Carbon Capture and Sequestration and

Nuclear Energy: Solutions to Climate

Change or Dangerous Distractions?

Shahla Werner, Sierra Club – John Muir Chapter222 South Hamilton St, #1, Madison, WI 53703

(608) 256-0565http://wisconsin.sierraclub.orgshahla.werner@sierraclub.org

The Sierra Club

Founded in 1892 by John Muir

Sierra Club is the oldest, largest, and most influential grassrootsenvironmental organization in the United States.

1.3 million members in North America

We use grassroots activism, public education, lobbying and litigation to protect natural resources.

Sierra Club Mission

To explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth;

To practice and promote the responsible use of theearth's ecosystems and resources;

To educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and

To use all lawful means to carry out these objectives.

Sierra Club – John Muir Chapter

Formed in 1963, we are the statewide branch of the Sierra Club in Wisconsin

We follow the footsteps of legendary Wisconsin conservationists: John Muir, Aldo Leopold, SigurdOlson and Gaylord Nelson.

Two Priority Issues: Protecting Water and Reducing the threat of Climate Change

15,000 members and supporters in Wisconsin

Human Induced Climate Change

Over the past 250 years, increased concentrations of heat trapping greenhouse gases have caused the Earth’s climate to warm 1.4 degrees F, glaciers to shrink, plant and animal ranges to shift and changes in plant phenology.

Fossil fuel burning is largely responsible for this problem.

Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change

Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation are major causes of climate change since 1750. The current 386 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere is the highest level it has been in the past 650,000 years.

Although other greenhouse gases like methane may have more heat trapping potential, they are far less abundant in the atmosphere and their retention time is far shorter than CO2.

Top Carbon Dioxide Emitters

Although China now emits more CO2 than the US, their per capita emissions are 4.6 tons/capita vs our 19.6

Coal Plants and Climate Change

Coal-fired power plants generate about 50% of US electricity and account for almost 40% of CO2 emissions

Carbon Capture and Sequestration

Many claim that CCS could dramatically reduce emissions from fossil fuel burning plants (coal, biomass, gas). It stops carbon dioxide from reaching the atmosphere by capturing, compressing and storing it underground. A cap rock seal prevents gas escape.

Carbon Capture & Sequestration:

Three Basic Steps

Capture: Carbon dioxide may be captured before or after combustion.

Transportation: Pipelines needed unless power plant is located directly above an suitable storage site

Storage: Injection of condensed CO2 into suitable sites. It either chemically reacts with (e.g., coal, silicates) or is dissolved in other substances (e.g., water) and is stabilized. A mineralization process will occur (but takes at hundreds of years) before the CO2 is converted into solid minerals.

Map of Geologic Carbon Storage Sites in the US

CO2 storage formations include Gas, Oil, Coal, Deep Saline Basalt and Sedimentary Formations.

Global CCS Capacity

Deep saline formations 100-3000 Gt C*

Depleted gas wells 140-310 Gt C

Depleted oil wells 40-190 Gt C

Deep coal beds 100-300 Gt C

[* 1 G (Giga) ton C = 1 billion tons of carbon]

Sources: Parson & Keith (1998); IEA (1994b) from

http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/removal.htm and

http:///www.ieagreen.org.uk/disp2.htm)

Statoil’s Sleipner Project, a natural gas facility, has operated since 1996 off the coast of Norway, in the North Sea.

Removed CO2 is injected into salt water containing sand layer, called the Utsira formation, which lies 1000 meter below sea bottom. 8 million tons of CO2 have been stored so far

CO2 enhanced oil recovery has been practiced for the past 30 years.

An Operational CCS Site: Sleipner

CCS Policies and Regulations The Obama Administration recently announced the formation

of a CCS task force

The American Clean Energy and Security Act contains billions for CCS. This bill only gives carbon credits for successful CCS storage, unlike ARRA or a bill being considered in PA, which gives credits just for installing the technology.

The PA bill under consideration gives the coal-plant owner immunity from any liability resulting from leaks of carbon dioxide. This means taxpayers will foot the bill for accidents.

―There is no corollary in oil and gas law for injection of massive amounts of material,‖It’s my view that we’re going to transfer [the risk] to the federal government,‖ said Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal (D)

Can we Economically

Deploy CCS to scale?

CCS adds roughly $65 per metric ton of CO2 to the cost of electricity.

