they don’t know how to do and can’t do. Can’t make them store CO2 which they don’t know how to do and can’t do. And this does exactly what for global warming and greenhouse gas emissions?

HOW STUPID CAN WE BE? ARE THEY REALLY SERIOUS IN SUGGESTING THIS? WHOSE IDEA WAS THIS ANYWAY? In Minnesota, we should be hyperaware of this issue, and this is a “Midwestern” group. WHAT LUNACY…

HAVE I MADE MY POINT?

… sigh…

Here’s the text in full:

EIX calls for the creation of an incentive program to encourage existing and new players to invest in carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology.

The goal of the program is too ease financing of a risky capital intensive technology.
Improve on bonus allowance allocations, by eliminating allowance price risk.
Build on the success of the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC).
Federal guarantee of revenue either as cash payments or a PTC.
10 year term of payment
Reduce financing cost through accelerated depreciation
Federal Department of Energy (or appropriate agency) takes title to and liability for long-term storage of CO2 from selected projects.

Auction revenues fund payment for CO2 captured and geologically sequestered.
Program size limited to funding stream created by Bingaman–Specter CCS bonus allowances
CCS Bonus allowances monetized in auction and used to back Federal payments
Incentive payment per ton is calculated using either a:
Regional marginal emission rate at a level that makes the CCS unit competitive, from a marginal cost standpoint, with a combined cycle natural gas generator.
Reverse auction where 10 year Federal fixed price contracts are awarded to the lowest offered cost of sequestration.

To Qualify:
Project put in service before 2035.
Project designed to capture and store not less than 65% of CO2 stack emissions
Sequestration facility certified by EPA/DOE.
EPA/DOE to establish certification criteria for geological sequestration facilities.