1FRE4OI

Retrofitting the existing power plant fleet is thereforenonviable from a financial standpoint.A Tragic Waste of Scarce Public DollarsBillions of dollars of taxpayer money have alreadybeen spent on CCS under President Obama and hispredecessors, but this is just a new type of fossil fuelsubsidy. Oil and gas have received federal subsidiessince 1916, about 60 years longer than renewables. 59According to a 2011 study, cumulative federalsubsidies over time for oil, gas, coal, and nuclearwere $630 billion, versus $50 billion for renewables. 60Despite significant public financing, CCS remains anexceedingly expensive and uneconomic investmentfor reducing climate pollution in the electricity sector.Continued cost declines in the renewable sector,cheaper gas due to the rise of fracking, and publicrequirements on non-climate pollutants have drivendown domestic coal demand. The utility industry andgovernment project a continued decrease in coal useby the power sector. 61 Companies mining coal in theUnited States are therefore turning to internationalcoal demand to stay in business. Fortunately, coaldemand is not expected to rise for much longerin target markets like China. 62 In the immediatefuture, however, coal exports threaten to maintain orincrease CO2 emissions from burning US coal, evenas less coal is burned in the US. The industry andits allies nonetheless claim that coal exports wouldbe good for the environment, but they are obviouslygrasping at straws. 63While politicians may claim that CCS is the future forcoal demand, the truth is that coal has no future. TheGreenpeace Energy [R]evolution scenario shows coalphased out in less than two decades, while we leavebehind fracked gas as well (See Figure 1 comparingGreenpeace scenario to the gloomy forecast of theUS Energy Information Administration). 64Carbon Capture Scam Chapter: 1figure 4.5: electricity generation structure under the reference scenarioand the energy [r]evolution scenario ( I N C L U D I N G E L E C T R I C I T Y F OR E L E C T R OM OB I L I T Y, H E AT P U M P S A N D H Y D R OG E N GE N E R AT I ON )Figure 1: Electricity Generation Structure – Comparing Greenpeace E[R] Scenariowith Energy Information Administration Scenario 656,0005,0004,0003,0002,0001,000TWh/a 0R E F E [R ] R E F E [R ] R E F E [R ] R E F E [R ] R E F E [R ] R E F E [R ]OCEAN ENERGYCSPGEOTHERMALBIOMASSPVWINDHYDROOILNUCLEARNATURAL GASLIGNITECOAL2011 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050Page 11