Following the publication of a scathing article about Mississippi Power’s Kemper County Energy Facility carbon capture and storage project, The New York Times opened its opinion pages to four CCS experts to weigh in on the value of the technology and the potential obstacles to its deployment.
The newspaper on Thursday published four editorials from Howard Herzog, senior research engineer in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative; Allison Kole, a senior legal fellow with the Climate Investigations Center; David Hawkins, director of climate programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council; and David Bookbinder, a partner at Element VI Consulting.
Herzog argued that the carbon capture is a well understood technology but one that comes with a hefty price tag: “[I]n today’s marketplace, carbon capture is generally too expensive. That is because policy is not in place to set significant limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore, it is cheaper to emit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than to capture and store it.”
Bookbinder stressed a need for more and better regulation of CCS activities: “Without a significant carbon price and a comprehensive regulatory regime, carbon capture will remain a pipe dream — no matter how much taxpayer cash is thrown at it.”
Coming to the defense of CCS, Hawkins suggested that while the technology has issues, it also has a place in a low-carbon future, at least at the onset: “Carbon capture should never be our preferred climate protection tool: energy efficiency, wind and solar have earned that role. But done right, carbon capture can play a supporting role, allowing us to prevent carbon pollution from power plants and industrial plants until we succeed in shutting them down or switching them to carbon-free energy.”
It’s time to give up on CCS, Kole countered: “We cannot afford further investment in the carbon capture pipe dream that distracts the nation from developing real solutions and adaptive technologies for climate change. Our energy and environmental future should not be dictated by the narrow vision of the fading coal industry.”