CCS demonstration projects that sequester about 1 million tons/yr has been done in several places. But, a 400 MW (average sized) coal plant emits about 4 million tons of CO2 per year.

The International Energy Agency estimates that for CCS to

have a significant effect in slowing global warming, there

must be 6000 CCS projects each storing a million tons of

carbon dioxide per year in operation by the year 2050.

Costs and Canceled CCS Projects

12/2009: Southern Co. pulled out of a CCS / coal project in Alabama, despite being slated to receive $295 million for its $700 million project. The project's goal was to capture 1 million metric tons of CO2 annually from a 160 MW plant.

FutureGen, a 275 MW coal plant in Matoon, IL planned to employ CCS at a cost of $1.5-2.4 Billion. Bush pulled funding, but the Obama administration resurrected it in 2009. FutureGen plans to capture 60% of the CO2 initially, and 90% ultimately.

What Experts Say about Costs of CCS Howard Herzog, MIT, estimates that the first new CCS plant

won’t be completed before 2015. "If your goal is 80 percent cuts [in CO2 emissions] by 2050, then it's not big enough.‖

―Retrofitting a coal-fired power plant for CCS costs nearly as much as building the plant in the first place, a NAS report entitled America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation notes. And running the CCS equipment diverts 20 to 40 percent of the plants' energy. This reduces the plant's efficiency and increases electricity costs.‖

―Carbon capture and storage, particularly for China is not one of the priorities–the cost is an issue,‖ [said Su Wei, director-general of the climate-change unit at China’s National Development and Reform Commission] on 08/04/09. “If we spent the same money for CCS on energy efficiency and the development of renewables, it would generate larger climate-change benefits.”

Health Risks of CCS

CO2 concentrations are usually 0.04% of the air. CO2 is heavier than O2, and concentrations of 7% or more can be deadly.

Injecting carbon dioxide into or near underground aquifers

leads to the formation of carbonic acid. Acidification can increase leaching of contaminants such as arsenic, lead, mercury, and organic compounds.

The use of geologic formations as storage for carbon dioxide could compromise unused aquifers that future generations may depend on for drinking water.

CO2 Case Study: Lake Nyos, Cameroon

In 1986 Lake Nyos (which is on the edge of an inactive volcano) emitted 100,000 tons of CO2 (equal to 1 week of emissions from one coal plant) over a 15 mile radius that asphyxiated and killed 1,700 people and at least 3,500 animals.

Will CCS result in “Clean Coal”?

The coal industry has been selling the idea of ―clean coal‖ for the past 100 years. Michael Brune, the new ED for the Sierra Club, said during a 2008 Democracy NOW interview that the coal industry speaks with a forked tongue about CCS, ―claiming that it is an essential technology, arguing that it is not ready, and then working to block any policy that would require it to be used.‖

CCS does not stop the devastation caused by mountaintop removal coal mining in Appalachia or long-wall mining.

CCS does not prevent coal plants from emitting mercury, SOxor NOx. Scrubbers that remove these pollutants don’t prevent the need to dispose of toxic coal ash.

Mountaintop Removal Mining

MTR mining blows the tops of mountains to expose and extract coal seams. Earth and vegetation from the mountaintop is dumped into neighboring valleys and streams.

800 square miles of mountains have been destroyed in WV, VA, TN, and KY; At least 1,200 miles of streams have been destroyed

Coal Ash Spills

In 2008 a coal ash spill in Tennessee released a billion gallons of sludge (containing arsenic, lead, & mercury) over 300 acres. It caused overwhelming environmental damage. It will cost a billion dollars to clean up.

1,300 largely unregulated ash dumps exist in the US.

Nuclear Energy: Carbon Free?

Nuclear energy supplies 20% of US electricity from 104 reactors.

Nuclear power proponents argue that nuclear plants are needed to produce carbon-free ―base-load‖ power.

―Emission-free‖ refers to any generating source that does not produce emissions ofCO2, NOX, or SO2 during its operations. - U.S. DOE

Does not include mining or enrichment.

Uranium Mining Risks

25 tons of uranium are needed to fuel a reactor for a year. This requires 500,000 tons of waste rock and 100,000 tons of mill tailings. Tailings contain uranium, thorium, radium, polonium, and emit radon-222. They remain toxic for thousands of years.

Contamination of local water supplies around uranium mines and processing plants has been documented in Brazil, Colorado, Texas, Australia, Namibia and many other sites. - David Thorpe, Guardian UK, December 2008.

