“Currently, the existing U.S. coal fleet accounts for over half of all electricity generated in this country,” U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman said in a release. “The projects announced today will combat climate change and help meet current and future energy needs by curbing CO2 emissions from existing coal-fired plants.”

But carbon capture and sequestration, along with “clean coal” are still perceived by many as mythical technologies that are simply not cost effective.

My question is this: If carbon capture and sequestration is such a central component of President Bush’s broader energy vision, why aren’t they doing more about it?  To put things in perspective, since 2001 the Bush administration has invested more than $2.5 billion in clean coal research and development - roughly the same amount it spends per week on the Iraq war.

Oh, and that $36 million figure mentioned at the top of this article? $36 million is roughly equal to what the U.S. spends on the Iraq war in two and a half hours.

Read more about the specific projects receiving funding at the DOE’s website.

Other posts on the DOE and carbon capture/sequestration:

• “Assistant Secretary of Energy Karsner Announces Resignation”
• “EPA Drafts Rule for Carbon Sequestration”
• “Wyoming Passes Carbon Capture and Sequestration Legislation”
• “CO2 Capture and Technology of the Future”

Photo: hAdamsky via flickr under a Creative Commons License

According to the EPA, the annual cost associated with the implementation of the rule are estimated to be around $15 million.

“Today’s proposal paves the way for technologies that would protect public health and help reduce the effects of climate change,” said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. “With proper site selection and management, geologic sequestration could play a major role in reducing emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

EPA’s proposed regulation creates a national framework for the injection of carbon dioxide underground and protection of underground drinking water resources. The agency acted under the Clean Water Act because injecting carbon dioxide could push pollutants into underground drinking water supplies, according to Benjamin H. Grumbles, assistant EPA administrator for water. The rule would create a new class of injection wells under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) program.

According to an EPA Factsheet (EPA 816-F-08-031), the new monitoring rule is needed because:

“The relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, its mobility within subsurface formations, and large injection volumes anticipated at full scale deployment warrant specific requirements tailored to this new practice.”

The rule, which would apply to well owners and operators, would require monitoring to trace the chemical, squeezed down into liquid form. “A cornerstone of this rule is that the carbon dioxide stays where it is put, and not leak or be released to the surface,” Mr. Grumbles said.

EPA is requesting public comments on the proposed rule for 120 days.

Other posts on carbon and carbon policy:

• “Wyoming Passes Carbon Capture and Sequestration Legislation”
• “CO2 Capture and Technology of the Future”
• “British Columbia Begins Taxing Carbon”

Photo: thewritingzone via flickr under a Creative Commons License

As climate change become a more central issue for people and governments around the globe, a lot of people are looking for solutions - fast solutions. If there were a quick and inexpensive way to dramatically reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we should go for it right? Well a number of “quick fix” solutions, which have centered around hacking the environment to fight climate change, have been floating around for years. One strategy is to capture the CO2 with plankton and bury it in the ocean (which is much easier and cheaper than pumping it into the ground). Another is to change the composition of our atmosphere to reflect sunlight. Others tend to be more sci-fi and outlandish - but all of them might just turn out to be disastrous.

Read more of this story »