Carbon Storage and Sequestration

Most of us know that El Nino can have a nasty effect on California, and we probably know that the Gulf Stream keeps the UK warm, even though the islands are at the same latitude as Labrador. But for land-locked western Pennsylvanians, that probably sums up our awareness of the interplay of weather and the oceans.
(more…)

With $20 million from the federal 2009 stimulus package, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and County Executive Dan Onorato announced on October 30 a progam “to expand weatherization services and increase energy efficiency in 2,900 low-income residences during the next 30 months.”

The announcement coincided nicely with National Weatherization Day, and followed quickly on the heels of the county’s energy sustainability initiative.

Action on a climate change bill moved to the US Senate when Sens. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry introduced The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act on Sept. 30. During the next few weeks there will be debate in the principal committees, with the bill now expected to reach the floor for amendment and a final vote in December.
(more…)

Carbon sequestration is in the news, but if not done right, it could lead to more greenhouse gases. HB 80 is being considered in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Although the bill seeks increases in alternative energy sources, its benefits are outweighed by provisions establishing a flawed carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) network.

While the Sierra Club supports efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions, we have pointed out the flaws in HB 80 that need to be fixed.

• HB 80 gives alternative energy credits to new coal powered combustion plants that will install technology to capture carbon dioxide, even if they do not actually capture and store the carbon dioxide underground. Without capture and storage, the end result will be more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not less.
• The rush to build a CCS facility by 2015 does not provide sufficient time to ensure a safe storage facility. Carbon dioxide would be pumped underground at extremely high pressures, and it has the potential to leak back into the atmosphere or to pollute ground water through cracks in the geology.
• HB 80 gives the coal-plant owner immunity from any liability resulting from leaks of carbon dioxide from the underground storage site. In the end, taxpayers will have to assume this liability.

Please E-mail your State Representative and urge them to vote “NO” on HB 80.

Pennsylvania contributes a full 1% of global warming emissions, mainly in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2). New legislation would force the state to develop and operate a carbon dioxide capture and sequestration (CCS) network on state land to pump millions of tons of CO2 into geological formations deep underground.  In support of this move, Pennsylvania Dept. Conservation and Natural Resources has issued a reportwith the sub-heading “DCNR Findings Could Lead to Innovative Ways to Combat Climate Change, Create Opportunities to Use Coal in Environmentally Friendly Way”

The Clean Air Council, Clean Water Action, PennEnvironment, and the Sierra Club oppose the new proposed legislation (HB 80 and SB 92) for the following reasons:

• The law would require 3% of electricity generated in PA to come from power plants equipped with CO2 capture technology. These power plants would get credit for CO2 sequestration, even if the plants do not actually sequester their CO2!
• Polluter liability would be shifted to the public, once the pollution enters the CCS network. CO2 pumped underground at extremely high pressures has the potential to leak back into the atmosphere or to pollute ground water through cracks in the geology, or in extreme situations, cause a seismic event or catastrophic failure.
• Finding good locations for geological sequestration of CO2 will take extensive research and site characterization. The bills expect a CCS storage facility to be operational by 2015, which does not provide sufficient time to do the necessary siting studies to ensure a safe facility.

ACTION: Send a message to your state Senator AND  Representative urging them to fix or ditch the new energy bills.

SAMPLE LETTER
(more…)

The time for Climate Change conferences and panel discussions is over.  Now is the time for bold action before it is too late.

On the last day of March, the House Energy and Commerce Committee unveiled a discussion draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act that will serve as the basis for dramatic Congressional action this year.
(more…)

By Herbert Skolnick Ph.D. Retired geologist for Gulf Oil Corporation
February 14, 2009

In this critique the writer questions the feasibility of storing CO2 underground, given its corrosive nature. He also questions how the underground storage program will be effectively managed.

(more…)

Four of Pennsylvania’s largest environmental groups announced their opposition to proposed legislation which would require the state to generate 3% of its electricity from power plants equipped with carbon capture and sequestration technology—an expensive technology that does not yet exist in commercial form. PennEnvironment, Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter, Clean Air Council and Clean Water Action made their announcement in response to a press event held by the bill’s sponsors—state Representatives Greg Vitali and Chris Ross, and state Senator Ted Erickson—to announce the new legislation (House Bill 80 and Senate Bill 92) next week.
(more…)

In final recognition of the need to reduce electricity bills and conserve energy, on October 8 the State Senate passed the Energy Savings bill (HB 2200), with amendments, in a 47-3 vote. Thanks to all who contacted their state Senators during the lead-up to this important vote. The House then accepted the bill, with amendments, in a 186-4 vote. The bill was signed into law by the Governor as Act 129 on October 15.
(more…)

If it seems that the issue of capturing and storing carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants gets a lot of attention on this website, there is a sound reason. With Pennsylvania’s power plants feeding literally millions of tons of CO2 into the atmospheric soup each year, coal companies and utilities need to find a way to economically “sequester” CO2. This is probably the biggest challenge facing these industries, and its resolution is a matter of concern to all of us because of the contribution to climate change.

In a May 30 New York Times article headed “Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal”, reporter Matthew Wald presents a balanced and comprehensive review of just where the development of carbon sequestration sits at the present moment.

Anyone interested in the prospects of using carbon sequestration to moderate climate change will find this article well worth reading.

Burning coal to produce electricity is one of the main causes of global warming. That is not a fact that the coal industry and utilities broadcast with their highway billboards. But burning coal produces millions of tons of carbon dioxide that spew into the atmospheric soup, and that is a fact that they themselves acknowledge.

For example, last week the 7th Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration was held in Pittsburgh. Sponsored by coal, oil, and equipment companies, the conference focused on the development of techniques to remove and store the carbon dioxide from power plant smoke stacks as well as refineries, etc.

This industry confab did not pass without objection from Green Peace, Rain Forest Action network, and the local Center for Coalfield Justice (See photo.). A major concern of environmentalists in general is the danger of continued government investment in long-term carbon sequestration research at the expense of investment in the truly clean energy industries and energy conservation.

The daunting challenge of the economic capture and long-term storage of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants in Pennsylvania is described in a recent article prepared for the Pennsylvania Chapter’s latest newsletter devoted to coal.

If the coal and utility industries can indeed develop means of capturing and safely storing carbon dioxide, so much the better. But that development should be paid for by the industries themselves, with all the accumulated costs of mining the coal and dealing with coal waste fully taken into account.