TribLIVE

| Opinion/The Review

 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Carbon 'capture': Hobson's choice

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or cmcnickle@tribweb.com).

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

Monday, Sept. 23, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
 

A certain cohort of the eco-wacko crowd actually supporting the EPA's proposed coal industry-killing restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions touts a system known as “carbon capture and storage (or sequestration)” as the answer. But where they get that idea is a mystery, considering how financially and technically unfeasible that process actually is.

The idea behind carbon capture is that carbon emissions can be captured, then pumped deep into the Earth for storage. Better there than in the air, where, supposedly, they are responsible for “climate change,” they argue.

That's the theory, at least. But attempts at practical application have been a bust. It's so expensive that the Europeans can't find anybody to finance the kind of large-scale projects that would be necessary. And the same goes for the United States, which has earmarked billions for research and demonstration projects but, as The Washington Post's Brad Plumer noted last summer, “there's little to show for it.”

Not only would such a system increase the cost of a new coal-fired plant by about 75 percent, Mr. Plumer notes, there are serious safety questions about the effects of pumping liquefied carbon deep into the Earth. Earthquakes are just one of those concerns, which, some researchers say, make carbon capture and storage pretty much folly.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says the new emissions standards cannot be met without carbon capture and storage. It's the kind of Hobson's choice that confirms the Obama administration's real intent — to kill coal as an electricity-generating fuel once and for all.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Editorials

  1. So, where’s the I-70 ‘Welcome to Pennsylvania’ sign on the Pa.-W.Va. border?
  2. The Fiat Chrysler mess: Government’s virus
  3. Yes, the IRS targeted conservatives
  4. The Export-Import Bank: The Senate’s shame
  5. The wind ruse: A failed policy
  6. At the VA: The waiting dead
  7. Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
  8. Saturday essay: Dog days bark
  9. Sunday pops
  10. The Box
  11. Connellsville police seek help in crime crackdown