Dave Montgomery at Star-Telegram.com wrote an
interesting article about the recent legislation tentatively passed by the House regarding Clean-Coal technology and a $300 million incentive. Rep. Phil King lead the effort for the bill and states that it would "make Texas a pioneer" in the race to develop clean coal technology.
Pause.
May I insert here that I agree with blogger
WCNews from Eye on Williamson when he or she states that there is no such thing as clean coal. The blogger suggests "not so dirty" coal and "cleaner" coal, but I personally am fond of "clean-ish" coal and "less yucky" coal. "Not so gross" also would suffice, in my opinion.
Play.
Now, while we are all severely concerned with the HOW's of "not-so-grimy" coal technology, let's first take a look at the $300 million and where it is going. The money is incentive: the first three corporations to develop and implement the technology are eligible for up to $100 million in tax breaks. King makes a point of saying that the tax break will not be given until certain benchmarks are reached, but between blogger WCNews and his sources, the point is also made that "it seems foolish to offer this kind of money" when the technology for it has not even been properly developed, utilized, and/or proven.
The type of "nearly immaculate" coal technology to be implemented is called Carbon and Capture Storage (CCS). The general idea is to capture carbon dioxide (the CC part) and store it (the S part) underground, therefore keeping it out of the atmosphere. Those in favor of the bill toss out an almost philanthropic point that the stored CO2 can then be used to push hard-to-reach oil into more reachable heights within depleted wells. According to the Bureau of Economic Geology at UT Austin, this would put between 4 and 5 billion barrells of oil back into the Texas economy. And, why, look at that. That 4 to 5 billion barrells of CO2-producing fossil fuel retrieved from the hard work of CCS technology designed to protect our environment will make up for that $300 million lost in general tax revenue from these big corporations.
Let's repeat that in case you didn't get it: Oil. Fossil fuel. The basis of the product you use in your car. It produces CO2 which from your tailpipe then pours into the atmosphere. This oil/fossil-fuel/product-used-in-your-car will be retrieved from CO2 deposited into the earth with the intent that it will then not be in the atmosphere. Therefore, we are using captured and stored CO2 to ultimately produce free and acquitted of all charges CO2.
Now that that's been said, allow me to state that I am entirely for the bill IF and only if the technology can be implemented in a timely and safe manner. I believe a lot of good can come from using CO2 as a resource to extract desperately needed fossil fuel instead of simply allowing that power to go unharnessed, and I believe that the $300 million is a fair incentive to these companies to do just that considering the large investment that I'm sure it will take and the possibility of failure resulting in no tax break.
But let's be honest with ourselves: this bill is about making money and leading the way into new technology
in order to make money and look good to the rest of the nation as a "pioneer." This bill is well designed because it satisfies the environmentalists (particularly those who are too excited about "shiny" coal technology to think the oil thing through), grimly satisfies those of us who support protecting the environment and treating it as a resource to be used respectfully although we recognize the paradox the bill presents, and satisfies the ones concerned about the costs of the bill and how it will help the state financially and economically.
I see the bill as very well-rounded. It has been praised for not adhering to one party or another (both sides of the ballot were bipartisan), and particularly for the way it has caused Republicans to agree that CO2 emissions
are a problem.
I'm rather excited to see what unfolds and who the 3 companies will be that will potentially receive the tax cut. However, I am interested to see some numbers regarding the difference between CO2 emissions from vehicles and the 4-5 billion barrels of fossil fuel that is to be obtained and the CO2 emissions from these companies.
