Feasibility of Carbon Capture and Sequestration

There are many uncertainties about CCS feasibility.  To capture and store a meaningful fraction of coal emissions would be an enormous and expensive undertaking.  Expert analysis suggests that the process is technically feasible, but there are too many uncertainties to know if it will ever be an economically competitive solution.  As noted elsewhere, current estimates of the price of electricity from a coal plant with CCS are higher than virtually all other alternatives.  It seems imprudent to invest billions in new coal plants, betting that CCS will someday be technically feasible and economical when the same capital and government subsidies directed toward energy efficiency measures and renewable sources of generation would meet our energy needs at least as cheaply, generate more jobs, and not risk the pollution, mining, and global warming harms that come with coal.

Here are a couple of quotes to give you an idea of what corporations current thinking is.

A witness for Dominion Virginia Power presented testimony in July 2007 that noted that:  carbon capture technology is not commercially viable or available at the present time. (Direct Testimony of Dominion Virginia Power witness James K. Martin in Virginia State Corporation Commission Case No. PUE-2007-00066, dated July 13, 2007, at page 7, line 11.)

This from a 2007 presentation How Do We Build Economically Successful CO2 Capture & Storage Projects? By Cal Cooper.  Science Fellow. Conoco/Phillips

• Early CCS projects will require large amounts of additional power (20-40%), a major deterrent.
• Costs and efficiency of CCS must improve dramatically or it will fail in the marketplace.
  

Sequestration would involve a significant change in State or federal laws and regulations to deal with monitoring and liability issues, details about ownership and use of underground reservoirs, and many other issues.  Every proposal we have seen calls for some form of eminent domain to be used to secure underground rights and a release from liability for future damages for the companies sequestering the CO2.

Here is a quote from a draft law proposed in Oklahoma:

The Regulatory Agency must find as follows:  A good faith effort has been made to obtain the consent of a majority of the owners having property interests affected by the storage facility and that the operator intends to acquire any remaining interest by eminent domain or otherwise allowed by statute.

And here is part of the article describing the proposed law:

The bill also sets up the Carbon Dioxide Storage Facility Trust Fund. This would call for a fee to be placed on each ton of CO2 injected for storage to help fund the trust fund. The trust funds main objective would then be to monitor the site. Section 8 of the bill would establish a time frame, possibly 10 years, by which the State Regulatory Agency would issue a Certificate of Completion of Injection Operations. This certificate would show that the reservoir is "reasonably" expected to maintain its integrity, "at which time ownership of the remaining project including the stored carbon dioxide transfers to the state." This would release the operator from any liability associated with the site. If anything would happen following this, i.e. leakage, the responsibility would be upon the state and the Carbon Dioxide Storage Facility Trust Fund. If this legislation is passed it would be effective January 1, 2009.  - Alston+Bird Blog   January 18, 2008 OKLAHOMA BILL CREATES RULES FOR CO2 STORAGE

In summary, all the potential benefits of CCS technology will go to the coal and utility companies – they will continue to do business as usual, passing on generation costs to the consumer.  Concurrently, all the risks will be the burden of the public for eternity, including leakage of CO2, eminent domain, environmental impacts of extraction and burning, health effects of extraction and burning, and global warming as America continues to burn coal in plants that don’t capture carbon.