For a few months, I have been listening to The Energy Gang podcast. They cover a range of issues, but I think they are distinguished by being wonkier than usual, very U.S.-focused, and more focused on economics and business than most climate change commentators.
Their most recent episode discusses a recent New York Times article questioning the viability of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a way of making coal-fired facilities compatible with a stable climate. One of the panellists stressed the need for an “all of the above” clean energy strategy, in which CCS may help prevent some coal facilities from becoming stranded assets. Others argued that the economic evidence so far shows that CCS won’t save anything, and that the health impacts alone of coal are sufficient to justify its abandonment.
Ludicrously, the platform adopted at the Republican National Convention calls coal “clean” even without CCS being included.
Recent episodes have also discussed the climate impact of plans in the U.S. to retire 17 nuclear power plants; renewable energy; transport; climate denial; arctic drilling; and many other topics.
Related:
Carbon capture and storage (CCS), always around the corner
Gore on CCS
CCS plan subverted by local opposition
The geological plausibility of CCS
CCS skepticism
Taskforce calls for $2 billion for CCS
FutureGen and the cost of CCS
“Coal is the enemy of the human race”
Coal cancellations in the US
A responsible position on carbon capture
Carbon capture cannot redeem the oil sands
Pick your poison: nuclear or ‘clean coal’
The GAO on carbon capture and storage
Spremberg clean coal plant
Selling ‘clean coal’
Greenpeace on carbon capture and storage
Romm’s fourteen wedges
Some carbon capture similes
Carbon capture in Saskatchewan
Air travel and carbon capture
Monbiot on British carbon capture plans
Crystals for improved CO2 separation
Some carbon capture and storage numbers
Cleaner coal