Reply #2: CCS may be a necessary evil

[OKIsItJustMe]

From James Hansen’s letter to Barack Obama:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20081121_Obama.pdf

…

Oil is used primarily in vehicles, where it is impractical to capture CO₂ emerging from tailpipes. The large pools of oil remaining in the ground are spread among many countries. The United States, which once had some of the large pools, has already exploited its largest recoverable reserves. Given this fact, it is unrealistic to think that Russia and Middle East countries will decide to leave their oil in the ground.

A carbon cap that slows emissions of CO₂ does not help, because of the long lifetime of atmospheric CO₂. In fact, the cap exacerbates the problem if it allows coal emissions to continue. The only solution is to target a (large) portion of the fossil fuel reserves to be left in the ground or used in a way such that the CO₂ can be captured and safely sequestered.

…

We should also urgently pursue R&D for carbon capture and sequestration. Here too this may be done most expeditiously and effectively via cooperation with China and India. Note that, even if it is decided that coal can be left in the ground, carbon capture and sequestration with other fuels still may be needed to draw down the amount of CO₂ in the air. An effective way to achieve drawdown would be to burn biofuels in power plants and capture the CO₂, with the biofuels derived from agricultural or urban wastes or grown on degraded lands using little or no fossil fuel inputs.

Opponents of nuclear power and carbon capture must not be allowed to slow these projects. No commitment for large-scale deployment of either 4th generation nuclear power or carbon capture is needed at this time. If energy efficiency and renewable energies prove sufficient for energy needs, some countries may choose to use neither nuclear power nor coal. However, we must be certain that proven options for complete phase-out of coal emissions are available.

…

From a recent interview:
http://werewolf.co.nz/2011/05/warming-to-the-idea/

…

Well, yeah. I think a lot of leading businessmen are saying: just give us a clear pathway and signal for what has to be done, and we can deal with it. What they don’t like is jumping back and forth – you’ve got a regulation, then you remove it. That’s why I say what you want to a gradual rising price on carbon – and if you tell the business community this is going to happen then they will make the investments. But they don’t like to make investments if the policies may flip again.

Interesting you say that. Because I’ve generally seen energy companies as being more interested in carbon sequestration than environmentalists – who have tended to treat CCS (carbon capture and storage) more as greenwash than as science. Do you see clean coal as being a false hope, or a genuine hope ?

Well so far at least in the United States – and perhaps other places – its been more of a gimmick for allowing coal use to continue while trying to create the perception that there will be a clean-up in the future. But that’s the sort of thing we should be deciding based on a price on carbon, rather than on giving money to develop the (CCS) project…I don’t know if it can contribute or not, to clean energy in future. I think energy efficiency via other clean energies are likely to win out over clean coal but not necessarily. If we can find a way to do it cheaply enough, it might be a competitor..

…

My position is very simple. A carbon tax : that is a carbon fee which rises over time, and will either cause carbon capture and storage to be part of the utilities business or else it will lead to different energy sources…. I don’t think we should try to prescribe which one. The marketplace should make that decision.

…