1FRE4OI

Carbon Capture Scam Chapter: 1Tacking CCS onto a traditional coalplant is estimated to increase theplant’s operating costs by about75% according to the CongressionalBudget Office (CBO). CBO thusconcluded in 2012 that CCS could nottake off in the utility industry withoutthe backing of some federal restrictionon carbon emissions.73 Thisconclusion does not differ greatly fromthat of the Obama administration’sInteragency Task Force on CarbonCapture and Storage. 74Of the six projects to receive fundingunder round three of the Departmentof Energy (DOE) Clean Coal PowerInitiative, three withdrew as of April2012. In each case, it was revealedthat cost concerns played a role inthe withdrawal. Large-scale CCSdemonstration projects have accessto about $21.4 billion in funding acrossthe globe. 75 Currently, more unallocatedpublic funding is available tothe US power sector than in any othercountry. 76Given the opportunity cost of energyinvestments, proponents of CCS mustshow how it is cost effective comparedwith other ways to reduce the climatefootprint of electricity production. Butthis is an impossibility. There is noescaping that CCS is more expensiveper kilowatt hour than investing in newpower generation from renewables.Based on a 2013 study, taking into accountlife cycle CO2 emissions of eachsource and cost of new investment,CCS for coal is 124 times less costeffective than wind energy per gram ofavoided CO2 pollution. This exorbitantdifference includes only the priceof electricity infrastructure and onlyclimate pollution. It does not accountfor any of the widespread public healthcosts of using coal. 77While the US Energy InformationAdministration, part of DOE, has beensympathetic to CCS in its analysis,its own cost projections for newenergy sources show that CCS is themost expensive method of avoidingadditional CO2 emissions. 78 In Figure2 we compare the cost of avoidinga kilogram of CO2 emissions perunit of electricity (kilowatt hour). SeeAppendix I for an explanation of themethodology. This chart uses referenceddata that is very sympathetic toCCS, even beyond EIA cost figures.It assumes a 90% capture rate andthat bituminous coal is burned, whichhas the lowest CO2 emissions perunit of energy. 79 It assumes very lowlife cycle GHG emissions from coal. 80It assumes the the most efficient newcoal plants (IGCC).However, we know that coal plantsare often using lower quality lignite orsub-bituminous coal, may have lowercapture rates (65% for Kemper), costfar more in part because they areretrofits, and aren’t even intendingto sequester the CO2. So, Figure 2is overly fair to CCS. Nonetheless, itshows CCS would cost almost 40%more per kilogram of avoided CO2than solar PV, 125% more than wind,and 260% more than geothermal.© Les Stone / GreenpeacePage 13