Yes, it’s true, sequestration is the biggest red herring we’ve ever seen…

(stolen from Poplar Bluff School District site!)

To quote David “Just Do It!” Hawkins of the Natural Resources Defense Council in “Stick it where? Public Attitudes toward Carbon Storage:”

The coal industry and the administration seem to think that by labeling a proposal “clean coal,” they will garner political support for coal expansionpolicies.  I think this indiscriminate mislabeling is quite shortsighted.  Coal is already associated with pollution and harm to the landscape; when the facts about allegec clean coal projects are disclosed, coal advocates will be associated with dishonesty as well.

You tell ’em Hawkins!  Oh, but wait… isn’t NDRC the one that took $437,500 from the Joyce Foundation to promote coal gasification?

…and so what are they all doing saying “IGCC is great with capture and sequestration” when they haven’t a clue what they’re talking about?  Don’t they get that they’re going to be up for the Legalectric Horse’s Ass Award when the world finds out that it’s not real?

Now remember, when we’re talking about Carbon Capture and Sequestration, there are three distinct parts:

1) Capture (this has been focus of industry studies)

2) Transport

– $60k/inch/mile = $1,080,000/mi for 18″ pipe

– Repressurization stations along the way

3) Sequestration ($3-10/ton, per Sally M. Benson)

Here’s a few choice documents I found, after that DOE Supplement that I just can’t get enough of, little reality check for those not quite conscious yet:

DOE – Supplement to DEIS on Sequestration

Economic Modeling of Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technology

Hydro & Geological Monitoring of CO2 Sequestration Pilot

Electricity without CO2 – Assessing the Costs of CO2 Capture and Sequestration

Geologic Carbon Dioxide Sequestration – Site Evaluation to Implementaion

Electricity – Assessing Costs of CO2 Capture and Sequestration

Are we having fun yet? Get comfy, pour another cup of coffee, and read this!

One Response to “CO2 sequestration is so… like… not happening!”

  1. Legalectric » Blog Archive » Like Pawlenty, Minner is toady for IGCC Says:

    […] What the record, agency staff analysis, and the ALJ decision in our proceeding demonstrates, and NRG has NOT proven otherwise, is that IGCC is not environmentally superior. It does not significantly reduce major pollutants when compared with state of the art coal. IGCC does not do one thing for CO2 levels other than greatly increase them! Like the Mesaba Project, NRG does not commit to carbon capture and storage (CSS), and that’s because it’s not a demonstrated option, no commercial IGCC plant is doing it. CSS is not happening anytime soon, and the DOE said so in its addendum to the Gilberton coal-to-liquids EIS. DOE Addendum – Blog Post […]

Leave a Reply