Brushoff for clean coal?
Obama administration looks more to other power sources such as wind and solar
WASHINGTON — The future of developing a form of a coal that produces lower levels of greenhouse gases is falling into greater uncertainty, as the Obama administration slices funding for technologies once considered critical in fighting climate change.
The administration wants to cut spending on so-called clean-coal technologies by 3 percent in next year’s budget, even as it more than doubles the federal investment into renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal to more than $600 million. Under the administration’s plan, funding for clean coal would fall to $368 million in the next budget year, down from $377 million this year.
The declining support for clean coal is likely to cast further doubt on the efforts of several Houston and Texas companies to capture the intense carbon dioxide emissions from and underscores the broader retreat from coal in the face of abundant, cleaner, cheaper natural gas and tougher pollution rules. NRG Energy, which is building a carbon capture system on its W.A. Parish coal plant south of Houston, said the project is scheduled to come online later this year. But the com-
pany also said for now it does not plan to install any more carbon capture systems on other coal plants.
“NRG cannot invest further in large carbon capture projects, but we continue to closely follow technologies that could help improve the economics,” spokesman David Knox said in an email, “either by decreasing the cost of the technology to capture carbon dioxide or by increasing the value of the carbon dioxide.”
Policymakers hoped that new technologies able to dramatically reduce the pollution of one of the dirtiest fossil fuels would allow the country to tap its massive coal reserves. But hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies — pioneered by Texas companies — unlocked massive reserves of natural gas in shale formations, and today, many power companies are shuttering coal plants and expanding their natural gas generation.
Prime market
Clean-coal technologies also have been hurt by the oil bust. The oil patch was viewed as the prime market for carbon dioxide captured from smokestacks. Oil producers use carbon dioxide in older fields to extract the last dregs of oil from beneath the ground. But with oil prices at historic lows, few companies are going after such supplies.
At a House hearing this week, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Chris Smith said the Obama administration remained committed to developing cleancoal technology while admitting its economic prospects were limited without a carbon tax or other mechanism that creates a financial incentive for polluters to reduce carbon emissions.
He said the challenge of cleancoal projects is it’s free for power plants “to emit as much carbon dioxide as they can.”
Coal-fired plants produce carbon dioxide at almost twice the rate of natural gas facilities. With tougher air pollution standards and increased competition from natural gas and renewable energy, the electricity generated by coal in the U.S. has fallen 29 percent since 2007, according to the Energy Department.
The end of U.S. coal?
Laura Sheehan, vice president of communications for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said President Barack Obama’s proposal to reduce carbon emissions from the power sector 30 percent would effectively mean the end for coal in this country.
“At every instance they’ve looked to block the further development of clean-coal technology,” she said. “This is first-generation technology, and you’ll never get to second or third generation without commitment to furthering it.”
A project of the Atlanta-based power company Southern Co. to install a carbon capture system on its plant in Mississippi has gone years over schedule and billions over budget. That project, which will also supply carbon to an oil field, is scheduled to come online within nine months, the Department of Energy says.
Coal should still have a role as an energy source in this country because of its abundance and ease of storage, said Michael Webber, deputy director of the University of Texas’ Energy Institute. Replacing it entirely with other energy sources could threaten the security of the country’s energy supply, he said.
“Clean coal has turned out to be a lot harder and a lot more expensive than people thought,” he said. “Coal might not be in favor now, but it does have a future in the power mix. It shouldn’t go to zero.”
The question of funding comes amid a larger debate in Washington over the future of the country’s energy supply and what steps need to be taken to fight climate change. As global temperatures and sea levels rise, and violent storms become more frequent, many policymakers around the world are looking to dramatically reduce the use of all fossil fuels, which are blamed for accelerating climate change.
Efforts to restore funding
But many Republicans in Congress are resisting. At recent hearing in the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, said Republicans would continue efforts to restore research funding not just for coal, but fossil fuels in general.
“Fossil energy innovation does not appear to be a priority for this administration,” he said. “I share the commitment to our nation’s most abundant and affordable energy source.”