Uranium Enrichment

Ordinary natural uranium contains only 0.72% U-235 and 99.3% U-238. Gaseous diffusion is used to enrich Uranium in the US (Paducah, KY). Centrifuge separation is used in Iran.

Enrichment to fissionable U235 results in leftover depleted U238.

Although depleted uranium munitions have been used extensively by the US Military, WHO and VA studies have not found lasting health impacts on kidneys or lung function.

Uranium Enrichment: Same Process

for Energy and Weapons

There is global concern over Iran’s efforts to enrich Uranium (currently at 7%). 90% U-235 is required for weapons. A “nuclear renaissance” could result in more nuclear weapons worldwide.

Why Can’t we be like the French?

Mais Non!

The French get 80% of their electricity from nuclear power

Reprocessing facilities are expensive; reprocessing generates additional waste; only 1% of Plutonium (MOX) is used for fuel, 99% is stored at the reprocessing facility.

Plutonium may be used for weapons production

The French release 100 million gallons of radioactive waste into the English Channel annually

Nuclear Accidents: Three Mile Island

Three Mile Island, Middletown, PA: On March 28, 1979, the nuclear core partially melted down (the core heated up to 5,000 F and a large hydrogen bubble formed in the reactor). Small quantities of xenon and iodine radioisotopes were released.

Elevated thyroid cancer rates have been observed in Lancaster and York (but not Dauphin Counties) since 1995.

Nuclear Accidents: Chernobyl

Chernoble, Ukraine, April 26, 1986: While conducting a test, operators disabled safety equipment which led to reactor explosions and meltdown.

The accident resulted in 56 immediate deaths and elevated cancer incidence (estimates vary from 4,000, UN International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum report to 270,000, Greenpeace based on cancer data from Belarus).

Chernobyl and surrounding evacuated areas remain ghost towns to this day.

Aging Nuclear Reactors: Davis Besse

The OH plant, which has since reopened, was closed in 2002 after a worker found that a boric acid leak had nearly eaten through the reactor’s 6-inch-thick steel cap. The NRC had missed a deadline for plant inspection.

In 2003, the plant’s computer system was infected with a worm virus. The incident allegedly ―did not pose a safety hazard‖.

Aging Nuclear Reactors: VT Yankee

The Vermont Yankee, one of America's oldest reactors, has had several leaks of radioactive tritium dating back to 2005. One of the plant’s cooling towers collapsed in 2007 and 2008.

An Entergy official testified under oath that there were no pipes carrying water beneath the plant. There are 40 such pipes.

State Senate voted 26-4 in Feb. 2010 to deny a 20 year operating extension; plant is slated to close in 2012. Decommissioning will cost $1 billion.

Safe, Permanent Waste Storage?

Every reactor creates 20 tons of radioactive waste per year, which must be isolated for thousands of years. The federal government has not found a permanent storage site. It currently sits in temporary storage in 39 states. Yucca Mtn no longer considered.

The Obama administration recently created a 15-member commission (headed by former congressman Lee Hamilton and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft) on nuclear waste storage, including alternatives to Yucca Mountain.

Dry Cask Storage

What's to be done with 52,000 tons (47,000 metric tons) of dangerously radioactive spent fuel from commercial and defense nuclear reactors?

Nuclear waste is stored in dry casks — steel-lined concrete silos that require no liquid cooling or forced ventilation — and those are licensed for 20 years. At three plants, the licenses have been extended for another 20.

Metal parts of such casks can begin corroding in weeks if salt hits them, the NRC has found.

Edward F. Sproat III, said, ―you can’t keep that stuff in those canisters forever. They’re not designed that way.‖

Nuclear Waste Leaks

In 2007, 50-100 gallons of radioactive waste leaked at the Hanford, WA nuclear waste storage site. This site covers about 560 square miles in south-central Washington, and contains the nuclear waste from the production of weapons.

In 2008, 7,925 gallons of low-grade uranium leaked at the Tricastin facility near Marseilles. Three Rivers, including the Rhone, were contaminated. France is now examining water near all of its plants.

In 2009, thousands of liters of radioactive waste leaked into the Firth of Clyde from the Hunterstonnuclear power station in Scotland.

In Feb 2010, Radio Netherlands reported that two drums at the nuclear reactor near the Dutch town Petten leaked radioactive waste

Nuclear Energy and Water UseNuclear power requires water to absorb the waste heat left over after making electricity, and to cool equipment used in generating electricity.

