Is clean coal a dead end or bridge to future?

Depending on who you believe, carbon capture and storage is either an expensive boondoggle that creates more environmental problems than it solves or it’s the world’s last best chance to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and help slow man-made climate change.

These two diametrically opposed positions were juxtaposed in Regina this week as the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives released its report, SaskPower’s Carbon Capture Project: What Risk? What Reward?

The CCPA report blasts the CCS project as a risky, costly experiment that will do little to reduce Saskatchewan’s per capita GHG emissions, which are the highest in the country.

The next day SaskPower released its own analysis of the Boundary Dam CCS project after four months of operation and found the $1.467-billion project was meeting or exceeding expectations in its goal of reducing GHG emissions by one million tonnes of CO2 per year, equivalent to taking 250,000 vehicles off the road.

So who should we believe, CCPA or SaskPower? Both have experts with impressive credentials, both reports are chock full of numbers and both cite scientific research by prestigious international bodies to back their arguments for and against CCS.

The CCPA study trots out the usual objections to CCS: high cost, continued reliance on fossil fuel energy, questionable environmental benefits.

Specifically, the CCPA claims that “investing $1.5 billion in experimental technology involves a high level of risk, especially for a company of SaskPower’s size.”

While it’s true that $1.5 billion, or to be more precise $1.467 billion, is a lot of money, the cost of the CCS project to SaskPower has been reduced by the federal government’s contribution of $240 million. That means the actual cost to SaskPower is $1.23 billion, rather than $1 billion it initially budgeted for the project.

And most of the cost overruns have been on the power unit side, like removing asbestos and lead paint and other surprises that come with any major renovation project. Besides, have you priced out the cost of building a power plant recently?

SaskPower is currently looking to build a 250 to 300 megawatt ( MW) combinedcycle natural gas plant at a cost of $700 million to $800 million, with no certainty as to the price of fuel (other than it will most likely increase in the future).

The CCPA notes Boundary Dam Unit 3 used to produce 140 MW of power, while the new CCS plant will produce 110 MW due to “parasitic losses” from the carbon capture process. However, SaskPower says the net power output will be 120 MW thanks to better than expected production from the power plant.

By any measure, $1.23 billion is a lot of money to pay for 120 MW. But SaskPower estimates future CCS conversions would be 30 per cent cheaper due to the learnings gained from the first CCS project. Plus revenue from the sale of captured CO2 (which CCPA estimates at $450 million over 20 years) will help defray the costs of operating the CCS plant. That’s getting the cost of CCS closer to that of combined-cycle natural gas.

Of course, that raises the thorny issue of GHG emissions from enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which the CCPA estimates at 2.7 tonnes for every tonne of CO2 captured by the CCS process. But SaskPower makes no apologies for supplying CO2 to Cenovus for EOR production, in the same way it supplies electricity to the oilpatch.

When you come right down to it, the differences between CCPA and SaskPower on CCS are largely philosophical. CCPA sees no future in CCS because its tied to fossil fuels, which CCPA says is a dying energy source. SaskPower, on the other hand, sees that 87 per cent of global energy is fossil-fuel based and isn’t going away for at least 50 years.

CCPA wants SaskPower to ditch fossil fuels and adopt renewables like wind, solar and hydro. SaskPower says 25 per cent of its power is renewable, but it needs baseload capacity to keep the lights on.

To the CCPA, clean coal is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. To SaskPower, clean coal is a bridge to the future, while reducing our carbon footprint today.

Which vision of the future seems more realistic to you?