To the Editor:
Re “A Bad Bet on Carbon” by Robert Bryce (Op-Ed, May 13):
The assertions made about carbon capture and storage do not acknowledge the reality of the situation.
Many scientists — including the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — have determined that carbon capture and storage, or C.C.S., can significantly contribute to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.
Additionally, the Department of Energy documents more than 3.5 trillion tons of carbon dioxide storage potential in the United States and Canada alone.
Moreover, decades of operational experience from C.C.S. projects and underground carbon dioxide injection (about 53 million tons a year) for enhanced oil recovery indicate that carbon dioxide can be stored safely and effectively.Continue reading the main story
C.C.S. is not without challenges, but President Obama, Congress and industry have committed billions of dollars to address advances in C.C.S. The Energy Department’s Office of Fossil Energy is pursuing a vigorous program to have C.C.S. in place for commercial deployment in the next decade, and substantial progress is being made in state-of-the-art technology options that can dramatically reduce the cost of carbon dioxide capture and improve power plant efficiency.
All these efforts are based on a fact we can’t ignore: Since the world will continue to rely on fossil fuels for most of its energy in coming decades, C.C.S. must be part of our energy strategy.
Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy
Department of Energy
Washington, May 17, 2010
To the Editor:
Robert Bryce raises some valid points about the challenges of capturing and storing carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants, but his pessimism about the odds of success is unwarranted.
Every major new technology goes through a rigorous research, development and demonstration period to refine it and work out the kinks. Utilities are conducting demonstrations to do just that, with a goal, among others, to improve the efficiency of carbon capture and storage technologies. Mr. Bryce suggests that success is a long shot. Research by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the National Energy Technology Laboratory and others suggests otherwise.
And yes, we’ll need to build additional pipeline capacity to carry compressed carbon dioxide to storage locations when it can’t be stored at the site of capture. Siting any major infrastructure, whether a wind turbine, pipeline or transmission line, takes time, but it is by no means an insurmountable obstacle.
Mr. Bryce’s final concern involves the amount of underground storage space that will be necessary to hold the captured carbon dioxide. Fortunately, most scientists believe that we have more than adequate capacity in North America to store the emissions from our roughly 200 to 300 years of coal reserves.
Karen R. Obenshain
Director, Fuels, Technology
and Commercial Policy
Edison Electric Institute
Washington, May 13, 2010
To the Editor:
Robert Bryce’s opposition to financing carbon sequestration development is right on point. Tax dollars should be devoted exclusively to financing research and development on clean energy. If “clean coal,” including sequestration, is a sound approach, the mining and fossil fuel industries should be able to finance their own research and development after more than a century of support from us taxpayers.
Renewables as far as possible and closed-cycle nuclear need our help until they are on a pay-as-you-go basis.
We need a new leader of the Department of Energy whose head is not turned from scientific and economic fact by political expediency. We have Congress for that.
Indianapolis, May 14, 2010
To the Editor:
Robert Bryce outlines three compelling reasons (there are more) carbon capture and storage is a poor strategy for carbon reduction. His argument is solid and spot on. I would, however, respectfully disagree with one of his conclusions.
He states that unlike natural gas, “carbon dioxide is a worthless waste product.” Because all fuel begins with carbon dioxide, Mr. Bryce and your readers should be aware that a number of companies, including Carbon Sciences, are developing breakthrough technologies to transform this greenhouse gas into valuable, marketable and useful liquid portable fuels. This addresses both the climate and energy challenges facing the world.
The problem with C.C.S. is not the C.C. (carbon capture), but the S. (storage). C.C.R., on the other hand (carbon capture and recycling), is a terrific bet on carbon.
Byron H. Elton
Santa Barbara, Calif., May 13, 2010
The writer is president and chief executive of Carbon Sciences.
To the Editor:
Re “While the Senate Fiddles” (editorial, May 14):
Like many well-intentioned environmental groups, The Times is of the opinion that the Kerry-Lieberman bill, though far from perfect, will “point the country in the right direction.” Unfortunately, the authors of this legislation were working with a broken compass. By allowing polluters to buy carbon offsets, we will delay by decades America’s conversion to clean energy.
Such offsets in most instances produce no reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. If you pay a landowner not to harvest the trees on his property, demand for lumber does not go down. Those trees are chopped down somewhere else.
A simple, steadily increasing fee on carbon is the best way to make clean energy competitive with fossil fuels within the next decade. Returning all the revenue to households — which the American Power Act does not do — would shield families from the impact of rising energy costs.
It’s been said that solving the climate crisis will be a marathon, and we need to start running now. But let’s not tie our shoelaces together at the starting line.
Atlanta, May 14, 2010
The writer is communications director and regional manager, Citizens Climate Lobby.
Continue reading the main story