Europe decides to push forward with carbon capture
Carbon capture is here and the EU is trying hard to push it forward. In an article published by economy newspaper Cinco Días, it's explained that the big problem is overcoming the high costs associated with the process. It's estimated that reducing 80 to 90 percent of the CO2 emissions from a power plant increases the price of energy 35 to 85 percent. Experts mentioned by the newspaper state that a reasonable target for 2020 is making carbon capture affordable at 20 to 30 EUR per ton.
According to this article, the message is clear. Without carbon capturing, the EU can't meet its ambitious emissions targets: cutting CO2 emissions in half by 2050. There are about a dozen of projects which might show positive progress using technologies such as precombustion, oxicombustion and postcombustion, but these results won't be ready at least until 2015.
Nevertheless the European Commission has decided to take a step forward in this direction and is planning legislation in early 2008 to back up these technologies legally, technically and financially. However, don't expect this to be mandatory legislation, which is something environmental groups would like it to be. The bill will ban these technologies from being used outside the boundaries of the EU and under 3,000 meters (9,000 ft) from the surface of the sea. Carbon capture won't be considered either for carbon trading schemes.
In a few words: expect CO2 capturing to arrive soon in Europe, but only at power plants and/or big industries. This CO2 will be somehow extracted from the combustion processes and will be transported like natural gas and stored in old gas or oil wells, salty aquifers or coal mines.
Related:
[Source: Cinco Días via Econoticias (link is in Spanish)]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tim 4:31PM (11/03/2007)
There was no mention of plugging the volcanoes and placing stoppers in the cows? I say we also ban soft drinks, beer and beans!
We all learned from Mr. Gore's charts that 200-300 years AFTER global temperatures increase, the oceans begin to release more Co2. So, if we want to stop Co2, we should place a giant umbrella in space to shield the earth from the sun which (of course) is the real culprit of "global warming."
Then again, people would never freely give their money, freedoms and national sovereignty to the UN Oligarchy without the “global warming” scare.
I wonder which 2008 Presidential Candidates are members of the Council on Foreign Relations and support the North American Union which will dissolve US Sovereignty? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM
Reply
GreyFlcn 7:22PM (11/03/2007)
Time, explain to me, where does this "tax free" energy you speak of come from?
http://greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes.png
And frankly, aren't "unpaid externalities" a form of generous subsidy? (i.e. a Major market efficiency distortion)
The cost of new coal plants has tripled. Even without carbon capture, it's already WAY too expensive.
http://greyfalcon.net/costlycoal
And since when did Republicans care about not distorting the market? In practice.
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
If you want to talk about sovereignty, why aren't you treating OPEC with the same distain? Shouldn't OPEC be restricted by US Anti-Monopoly laws? And why is it that US Republicans won't support that?
Reply
Tim 9:22AM (11/04/2007)
GreyFlcn- Good points all and the answer is that there is little difference between the socialist-democrats and the new "conservatives" also known as Neocons. The US has a one party system and the only difference between them is how much of our money the steal and who they give it to. Both wings of this bird absolutely hate and totally ignore the US Constitution because it limits their power. If we followed the constitution, 90% of the federal government would disappear (due to 10th amendment limitations) and be replaced with competition for taxpayers between the states. This would create innovation, improve services and lower costs. Unfortunately this is not currently the case due to the Supreme Court’s perversion of the commerce clause which allowed the federal to usurp the states power under FDR’s “new deal”. This exiled the US Constitution, flipped the chain of power and created a federal oligarchy “top down” government.
Reply