Edwards Not as Green as You Thought: A Ban on Coal Plants That Isn't

grist.org

One of the most meaningful steps the U.S. can take to fight climate change is to forbid construction of new coal plants unless they capture and sequester their carbon emissions. If we allow more dirty coal plants, all our other efforts will be in vain. That's why James Hansen and Al Gore return to the subject so often.

Dem presidential candidate Chris Dodd has called for such a policy in blunt language: "The Dodd Plan requires all new plants to capture and sequester CO2. No exceptions."

Most enviros seem to think that John Edwards has also called for such a moratorium, and have lauded him for it.

Only he hasn't.

Edwards would require that all new coal plants be compatible with sequestration -- that they be IGCC plants, which make CO2 easier to separate and bury -- but he would not require them to actually sequester their emissions.

Is this worth worrying about? Yes. As Big Coal author Jeff Goodell says, "There is a big difference -- a rhetorical Grand Canyon -- between supporting coal plants that are 'compatible with' CCS and actually requiring them to do it."

The key thing to note is that IGCC plants emit 80-90% as much CO2 as old-school dirty coal plants (they are somewhat more efficient). An IGCC plant without sequestration is almost as bad as a dirty coal plant, from a climate-change perspective (though it emits less NOx, SOx, and mercury).

If we build a bunch of coal plants -- whether they're IGCC or not -- we will be committing to sequestration (if we're to have any hope of slowing global warming). It's either that or shutting them down. So if President Edwards requires energy companies to build IGCC plants, he will have done very little to slow global warming. What he will have done is lock us into a policy path we've never rationally assessed or chosen.

If we do what Dodd advocates, we'll have at the very least an interlude of 5-10 years in which we can assess our options moving forward. We can compare the net costs of IGCC plants + sequestration with the cost of nuclear, renewables, efficiency, etc. We can choose the most rational allocation of our limited public capital, investing in the options that are cleanest and cheapest.

Again, if we immediately start building a bunch of IGCC plants, we will have irrevocably committed to CCS. We will have to make it work, no matter how much public money it costs. We'll be committing to a massive, nationwide, taxpayer-funded infrastructure project without ever deciding through open debate that it's the best use of our resources. We'll have done it because the coal industry and coal politicians told us that there's so much coal we "have to" use it -- even if it turns out to cost more than cleaner options.

If Edwards is serious about climate change, he will follow Dodd and support a ban on coal plants that don't have operating sequestration facilities.

Follow David Roberts on Twitter: www.twitter.com/david_h_roberts

Comments

[minervoice]

So we're just going to limp along for the next 5-10 years generating energy with current, higher GHG-emitting technology and forget about building cleaner options? Building plants that will be ready to capture and sequester CO2 makes a lot more sense than doing nothing and allowing older plants to continue operating as they are.

Let's face it - we are not going to stop using coal to generate power in this country anytime in the near or far future. That's just the fact. What we must to is to do whatever it takes to ensure that it's cleaner and cleaner every step of the way until it's completely clean through capture and sequestration.

Edwards' plan makes a hell of a lot of sense and recognizes reality. And he remains the only candidate in the race who truly cares about ordinary people and is willing to say it.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Do not like Edwards health plan, which does not seem to change anything as far as structure or excluding insurance companies and he did nothing to help Kerry in 2004, did not carry one red state for us.

And now this pleasant news.

Will be hard to support him through the primaries but he is still better than any republican in the race.

I am still staying with the quixotic liberal dream candidate Kucinich followed by Dodd and Obama.

[Jillianw]

And only Joe Biden has said NO to all coal manufacturing.

[StrategicThinker]

But I get your point. I'm just saying, just because they "CAN" capture carbon does not mean that you would require it, but it also does not mean that you WON'T require it.

[GenericBlogger]

It doesn't matter if David Roberts misunderstood Edwards' stance on this issue. Edwards typically dances around issues rather than talking straight. Just because Edwards claims a position now, it doesn't mean he will adhere to that position if he will be the president. His gift of gab allows him to rationalize a position change.

One important message from all this is that the devil is in the details and before we undertake such a serious course, we must be sure we will enact the appropriate measures.

There is another caveat. Plants may have the technology because it's required but will they use it? In the early years of car catalytic converters, many were disconnected to increase fuel efficiency. Car manufacturers had to design and manufacture converters so they are much harder to disconnect or bypass. I suspect plants will have to go through a similar break-in process and will have to be inspected to ensure the technology will be used as intended.

[StrategicThinker]

Well, you can also require it if they are "compatibl­e."

What a way to nitpick it.

Did they say they would not "require" it?

The "TEXT" of Edwards plan says:

"Ban the Construction of Coal Plants that Cannot Capture Carbon: Edwards will require that all new coal-fired plants be built with technology needed to capture carbon dioxide emissions. Plants can use integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology or other effective approaches. As a result, the plants built today will be able to permanently and safely store their carbon emissions tomorrow. In addition, Edwards will explore ways to address the carbon dioxide emitted by current power plants."

So, instead of going by the text, you go by some statement by a person who might not have even understood the question?

A more appropriate response would be to ask JOHN EDWARDS HIMSELF if he is planning on doing something differently than what he proposes in his Energy Plan where he specifically says "BAN."

[Terry1865]

Thanks for pointing out this clever dodge, as Edwards likes [to at least appear] to take the high road on as many issues as he can. He may feel that a lawyerly word will make the whole thing sound kosher.

[maddogbitesback]

I guess I won't be voting for him. Coal kills above ground far more than below ground. I might better smoke. The government has to be truthful on the absolute madness of coal

[JoAnnCr]

Guess you better listen to the man, himself, before you make that decision. Roberts needs to do more research.

Two points to look for: 1. Edwards's plan puts the emphasis on renewable energy resources not only for clean environment but for jobs in the U. S. and abroad. 2. Edwards has a carbon neutral goal so any use of coal will have to support meeting that threshold. Nothing will happen if it doesn't make the grade for carbon reduction.

John Edwards agressively fights special interests. a fight critically essential to stopping the runaway train wreck our country is in. Not only has Edwards got the good ideas, he's got the b@lls to get them done.

[GenericBlogger]

Edwards living in a 28,000 square foot compound, driving an SUV and claiming he is carbon neutral is a farce. I would like to see the formulas used to calculate his "carbon neutrality".

Reducing climate change is the right message. Edwards is the wrong messenger and the wrong leader to get us there.