Good News for the Death of Carbon Sequestration

    Jeff Johnson has a nice article in the July 16 issue of Chemical & Engineering News entitled, "Stumbling on the Path to Clean Coal". The subtitle is, "Carbon Capture and Sequestration appears stuck, dashing hopes of cutting CO2 while burning coal".
    The dictionary has only two definitions for "sequestration". The legal definition is the seizure of property. The chemical definition is the limitation or prevention of normal ion behavior by combination with added materials. However, a new definition has developed, which is the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Note that these definitions are different from the "sequestration" denoting mandatory cuts in government expenditures on January 1.
    We should also look at recent use of the term "clean coal". Previously, clean coal had a meaning of form of relatively pure carbon. That is, it had little or no contamination from sulfur or mercury. When the term is now applied to coal, meaning no carbon dioxide emission on burning, it is obviously an unrealistic interpretation of the English language. There is no carbon dioxide in coal, and therefore coal cannot be significantly contaminated by carbon dioxide.
    In spite of these difficulties with language, the total article gives good news. While the House of Representatives cleared legislation to require carbon dioxide reductions to the atmosphere and a Cap & Trade program in 2009, a price on carbon dioxide emissions expired the next year. Jeff says that today Congress members have no intention of putting a price on carbon emissions and many even challenge the scientific basis of climate change. That is wonderful news, because there is absolutely no basis that carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere cause any damage to the environment, and any attempts at major control would be horrendous.
    Unfortunately, the Department of Energy does not give up easily, even when it's wrong. It has provided $6.9 billion for R&D funding on carbon sequestration since 2005, and half of that has come from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which was President Obama's stimulus package.
    A subsequent report by the Congressional Budget Office also states that carbon dioxide each sequestration would increase electricity costs from coal-fired power plants by 75%, because of the cost of new equipment for CO2 capture.
    Organizations, such as the Congressional Research Service and the World Watch Institute "find a" great need for carbon sequestration. There is no indication as to why this would be necessary, and we can only assume that this would be the usual complaints of Marxist type environmental organizations.
    Jeff goes on to say that the use of natural gas and electricity production has increased, with a consequential reduction in the use of coal. However, coal gives one third of the US total CO2 emissions and 80% of the CO2 emissions from electricity production. So what? There is no evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide increase is detrimental to the environment.
    Robert Hilton is a vice president of Alstom, a global construction and engineering firm supplying equipment for carbon dioxide capture. He bemoans the trend in Congress toward realization that carbon dioxide capture from coal burning plants is not necessary. Naturally so, it is his business to supply such equipment. However, it is clear that Alstom was not willing to put its money where its mouth is. It rejected an offer to put up only half of a $668 million project to sequester carbon dioxide in a West Virginia electric power plant, with the Department of Energy putting up the other half in taxpayer money.
    However, a negative shadow on the situation is that the EPA has proposed a new rule to limit CO2 emissions from new power plants to 1000 pounds per megawatt hour. Since the present technology for new, coal-fired power plants would have emissions of 1650 to 1750 pounds of CO2 per MWh without carbon sequestration, it appears that no new coal-fired power plants will be built, unless Congress takes further action to control the EPA's abuse of power.