Carbon Pipelines Negative T
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Costs lead to political backlash
- Politics Link – CCS Controversy
- Politics Link – Environmentalists
- Environmentalists are key to the Agenda
- Plan faces public opposition
- Politics Link Turns Case
PoliticsPolitics – Spending LinkSignificant opposition to new spending on CCSWeiss 10 - Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at American Progress Daniel, “Efforts to Save Coal Could End Up Destroying It,” Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/09/coal_senators.html Second, without a pollution reduction program to generate revenue to invest in CCS research and development, some of the money for it will have to come from general revenues. The large federal budget deficit, however, has fueled opposition to more government spending. APA and the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, would have provided billions of dollars for CCS research using revenue raised from selling pollution dumping permits under global warming pollution reduction legislation. It is difficult to imagine Congress appropriating money for CCS when so many existing programs will be facing severe budget cuts.
Pipeline Costs If an extensive network of pipelines is required for CO2 transportation, pipeline costs may be a major consideration in CCS policy. MIT estimated overall annualized pipeline transportation (and storage) costs of approximately $5 per metric ton of CO2.46 If CO2 sequestration rates in the United States were on the order of 1 billion metric tons per year at mid-century, as some analysts propose, annualized pipeline costs would run into the billions of dollars. Furthermore, because most pipeline costs are initial capital costs, up-front capital outlays for a new CO2 pipeline network would be enormous. The 2007 Duke study, for example, estimated it would cost approximately $5 billion to construct a CO2 trunk line along existing pipeline rights of way to transport captured CO2 from North Carolina to potential sequestration sites in the Gulf states and Appalachia.47 Within the context of overall CO2 pipeline costs, several specific cost-related issues may warrant further examination by Congress. Materials Costs. Analysts commonly develop cost estimates for CO2 pipelines based on comparable construction costs for natural gas pipelines, and to a lesser extent, petroleum product pipelines. In most cases, these comparisons appear appropriate since CO2 pipelines are similar in design and operation to other pipelines, especially natural gas pipelines. A University of California (UC) study analyzing the costs of U.S. transmission pipelines constructed between 1991 and 2003 found that, on average, labor accounted for approximately 45% of the total construction costs. Materials, rights of way, and miscellaneous costs accounted for 26%, 22%, and 7% of total costs, respectively.48 Materials cost was most closely dependent upon pipeline size, accounting for an increasing fraction of the total cost with increasing pipeline size, from 15% to 35% of total costs. The MIT study estimated that transportation of captured CO2 from a 1 gigawatt coal-fired power plant would require a pipe diameter of 16 inches.49 According to the UC analysis, total construction costs for such a pipe between 1991 and 2003 averaged around $800,000 per mile (in 2002 dollars), although the study stated that costs for any individual pipeline could vary by a factor of five depending its location.50 [table omitted by Dillon hall] Since pipeline materials make up a significant portion of CO2 pipeline construction costs, analysts have called attention to rising pipeline materials costs, especially steel costs, as a concern for policymakers.51 Following a period of low steel prices and company bankruptcies earlier in the decade, the North American steel industry has returned to profitability and enjoys strong domestic and global demand.52 Now, higher prices resulting from both strong demand and increased production costs for carbon steel plate, used in making large-diameter pipe, may alter the basic economics of CO2 pipeline projects and CCS schemes overall. As Figure 2 shows, the price of large-diameter pipe was generally around $600 per ton in late 2001 and early 2002. By late 2007, the price of pipe was approaching $1,400 per ton. Analysts forecast carbon steel prices to decline over the next two years, but only gradually, and to a level still more than double the price early in the decade.53 Politics Link – CCS ControversyIt’s a political lightning rod—even environmentalists are waryLuoma 11 – author of three books on environmental issues and a contributing editor at Audubon (Jon, “Are Carbon Sequestration Leaks a Potential Health Danger?” Popular Mechanics September 13 2011 http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/climate-change/are-carbon-sequestration-leaks-a-health-danger) MLR Still, CCS remains a lightning rod. Roberts and colleagues wrote in their study that CCS must be part of a plan to prevent many millions of tons of from "contributing to a [climate change] process which will have catastrophic effects on human lives across the globe." However, even some environmentalists are opposed to the idea, the argument being that just burying carbon dioxide does nothing to ease the reliance on fossil fuels. Plus, it’s not clear whether studies like this one will reassure those wary of CO2 leaks. Politics Link – EnvironmentalistsPlan angers environmentalistsHester 09 (Tom Hester Sr., October 15, 2009, “New Jersey’s environmentalists form alliance to oppose planned mega coal plant in Linden,” http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/science-updates/new-jerseys-environmentalists-form-alliance-to-oppose-planned-mega-coal-plant-in-linden)//DR. H A coalition of environmentalists announced Thursday that they have formed the Arthur Kill Watershed Alliance with the goal of fighting a proposed null coal plant in Linden. Members of the new Arthur Kill Watershed Alliance include the Tremley Point Alliance, the New Jersey Sierra Club, the Edison Wetlands Association, the New Jersey Environmental Federation, the New Jersey Environmental Lobby and Environment New Jersey. Linden City Council President Robert Bunk joined alliance leaders at a press conference at City Hall to announce his opposition to the proposal, a 500 megawatt coal plant and carbon capture and sequestration pilot project that environmentalists maintain will threaten the health of the area's residents and pollute the environment. The environmentalists insist the $5 billion pilot project, called PurGen, would "severely degrade'' the local environment and undermine Linden's revitalization effort. They argue that reliance on untested sequestration technology could jeopardize the state's attempts to help mitigate global warming. Carbon capture and sequestration is an unproven and untested technology, according to the environmentalists. PurGen