Better Advice for Congress on Carbon Capture
After last week’s industry-led field hearing in North Dakota on carbon capture and sequestration, a Monday briefing on CCS hosted by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee was a breath of fresh air. The general tone of the presentations was positive, and the speakers backed their enthusiasm with credible scientific expertise. Unlike the field hearing, attendees at this event included representatives from the scientific community, among them Jim Dooley of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, a lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report on CCS. The meeting also included energy technology experts and energy analysts from the university and industry communities, all of who provided insight on the current state of CCS technology. The dominant message was that while continued investment and innovation is necessary, CCS will be a valuable tool in the mitigation of climate change, with the potential to reduce carbon emissions by up to 90 percent, according to Rachel Crisp, Deputy Director of the UK Department for Business, Enterprise, and Regulatory Reform.
Titled “Making Carbon Capture & Sequestration Work,” the public event focused on the economic and technical feasibility of CCS technology. The first panel tackled “The Business Case for CCS,” recognizing, unlike the presentations in North Dakota, the economic costs connected to inaction on carbon capture. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-MN) highlighted economic penalties right at the start of the meeting, pointing out the likely adoption in the near future of a cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide emissions. Dooley emphasized the need for a strong long-term commitment to CCS as a climate mitigation strategy, citing the environmental consequences of inaction. He was, however, one of the few at the meeting expressing a belief that climate change mitigation policy will have immediate value. While technical and industry representatives demurred on this point, they agreed that a regulatory framework with incentives for the adoption of CCS would be essential to its success, they were somewhat less enthusiastic about government regulation in the immediate future.
The session also offered better advice to Senators than last week’s field hearing by including representatives from European energy firms and governments. It is no secret that the EU is far ahead of the U.S. in its environmental and energy policies, or that the U.S. can learn from Europe’s experience, avoid its mistakes, and build on the strengths of its approach. Crisp explained a UK-sponsored competition for the country’s first large-scale CCS project. The entries must employ post-combustion technology, which can be used to retrofit existing power plants, and the winner of the competition will receive significant funding from the British government. Crisp said that the competition was intended as a model for the rest of the world to follow in the future development of coal-fired power plants. The Bush administration withdrew its support in January for the first commercial-scale CCS demonstration project in the U.S.
In contrast to coal industry’s pessimistic tone on CCS technology, this briefing made it clear that while it won’t be easy, CCS will be a crucial tool in future energy development and in the fight against climate change. To learn more about how carbon capture works, see the Center for American Progress’s Carbon Capture and Sequestration 101.
Alexandra Kougentakis is a Fellows Assistant at the Center for American Progress.
Comments on this article
By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the Science Progress Privacy Policy and agree to the Science Progress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
