Here’s something interesting that’s flown under the China-Clinton radar in Copenhagen: Clean coal seems to be getting the cold shoulder at the climate summit.

The U.N. negotiators drawing up the list of clean-energy projects eligible for the Clean Development Mechanism have apparently decided to leave carbon capture and storage off the list, at least for another year. Observers chalk that up to Brazilian opposition (Brazil is afraid any support for carbon capture could undermine funds for forest protection and the like.)

That’s got folks in coal country—especially in the U.K. and Australia—a bit nervous. Making carbon capture and storage viable is the key to keeping coal in the energy mix—a priority for both countries, as it is for the U.S. And clean coal is anything but viable right now.

Does the Copenhagen snub matter? On one hand, given the nascent state of carbon capture and storage around the world, any extra financing could probably help build more demonstration plants—especially in developing countries that use a lot of coal, such as China and India. And more pilot plants are needed precisely to figure out the best way to capture and store carbon emissions from coal plants and big factories.

On the other hand, the biggest hurdle (and there’s more than one) facing large-scale carbon capture and storage is simply the economics: Coal plants fitted with CCS technology will be a good bit more expensive than those without. Most studies suggest CCS makes economic sense with carbon emissions priced at around a ton. Building more demonstration plants will help flatten that cost curve, but won’t eliminate it.

The biggest boost for carbon capture around the world would be a full agreement at Copenhagen that included domestic carbon-price plans in the U.S., China, and Australia. So the brush-off at Copenhagen may be unwelcome news for clean-coal boosters, but it’s hard to say it’s a death blow.

By Keith Johnson
Wall Street Journal