Summary
The reality is there is no such thing as clean coal. Does that mean we can afford to close all coal fired power plants - No! Therefore we seek to manage the emissions from coal fired power plants. CCS (Carbon Capture & Storage) is considered to be a good solution - is it? Yes it can be, but there needs to be clear regulation from the government in order to make it happen. See the issue is the competitiveness of the industry. If one company goes ahead and does CCS they do so at significant cost and all the other companies gain financial advantage by not doing CCS both in the sales of their product and in the attracting of investors for their stock. The government needs to level out the playing field by implementing clear regulations in regards to emissions reductions and CCS.
Analysis
I have some expertise in this area that may give some clear understanding for the various stakeholders from government, to industry to institutional investors to the general public.
1)
CCS is expensive. CCS from flue emissions requires capture which requires specialized equipment due to the various different emissions compounds from NOx to SOx to CO2 to VOC's. These emissions can degenerate standard equipment at an alarming rate therefore specialized equipment is used that has costs much greater than what normally would be used in single gas capturing industries.
CCS then requires more expense through compression. The captured flue emissions need to be pressurized for the injection into the ground. That pressure must be greater than the pressure of the injection site.
CCS then requires transport. The flue emissions need to be transported to sites suitable for carbon storage, often referred to as salt caverns. These are geological formations that will accept CCS and hold it in the ground.
For those that wish to use the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery they then have to separate the CO2 from the other flue gasses at an added expense.
My point is $$$$$$$$$$$$ and lots of dollars!
2)
Fiduciary duty, executives of both private and public companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders and to their employees. Therefore entering into great expense with no monetary benefit is career suicide. Without government intervention both federally and internationally the executive is put between the rock and the hard place. Even though he knows that the non-monetary benefits and unrelated monetary benefits far out weigh the monetary costs he is forced to do nothing.
3)
Governments need to listen to the will of the people. Both in the USA and Canada the people have overwhelmingly spoken. They want action on climate change. They want action on reducing all emissions. Yet Federal Governments on both sides of the border are slow to react. Or if they do react they do so with benefit to one industry over another. In order to resolve the issues governments need to set a staged approach to reduce GHG's and other emissions so that industry can react and find the best methodology to meet those guidelines.
4)
The people, they need to be democratic. They need to be balanced in their approach, we can not have extremism that will destroy one group for another group. Those issues have to be reviewed and exposed for what they are. The extremists are a voice sounding the alarm, there is something wrong. But the people need to enforce their democratic right to be heard and to encourage those they have elected to address this issue and ensure the playing field is level for all industries. Then if one company finds a better widget to solve the issues they then do better in the sales of their product and better on the stock exchange.
My final point is that without collaboration this issue will only be solved in part or not at all.
