• 6 minutes Trump vs. MbS
  • 11 minutes Can the World Survive without Saudi Oil?
  • 15 minutes WTI @ $75.75, headed for $64 - 67
  • 4 hours Satellite Moons to Replace Streetlamps?!
  • 23 hours US top CEO's are spending their own money on the midterm elections
  • 1 hour EU to Splash Billions on Battery Factories
  • 1 hour U.S. Shale Oil Debt: Deep the Denial
  • 9 hours The Balkans Are Coming Apart at the Seams Again
  • 1 day OPEC Is Struggling To Deliver On Increased Output Pledge
  • 1 hour Owning stocks long-term low risk?
  • 9 hours The Dirt on Clean Electric Cars
  • 20 hours Uber IPO Proposals Value Company at $120 Billion
  • 11 hours 47 Oil & Gas Projects Expected to Start in SE Asia between 2018 & 2025
  • 23 hours A $2 Trillion Saudi Aramco IPO Keeps Getting Less Realistic
  • 1 day 10 Incredible Facts about U.S. LNG
  • 1 day U.N. About Climate Change: World Must Take 'Unprecedented' Steps To Avert Worst Effects
Alt Text

North Korea Hit Hard As Coal Exports To China Fall 71%

Chinese coal imports from North…

Alt Text

The Billion Dollar Bet On European Coal

A Czech energy tycoon is…

Alt Text

Thermal Coal Prices Are Soaring

With tight supply in key…

Charles Kennedy

Charles Kennedy

Charles is a writer for Oilprice.com

More Info

Trending Discussions

Report Says Clean Coal Tech Not Present-Day Reality

Report Says Clean Coal Tech Not Present-Day Reality

A new report compiled in consultation with the White House and a pool of clean-energy experts suggests that clean-coal technology is too embryonic to use as a base for America’s new climate change rules for power plants.

The report, released Tuesday, follows the release earlier this month of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)  proposed new carbon emissions standards for power plants, which would make it impossible for new coal-fired plants to be built without the implementation of carbon capture and sequestration technology, otherwise known as “clean-coal” tech, which is still in its early days.  

Related article: DOE Funds Carbon Capture Project Amid Fight Over Future of Coal

If finalized, the new standards will boost the future of natural gas-fueled power plants, which can achieve the new emissions standards more readily, and the new report warns the Obama administration that carbon-capture technology is “only just gaining maturity for power generation.”

"We are not saying CCS [carbon capture and sequestration] isn't commercially viable, but it is unproven enough to not bank [greenhouse-gas] targets alone on this target,” noted former Colorado governor Bill Ritter (Democrat), who led the report.

Where are we with CCS exactly? It’s moving forward, albeit slowly. North America’s first two power generating plants to have employed CCS successfully (in Mississippi and Canada) haven’t come on line yet, but are expected to do so this year, according to Ritter.

So while there may be an argument that CCS is commercially viable, that hasn’t been proven, the report argues, and thus should not serve as a foundation for a new climate change policy.  

Related article: Reports of Coal’s Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

This latest report also succeeds another study last week that bolstered earlier EPA findings that power plants fueled by natural gas release some 40% less carbon dioxide than coal-fired plants.

According to the new study conducted by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, combined-cycle natural gas power plants, which use a combination of natural gas and recycled exhaust heat, release significantly less greenhouse gases than their coal-fired counterparts.

Last week, the US Department of Energy approved $1 billion in funding for a carbon capture and sequestration project in Meredosia, Illinois. Dubbed FutureGen 2.0, the project intends to demonstrate the efficacy of capturing greenhouse gas pollution from coal-fired power plants and storing it underground.

By. Charles Kennedy of Oilprice.com


x


Back to homepage

Trending Discussions


Leave a comment
  • Bob on January 24 2014 said:
    ...and it's obscenely expensive.
  • Jim on January 26 2014 said:
    "...and it is obscenely expensive." For now it is. But in the future....

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News