Government clean-coal projects flopped, federal watchdog finds
U.S. is investing billions in 'carbon capture' technologies. So far, there's not much to show for it.
But the effort has flopped, a government watchdog found. According to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office, none of the clean-coal projects that received funding from Department of Energy (DOE) programs are currently operating, although two of the three industrial projects are. Of eight coal projects that were initially selected for federal funding, just one resulted in a completed operating facility. And that project — the Petra Nova plant near Houston — shut down in 2020 for economic reasons.Read more: CBS News »
Why Is This Happening? The Chris Hayes Podcast
Every week Chris Hayes asks the big questions that keep him up at night. How do we make sense of this unprecedented moment in world history? Why is this (all) happening? This podcast starts to answer these questions. Writers, experts, and thinkers who are also trying to get to the bottom of them Read more >>
I never thought of meeting a legit bitcoin trader after been scammed many times at my age but the heavens sent Michael90078 guided me and help me make a living through bitcoin with my cash app, I recommend you to meet her now and also be a beneficiary of good work Nadeen Al Junaeed - نادين الجنيد The only survivor among the whole family who have been killed out of US-UK-UAE-Saudi-led coalition raids that took place in the capital, Sana'a yesterday. Yemen YemenCantWait
😂😂😂😂🤡🤡🤡🤡 Clean coal is like frictionless sandpaper. It doesn’t exist.
A decade ago, when the U.S. was climbing out of the Great Recession, the government dedicated more than a billion dollars to developing carbon-capture technologies aimed at making high-emissions energy facilities — coal plants, in particular — less polluting. But the effort has flopped, a government watchdog found. According to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office, none of the clean-coal projects that received funding from Department of Energy (DOE) programs are currently operating, although two of the three industrial projects are. Of eight coal projects that were initially selected for federal funding, just one resulted in a completed operating facility. And that project — the Petra Nova plant near Houston — shut down in 2020 for economic reasons. Of eight coal projects initially chosen by the Department of Energy, three were withdrawn in their early stages because their owners couldn't make them economically feasible even with hundreds of millions in government funding. The Energy Department ended agreements with four others before construction. The last one, a coal plant near Houston, was completed and went online in 2016. That plant operated for four years before shutting down in 2020 , when plummeting oil prices made it unprofitable. "The government has spent billions of dollars on this technology, and its administration, and there's not much to show for it," John Noël, senior climate campaigner at Greenpeace, told CBS MoneyWatch. The GAO report focused narrowly on clean-coal and industrial projects that together received $1.1 billion in funding. A separate report from the Congressional Research Service last summer found that Congress spent $5 billion on carbon capture and storage, or CCS, projects over the last decade, plus an additional $3.4 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, designed to jump-start the economy after the Great Recession. The GAO findings raise even more questions as Congress appropriates record amounts of money in 2020 and 2021 for carbon-capture projects and fossil-fuel companies such as Exxon make the technology a key part of their emissions-reduction goals. A pipe installed as part of the Petra Nova Carbon Capture Project. The project, a joint venture between NRG Energy and JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corp., captured and repurposed more than 90% of its own CO2 emissions. It was shut down in 2020 when oil prices fell. Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg via Getty Images "What is surprising is the level of attention and incentives [for carbon capture] that are included in the Build Back Better Act and in the infrastructure bill," Noël said."It's surprising that this enterprise is still getting such attention from policymakers when it's hard to spin these results — a billion dollars with little result." Policy error Much of the blame rests with the economics of coal-fired power plants, which are expensive to operate under the best of conditions. Soon after the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding began to flow, many coal plants were out-competed by cheaper natural gas plants. But government policies didn't allow carbon-capture projects to be used on the less costly gas plants, which could have been more economically viable for the plants' owners, said John Thompson, technology and markets director at the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group that supports carbon-capture. "One of the reasons that DOE did so many coal plants was they were required by Congress," he said. The GAO also found that the government moved quickly to get funds out the door, choosing early-stage projects that are inherently riskier, and ignored cost controls that would have limited the government's exposure, such as continuing to fund projects that didn't meet key milestones. The DOE noted that it was creating a new division, dubbed the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations to implement lessons learned after the Great Recession."This office will seek to prove the effectiveness of innovative technologies in real-world conditions at scale in order to pave the way towards widespread adoption and deployment," a spokesperson said. Coal, gas or fertilizer Capturing carbon where it's produced involves filtering out CO2 from a point source of emissions, such as a fertilizer plant, power station or gas field. Differing from from what is known as direct-air capture — a nascent technology that could draw down CO2 emissions already circulating in the atmosphere — carbon-capture promises to trap emissions before they enter the air. The problem is that it's much more expensive to pull carbon from a coal-fired power plant than from another source, such as a fertilizer plant or other industrial plant. Indeed, two of three industrial carbon-capture projects the Energy Department funded were built and are operating today: an