CCS Battlefield: CNN Advertising Airtime

                                                                                 vs.

The commercial breaks between CNN shows have become the latest battlefield in the adoption of controversial Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. For many weeks, the folks over at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) had been serving up commercials trying to cozy viewers up to the idea of a continued use of coal as a primary source of electricity generation in the United States. 

The commercials (found here) focus on the importance coal plays in the American electricity supply (approximately 50%), the cheapness of coal-produced electricity, the abundance of coal in America (take note of the whole energy independence issue in the US) and the prevalence of CCS as a means of capturing all the environmentally harmful emissions produced from coal. The last factor was the real sticking point.

As climate change gets more important, the coal industry has taken a real beating. Because coal is one of the dirtier energy sources (dirtier than oil and natural gas) in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, many are trying to get away from coal-fired electricity generation. Even in Canada, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has pledged to shutdown all of Ontario's coal-fired plants in due course. But if all the harmful emissions from coal could be captured and stored safely, the United States would be looking at a pretty nice energy supply for the next few hundred years.

This is where the folks at Reality.Org have decided to step in. Over the past month or so, the group (which is comprised of several environmental organizations) has been putting together commercials (one found here) showcasing the lack of CCS technology in the US. According to Reality.org, there are no CCS projects up and running in the US for clean coal.

This is true, but several are in the works. Whether or not they ever get completed is questionable.

I certainly don't back either organization, but they each have some decent points. The ACCCE is right that clean coal could be a very effective and dependable source of electricity in the United States, if it works. CCS is outrageously expensive and would lower coal's affordability significantly. Not to mention that CCS plants are not proven to capture 100% of emissions from any energy source, including coal. On the other hand it seems that Reality.Org is primarily focusing on the lack of CCS projects. If CCS starts to be implemented for clean coal facilities, the Reality.Org argument may be significantly weakened. 

The most important aspect of this battle is to look at the organizations themselves. The ACCCE is formed by the corporate coal industry who see that their dominant industry is in danger. Reality.Org is made up of a coalition of environmental groups who have traditionally been very opposed to CCS and are in complete favour of renewable energy, sometimes offering unrealistic rhetoric on the viability of renewable technologies. It should all be taken with a grain of salt.