Sometime this summer, in Odessa, the Summit Power Group plans to break ground on a $2.5 billion coal gasification power plant. Summit has named this the Texas Clean Energy Project. Part of the promise of this power plant is its use of gasified coal; because the gasification process doesn't burn the coal, it makes for far cleaner energy than a traditional coal-fired plant.
But another reason this plant — and a handful of similar plants — has such enormous potential is that it will capture some 90 per cent of the facility's already reduced carbon emissions.
Some of those carbon emissions will be used to make fertilizer. The rest will be sold to the oil industry, which will push it into the ground, as part of a process called enhanced oil recovery.
Let us count the potential benefits if plants like this became commonplace. Currently, some 40 per cent of carbon emissions come from power plants.
The carbon-capture process Summit will employ "is the only technology that can reduce CO2 emissions from existing, stationary sources by up to 90 per cent," said Judi Greenwald of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. To put it another way, this technology could be a climate-saver.
Second: Environmentalists could call off their war against the coal industry, thus saving tens of thousands of jobs, as climate-destroying coal-fired plants were replaced by clean coal gasification plants. Third: Gas-fired power plants, which already emit 50 per cent less carbon than coal-fired plants, could become even cleaner if they included the carbon-capture technology.
Fourth: Using carbon emissions to recover previously ungettable oil has the potential to unlock vast untapped American reserves. Last year, ExxonMobil reported that enhanced oil recovery would allow it to extend the life of a single oil field in West Texas by 20 years.
Fifth: China. Too often, American environmentalists ignore the reality that the Chinese are far more concerned with economic growth than climate change. The Chinese are relentlessly building coal-fired power plants, which Western environmentalists couldn't stop even if they tried.
But if power plants like Summit's — which will turn CO2 into profitable products — were to gain momentum, that would likely catch China's attention. A reduction of carbon emissions from Chinese power plants would do far more to help reverse climate change than — dare I say it? — blocking the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
The Summit executive most closely associated with the Texas Clean Energy Project is Laura Miller. Her environmental credentials are unimpeachable. As the mayor of Dallas in 2006, Miller founded the Texas Clean Air Cities Coalition to fight a plan by TXU Energy, a big power company, to build 11 new coal-fired plants.
During a trip to Europe, she saw both coal gasification and carbon-capture technologies being used. When she left the mayor's office, she signed up with Summit and became a passionate advocate of the Odessa plant.
Eric Redman, the president and chief executive of Summit Power, describes her as "the public face of the project." (As a young man, by the way, Redman wrote one of the classic works about Congress, "The Dance of Legislation." It's still worth reading.)
So who could possibly be against coal gasification and carbon capture? Ratepayers, for one, mainly because carbon-capture technology is so expensive. In 2011, American Electric Power, or AEP, canceled a big carbon-capture project, in part because it was clear that state regulators were not going to allow the company to pass on the additional costs to its customers.
To help make the project economically viable, the Texas Clean Energy Project is getting a $450 million grant from the Department of Energy. (Absurdly, the Internal Revenue Service is requiring Summit to pay taxes on the federal grant, which means that a third of it will go right back to the government.)
But if the plant proves successful — as I believe it will — and others replicate it, the costs will inevitably come down, and federal help won't likely be needed.
And the other opponent? None other than Bill McKibben, "Stop Keystone" himself. When I e-mailed him to ask whether he supported carbon-capture for enhanced oil recovery, he replied that if carbon were sent back into the ground "the worst possible thing to do with it is to get more oil above ground." He continued, "It's time to keep oil in the earth, not to mention gas and coal."
To me, at least, his answer suggests that his crusade has blinded him to the real problem. The enemy is not fossil fuels; it is the damage that is done because of the way we use fossil fuels.
If we can find a way to create clean energy from fossil fuels, then they can become (as they used to say) part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
Thankfully, Laura Miller and Eric Redman understand that, even if Bill McKibben doesn't.