theorizes it can capture and liquefy carbon dioxide and push it 70 miles through an offshore pipeline to be buried under the seabed. The proposed location for plant is the former DuPont site along the Arthur Kill. The pipeline would run under Raritan Bay through the ocean to the shores off Atlantic City, where the carbon dioxide discharge site will be located in ocean rock deposits. Environmentalists are key to the AgendaWilliams 08 Doctorate and Masters in Economics, Distinguished Professor of Economics, More than 50 of his publications have appeared in scholarly journals, Received the National Fellow at the Hoover Institute of War, Revolution, and Peace; the Ford Foundation Dissertation Fellowship; the National Service Award from the Institute for Socioeconomic Studies; and the George Washington Medal of Honor from the Valley Forge Freedom Foundation. In 1984-1985, he received the Faculty Member of the Year Award from the George Mason University Alumni. He is also a member of the American Economic Association, the Mont Pelerin Society and is a Distinguished Scholar of the Heritage Foundation, participates in many debates and conferences, is a frequent public speaker and often gives testimony before both houses of Congress (Walter, July 30, 2008, “Environmentalists' Hold on Congress,” http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2008/07/30/environmentalists_hold_on_congress/page/full/)//DR. H Let's face it. The average individual American has little or no clout with Congress and can be safely ignored. But it's a different story with groups such as Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and The Nature Conservancy. When they speak, Congress listens. Unlike the average American, they are well organized, loaded with cash and well positioned to be a disobedient congressman's worse nightmare. Their political and economic success has been a near disaster for our nation. For several decades, environmentalists have managed to get Congress to keep most of our oil resources off-limits to exploration and drilling. They've managed to have the Congress enact onerous regulations that have made refinery construction impossible. Similarly, they've used the courts and Congress to completely stymie the construction of nuclear power plants. As a result, energy prices are at historical highs and threaten our economy and national security. What's the political response to our energy problems? It's more congressional and White House kowtowing to environmentalists, farmers and multi-billion dollar corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland. Their "solution," rather than to solve our oil supply problem by permitting drilling for the billions upon billions of barrels of oil beneath the surface of our country, is to enact the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that mandates that oil companies increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. Anyone with an ounce of brains would have realized that diverting crops from food to fuel use would raise the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as pork, beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. Ethanol production has led to increases in other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat. Since the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter, higher grain prices have had a huge impact on food prices worldwide. Congress and the environmentalists aren't through with us. If you're bothered by skyrocketing food and energy prices, wait until Congress re-introduces its environmentalist-inspired Climate Security Act, so-called "Cap and Trade." Cap and Trade is deceptively peddled as a free-market solution to the yet-to-be-settled issue of manmade climate change. Under its provisions, companies would be able to emit greenhouse gases only if they had a government allowance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a 15 percent cut in emissions would raise the annual average household's energy costs by $1,300. Since energy is an input to everything we use, we can expect everything to become more costly, resulting in a reduction in economic growth. There's a hateful side to Cap and Trade that's revealed by asking the question: How will it be decided who received how much allowance to emit greenhouse gases? Congress could sell the allowances and/or give them away to favorite constituents. You can bet the rent money that a new army of lobbyists, with special pleadings, will descend on Washington to lobby Congress. And you can be sure that campaign contributions and favoritism will play an important role in the decision of who received what amount of allowances. Much worse than that is the massive control government would have over our economy and our lives. Congress might decide that since tobacco use is unhealthy, it might not issue allowances to tobacco companies. While many Americans might applaud that, how many would like Congress to refuse to issue allowances to companies that produce foods that some people deem unhealthy such as French fries, sodas, canned soups and potato chips. Congress might deny, or threaten to deny, allowances to companies that in their opinion didn't hire enough women and minorities. The possibilities for control over our lives would be endless and could include nuisance-type edicts such a requiring us to buy a permit to barbeque in our backyard.
Environmentalists are key to the agendaLoris 08 Policy Analyst for Heritage, Studies energy, environment and regulation issues such as the economic impacts of climate change legislation (Nicolas Loris, August 4, 2008, “When Environmentalists Speak, Congress Listens,” The Foundry, http://blog.heritage.org/2008/08/04/when-environmentalists-speak-congress-listens/)//DR. H The problem with environmental extremists is that they are not really pro-environment, they’re anti-energy and anti-progress, and for years these groups have been some of the most influential people in U.S. policy circles. Walter Williams reminds us that they “are well organized, loaded with cash and well positioned to be a disobedient congressman’s worse nightmare. Their political and economic success has been a near disaster for our nation.” As Dr. Williams explains, two energy sources that we could have readily available today if not for the environmentalist movement is oil from offshore and federally restricted lands and more nuclear power. When gas prices were near $1 a gallon around the year 2000, it was easier for Members of Congress to listen to environmental activists’ pleas to restrict domestic land that has approximately 30 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia and enough natural gas to power America’s homes for 17 years. Even as prices continued to escalate, the environmentalists worked Congress over to keep the restrictions in place. And here we are today, with the national price of gas at $4 a gallon, and Nancy Pelosi is still shutting the door on the drilling debate.
