ODT: Carbon capture and storage should not be required.

If the United States immediately began phasing in carbon capture and storage, the maximum potential is to reduce 3 degrees of global warming by 0.1 degree, at the expense of increasing the cost of generating electric power from coal by at least 50%. It's better to focus on nuclear power, adapting to climate change, and spending more on climate engineering research. 1. CCS would provide negligible reductions in global warming The total world production of carbon dioxide in 2011 was about 30,398 million tonnes. of which the United States accounts for 5424 million tonnes. [3. http://www.guardian.co.uk... ] 27% of the total U.S. emissions is from electric power generation, 1464 million tonnes. CCS has the potential to reduce emissions by 90%, 1317 million tonnes. There is agreement among CO2 alarmists and skeptics that carbon dioxide has a logarithmic effect on global temperature. That means that if doubling CO2 concentrations produces a certain temperature increase, then doubling it again would produce the same increase. If the effect were linear, it would be four times the increase rather than just twice. The controversy in climate change is over climate sensitivity, which is the amount of warming to be expected from doubling CO2 . In the last hundred years, CO2 concentrations have increased from 280 ppm to 396 ppm, and temperatures have risen 0.74 degree C. In the decade from 2000 -2009, CO2 levels increased by about 2 ppm. [4. http://en.wikipedia.org...] If the past hundred years reflects climate sensitivity, with causes other than CO2 canceling out over the period, then climate sensitivity is about 1.5 degree per doubling of CO2 . Skeptics claim that the earth has been warming due to natural causes since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800s, so climate sensitivity is probably less than 1.5 degrees C. The IPCC Report, cited as authoritative by CO2 alarmists, claims “[climate sensitivity] is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5 °C, with a best estimate of about 3 °C.” [5.\http://en.wikipedia.org...] Let's start assuming climate sensitivity of 3 degrees. Application of CCS reduces CO2 emissions by at best 4.33%. Assuming that starts immediately and is maintained, instead of CO2 doubling it would rise to 1.956 of its starting value. So instead of getting 3 degrees of temperature rise, we would get 3 * log (1.956) / (log 2) degrees = 2.90 degrees. The 0.1 degree projection is too optimistic. No large scale CCS facilities have ever been built. The technology has to be perfected, the costs lowered, and the capital costs of implementation absorbed. Retrofitting CCS is very expensive, so as a practical matter it will probably only be added to new power plants. Plants have a life of about 50 years, so if the technology is ready in 10 years and takes 50 years to phase in, perhaps half the CO2 savings might be achieved. Also, the U.S. contribution as a percentage of the total world It's not going to be substantially easier to cope with 2.9 degrees of temperature increase rather than 3 degrees. If skeptics are right, then the difference might be 0.97 degrees rather than 1 degree. But might the whole world follow the U.S. example and implement CCS? It's not likely because it's a pure extra cost. Perhaps Europe could be convinced, but that only yields another 0.08 degree. Developing countries cannot afford the technology, as discussed below. 2. The Cost Makes CCS Impractical The costs of CSS include adding the equipment to new power plant, the reduction in power output that results (about 10%), transporting the CO2 (by pipeline). and storage of the CO2 (by injecting into underground brine). Adding the costs together, an M.I.T. study "found that carbon dioxide capture increases the busbar electricity cost (COE) from 5.0 to 6.7 ¢/kWh at IGCC plants, from 4.4 to 7.7 ¢/kWh at PC plants, and, finally, from 3.3 to 4.9 ¢/kWh at NGCC plants." [6.http://sequestration.mit.edu...] Currently, nearly all power from coal uses pulverized coal (PC). A new technology converts the coal to gas then burns the gas. CCS cost more to apply to pulverized coal plants, by the newer gasification technology (IGCC) has a higher cost for the plant. The bottom line is that coal power generation costs rise by about 50%. This has been confirmed by multiple studies. “a 2007 study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University estimated that, compared to an IGCC plant without CCS, a new IGCC plant built with CCS that captured 90 percent of CO2 emissions would produce electricity at a 42 percent higher levelized cost” [7. http://www.c2es.org...] Developing countries are unlikely to spend more on power generation than necessary. for example, China, now the largest emitter of co2, has made only vague promises to reduce emissions "per unit of GDP" -- in other words only to improve efficiency. [8. http://en.wikinews.org...] 3. Nuclear, Adaptation, and Climate Engineering are Better Alternatives Nuclear power has no carbon emissions. About 75% cost of nuclear power lies in the construction of the plant. The main thing that affects construction costs are delays in the permitting process, which ties up capital. In the most famous case in the U.S., the nuclear power plant in Shoreham, New York was completely constructed when the State decided at the last minute to prevent it from going into operation. The entire investment was lost. With the government regulatory risk, investors demand extra compensation. The basic cost of nuclear power is about 3 ¢/kWh. [9. http://nuclearinfo.net... ] That can be achieved if construction costs are kept to $1500 per kW. Australia and China are figuring nuclear costs at those levels. As a consequence of the regulatory problems in the U.S., construction may be as high as $3500 per kW. That implies a generation cost of about 6 ¢/kWh, still cheaper than coal with CCS. To reduce carbon emissions, the focus should be on reducing the nuclear costs. If CCS is considered a good investment, then nuclear is a better investment. With a better regulatory system, nuclear is even cheaper than coal without CCS. That would phase out carbon emissions with a cost savings. Most of the world's fossil fuel is consumed in as liquid fuel for transportation, which is not subject to carbon capture. If coal generated power were made prohibitively expensive by a carbon capture requirement, then a likely avenue would be to convert the coal to liquid fuel for use in transportation, and let nuclear take over for power generation. that would evade CCS. Instead of attempting to control about 4.3% of CO2emissions with CCS, much more money ought to be invested in research on climate engineering. Climate engineering techniques encompass a variety of methods for cooling the planet a whole. A panel of international experts recently cited a paper on the potential of climate engineering, Current government policy focuses on reducing carbon emissions, but Bickel and Lane's report says that even if these reductions begin, it could take hundreds of years for the climate to stabilize — a scenario that's troubling to scientists who warn that the climate may contain "tipping points" that, once crossed, trigger large and irreversible changes to the Earth. ...Climate engineering holds the potential to limit warming, and it's also the only technology that could possibly cool the Earth quickly enough if needed. So it plays an important risk management role." [10. http://www.eurekalert.org...] CCS is expensive and largely symbolic. Nuclear power is cheaper, and reseach on climate engineering is a better use of limited funds. The resolution is affirmed.