But the problem wasn’t really coal, Luthi said. “We thought, ‘OK, that’s one way for a state to do it,’” said Randall Luthi, chief energy adviser to Gov. The nation’s coal production was continuing to slide, and states were passing bills aiming to speed their transitions off fossil fuel power. In October of 2019, PacifiCorp, which owns Rocky Mountain Power, accelerated the timeline for closing four units at two of its Wyoming coal plants. “We are not where we thought we’d be three years ago,” he said, “and I’m not sure where we’re going over the next year.” Wyoming’s Climate Plan And even Zwonitzer concedes that the 2020 bill he sponsored is far from achieving its goal.
#Rocky mountain power careers install#
Other supporters of the technology say the analysis is sound, but that the world will need carbon capture on coal plants to meet climate goals, and that the federal government should bear the costs.īut the Wyoming filings make clear that even with conditions primed in favor of the technology, the utilities would rather convert their coal plants to burn natural gas, or simply close them down, than install carbon capture equipment. Some carbon capture companies have disputed the negative conclusions of the two Wyoming utilities, Rocky Mountain Power and Black Hills Energy, that submitted the filings. “There are so many other cheaper and cleaner ways to decarbonize electricity that I don’t see carbon capture as likely to have a big role,” said Dan Cohan, an associate professor of environmental engineering at Rice University. And many economists and policy experts say it is unlikely to play a significant role in helping eliminate emissions from the power sector. Yet so far, the technology has failed to catch on commercially there or elsewhere. And I think CCUS is a way that we need to find,” he said, using an acronym for carbon capture, utilization and storage. And so if we’re going to do that, we’ve got to find ways to make sure it can carry us into the future. “We put all our eggs in one basket,” said Dan Zwonitzer, who sponsored the 2020 carbon capture bill. Perhaps most importantly, the technology has the unequivocal backing of political leaders, who have stated their intention to use carbon capture to protect their coal industry. The state has abundant coal reserves and the right geology to store captured carbon dioxide.
Nowhere is the support as strong as in Wyoming, which is an ideal testing ground. Some states have also joined in: California recently said it will rely partly on carbon capture to meet its climate targets, though primarily in the industrial sector rather than for electrical generation. Last year’s infrastructure bill included more than $12 billion to help pull carbon dioxide from smokestack emissions and straight from the atmosphere. The technology has played an important role in the Biden administration’s climate policy. Retrofitting their plants would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, at the least, they said, forcing them to raise customers’ electricity bills.īeyond that, the filings said operating carbon capture equipment could spike water use at the coal plants and increase emissions of some air pollutants, as well as solid and liquid waste.Įnergy companies, labor unions and each of the last four presidential administrations have held out carbon capture and storage as a technology that could help the nation reduce greenhouse gas emissions while continuing to burn fossil fuels. In March, the utilities covered by the law submitted filings to regulators saying that carbon capture was not economically feasible. But two years later, Wyoming may be no closer to willing this coal-friendly climate solution into being.
0 kommentar(er)