Anti-nuclear groups used both legal intervention and civil disobedience to impede construction of new nuclear power plants and hamper the operations of existing units. They legally challenged 73 percent of the nuclear license applications filed between 1970 and 1972 and formed a group called Consolidated National Interveners for the specific purpose of disrupting hearings of the Atomic Energy Commission. Today, activist organizations determined to force the closure of nuclear power plants, such as Mothers for Peace, continue to use the legal process to harass the nuclear energy industry.” To make matters worse, Members are using the tried and failed policies of the past to make amends for conceding to the environmentalists. Then there’s the cap-and trade legislation that has been proposed to combat global warming where companies would receive allowances to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. While it’s often marketed as the free market solution to global warming, Dr. Williams illustrates how it could be one of the largest command and control policies of our time:
Politics Link – PublicPublic opposesStephenson 8 - Director, Natural Resources and Environment @ GAO “Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect the Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation Option,” GAO, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081080.pdf Thus far at least, there has been little public opposition to the CO2 injections that have taken place in states such as Texas to enhance oil recovery. However, several notable studies explain that this lack of publicly-expressed concern may reflect more a lack of knowledge about CCS rather than confidence that the process is safe. 56 This is suggested in the IPCC’s 2005 report on CCS which stated, for example, that there is insufficient public knowledge of climate change issues and of the various mitigation options and their potential impact. In another 2005 study, researchers surveyed 1,200 people, representing a general population sample of the United States, and found that that less than 4 percent of the respondents were familiar with the terms carbon dioxide capture and storage or carbon storage. Some of the stakeholders we interviewed explained that public opposition could indeed grow when CCS extends beyond the relatively small projects used to enhance oil and gas recovery, to include much larger CO2 sequestration projects located in more populated areas. One noted, in particular, that a lack of education about CCS’s safety could potentially create confusion and fear when commercial-scale CCS is implemented. Plan faces public oppositionAmann 10 Scholarly Group of Environmental and Energy Experts (Rachel Amann, December 31, 2010, “A Policy, Legal, and Regulatory Evaluation of the Feasibility of a National Pipeline Infrastructure for the Transport and Storage of Carbon Dioxide: Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission,” http://www.sseb.org/downloads/pipeline.pdf)//DR. H In addition to the purity issue and the EPA actions on CO2, there also are political issues associated with the development of the CO2 infrastructure. Whether CO2 is treated as a commodity, pollutant, or transport resource to be managed, the likelihood of public opposition to pipeline transport is high, just as with other resource infrastructure. Major public oppositionWatson 4/19 Director of the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex (Jim Watson, April 19, 2012, “Carbon Capture and Storage: What can the government do?” http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/carbon-capture-and-storage-what-can-the-government-do/)//DR. H In Germany and the Netherlands, the plan was to have storage of CO2 under land rather than offshore under the sea bed. Because this is under land, people will naturally start to worry if developers intend to inject CO2 under a certain site. It doesn’t mean to say that these worries are scientifically founded, but such concerns are an unavoidable fact of many energy infrastructure developments. That has been the major reason for public opposition in those countries. I also detect a fundamental scepticism, in countries such as Germany, about this idea of capturing CO2 from fossil fuel power plants. There is much bigger public support for the idea of moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewables and energy efficiency. My sense is that some of that is also behind the opposition. The hope for industry in the UK is that by doing offshore storage, they will avoid some of that. However, I don’t think there is any guarantee. Once they start developing actual plants, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some local opposition to CO2 pipelines for example. Politics Link Turns CaseLink turns case – public backlash prevents CCS successStephenson 8 - Director, Natural Resources and Environment @ GAO “Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect the Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation Option,” GAO, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081080.pdf Citing such concerns, a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences underscored the importance of public outreach, noting that while the success of DOE’s carbon capture program depends heavily on its ability to reduce the cost of the technology, “the storage program cannot be successful if a significant fraction of the public views it as dangerous or unacceptable. Thus, the technologies must not only be safe and effective, they must be explainable to the public and the regulatory community in such a way as to instill confidence that they are in fact safe and effective.” 57 The report went on to caution that “the federal government in general and the DOE in particular have not had a good track record in accomplishing this task in other programs.” For its part, EPA received similar advice from its Clean Air Act Advisory Committee’s Advanced Coal Technology Work Group. The Work Group’s January 2008 report recommended that the agency immediately develop, in consultation with other agencies, a public outreach effort to explain carbon capture and sequestration. 58 A diverse group of panel members at EPA’s 2007 UIC workshop made similar recommendations for public outreach and participation.
Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.92 Mb. Share with your friends:
|