Nuclear reactors are about 33% efficient. For every three units of thermal energy generated by the reactor core, one unit of electrical energy goes out to the grid and two units of waste heat go into the environment. (Source, UCS)

Water could be come scarce as a result of global warming. Even in closed systems where water re-circulates, replenishment is needed to make up for water lost as vapor.

The Cost of Nuclear Energy

Building 100 new nuclear reactors requires capital investment of $600 billion (range $250 billion - $1 trillion) and would only reduce CO2 by 12%.

Nuclear costs $5,000-$10,000/kilowatt, 10 - 20 cents per kWh

Wall Street won’t finance nuclear energy. The Congressional Budget Office assumes that 50% of loans to nuclear power projects will default.

―I don't have to bet my company on any of this stuff. You would never do nuclear. The economics are overwhelming‖ - CEO of General Electric, Financial Times, Nov 2007

Nuclear Energy & Corporate Welfare

The Nuclear Industry is seeking 100% federal loan guarantees for 80 percent of capital cost.

In mid-February 2010, President Obama proposed $54 billion in federal loan guarantees for nuclear energy. He also granted 8.3 billion in guarantees for two new GA plants.

Nuclear power has already benefited from more than $140 billion in federal subsidies over the last 50 years, from liability protection to loan guarantees.

Nuclear Energy and

Vulnerability to Terrorism

CNN, 03/13/10: Al Qaeda suspect's work at nuclear sites prompts call for probe

Senator Schumer calls for probe into background check system for nuclear plant workers

Suspected al Qaeda member Sharif Mobley did routine labor at five nuclear plants from 2002 to 2008

Mobley is accused of killing security agent while trying to flee a hospital in Sanaa, Yemen

Nuclear Energy and CCS:

Too Slow to Address Climate Change

Under the best case scenario, it would take 6 – 10 years to construct a new nuclear plant. CCS is on a similar timeline.

Since the end of 2008, nine reactor license applications have been canceled or indefinitely suspended, and the Tennessee Valley Authority has canceled plans to finish a partially-built reactor

It takes two years to build a massive wind farm, two-and-a-half years to build a large solar facility, two weeks to put solar panels up on a rooftop, two days to retrofit a home with energy efficient updates (eg, insulation, caulking, furnace, water heater, windows).

The Potential of Energy Efficiency

Enacting a Federal Energy Efficiency Standard, requiring 15% electricity and 10% natural gas savings by 2020 would:

- save Americans $170 billion in energy costs

- save enough energy to power 48 million households by 2020.

- create over 220,000 jobs

- reduce CO2 emissions by 262 million metric tons

- eliminate the need for 390 power plants

Performing basic weatherization on homes built before 1990 in Wisconsin could reduce average home energy consumption by 27 percent, using currently available techniques and materials.

Relative Cost of Renewable Energy

Wind: 8 to 12 cents/Kwh

Solar thermal: 12 to 15 cents and coming down

Solar PV: 20 cents large scale, 25 cents intermediate scale (~1 MW). PV expected to be 10 cents or less in five years

Fuel free forever once installed

Baseload Alternatives Building a Smart grid: consuming devices talk to producing

devices: storage devices, smart meters. Our grid needsupgrades either way. Could cost $900 billion over the next 20 years (but DOE estimates that it could save $46-117 billion).

Solar and wind integration (sun shines during the day, wind blows more at night). Back up with hydro, natural gas, biomass

In 2009, when asked about new coal and nuclear plants, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Wellinghoff said, "we may not need any ever." He then said renewables like wind, solar and biomass will provide enough energy to meet baseload capacity and future demands. He added, "People talk about, 'Oh, we need baseload.' It's like people saying we need more computing power, we need mainframes. We don't need mainframes, we have distributed computing."

In Conclusion

Both CCS and nuclear:

- Carry significant, long-term environmental and health risks

- Are very expensive; require taxpayer subsidies

- Take too long to reduce climate change

- Divert billions of dollars from true low carbon solutions like efficiency and renewables.

Taxpayers shouldn't be asked to take a risk Wall Street is not willing to take.

―As a species, we must back the right horse and stop being misled by the coal industry's delaying tactics. There's a big opportunity cost in time and resources to going down the wrong path.‖ - Michael Graham Richard, Ottawa, Treehugger, 2006