The emerging skepticism about carbon capture
Despite the drubbing some of us are taking this winter there are still the same CO2-induced global warming predictions being made and so reducing the amount of carbon that's emitted to our skies appears to remain necessary. One of the ways that has been touted as the most promising has been carbon capture and sequestration. While there have been many papers written and plans made for this technology, not a lot has actually been accomplished and so, as with every scheme that takes a substantial period of time between ideation to implementation, skepticism is bound to arise.
And risen it has. The Energy Tribune, a publication that bills itself as, "Leading the debate. Beating the streets," has a particular abundance of articles on the subject including one entitled, "Carbon Capture in the U.S. Faces Hard Realities" that focuses on the American experience with particular attention paid to the de-funding of the FutureGen project which was to be, through carbon capture and sequestration, the world's first zero-CO2 emissions coal-fired power plant.
And it's not just The Energy Tribune that is cooling to the future prospects of this tech. Germany's Spiegel Online has just published an article that asks, "Is Carbon Capture a False Hope for Coal Power?" It seems people are coming to the realization that making sequestration work is going to be very expensive.
As I read these articles I can't help but ponder the question, why do we have to spend billions and billions of dollars chasing technology that, even when perfected, is not nearly as perfect as the renewable trifecta (wind, solar, geothermal) in creating energy that gives us the added benefit of saving our environment and, indeed, our lives.
[Source: The Energy Tribune]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Blaine Decker 9:52AM (3/24/2008)
THANK YOU! but I will add one more to the easy solution list. Plant some tree's. How dumb can those researchers be?
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 11:28AM (3/24/2008)
I'm sorry, I can't read the article, because I made the mistake at the start of the article of clicking on Spigel's link to their coverage of problems with nuclear energy.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,494707,00.html
It's an article which says that a transformer fire is a condemnation of nuclear energy. Like a wind farm can't have a transformer fire. When I was young, there was a transformer fire at the local mall. Clearly malls are too dangerous to allow them to exist.
After reading this hit piece, I can't take the other article seriously.
I'll just say this, given the current cost of making a petroleum plant, I can't see how carbon capture and storage (CCS) can do more than double the cost. And if CO2 is really a problem, that's a bargain.
Reply
KarenRei 12:29PM (3/24/2008)
Wow. Starting out with pure idiocy (asserting that a single *Above Average Temperature* winter that's simply not as hot as the *other* above-average winters we've had recently (thanks to the strongest La Nina since '88/'89) is any kind of "drubbing" to anything), and continuing from there. Apparently the author is blisfully unaware of the fact that El Nino/La Nina exist:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24901050%40N00/2346352032/
Yes, this winter is *above average* in terms of temperature on a global scale. It's just not as *above average* as usual. It's merely the coolest since 2001:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html
Want to see what years are the hottest on record?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/myth6_2.gif
Anyone still not getting the picture? Okay, good.
"While there have been many papers written and plans made for this technology, not a lot has actually been accomplished"
There are multiple operating CO2 injection programs for enhanced oil recovery, and they're performing wonderfully.
"Carbon Capture in the U.S. Faces Hard Realities" that focuses on the American experience with particular attention paid to the de-funding of the FutureGen project"
FutureGen was only partially de-funded. They still expressed support for continuing the capture aspect, but not the hydrogen co-gen -- and good riddance for that.
"It seems people are coming to the realization that making sequestration work is going to be very expensive."
Enhanced oil recovery is a *profitable* way of sequestration; it could give Texas back much of its original oil productivity. The various coalbed approaches may be quite profitable as well, although they're less mature.
Reply
rgseidl 2:29PM (3/24/2008)
Carbon capture is indeed prohibitively expensive, unless by sequestration you mean leaving fossil fuels in the ground. That's something King Coal and Big Oil do NOT want to do, of course. However, utilities may have to start thinking about virtual power plants that combine renewables such as solar, wind, biogas and hydro into a single reliable delivery system. Note that power from variable sources, e.g. wind, can be stored in hydro dams or as pre-pressurized feed air for biogas turbines.
Switching to purely renewable electricity is not going to cheap, easy or quick. Conservation in response to high prices will be key to getting supply to meet demand without breaking the bank.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5395558572078423346&q=renewable+wind+solar&total=284&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
Note: geothermal makes sense in some volcanic locations (in the US, e.g. Yellowstone) but most everywhere else, you need to either employ heat pumps to raise the temperature of the working medium or resort to e.g. a Kalina cycle (ammonia+water, closed loop). Also note that geothermal sources do decline over several decades as commercial systems need to withdraw heat faster than it can be replenished. It then takes several centuries for that site to recuperate. If you want to nitpick, that means it is renewable, but then again so is oil - if you wait long enough.
Reply
TvLover 2:33PM (3/24/2008)
So...I liked Blaine's comment...trees indeed...
The thing I have been wondering is whether or not the increase of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is the reason behind the stranger and more violent weather patterns we have been experiencing...
Screw global warming...maybe the air is getting too thick and causing nasty storms because of it???...
Reply
Tim 3:00PM (3/24/2008)
It's just wealth transfer and liberals LOVE it! Too bad the money is going from the working poor's taxes to the giant oil companies. Oh well, so much for common sense.
Reply
Domenick Yoney 3:24PM (3/24/2008)
#3KarenRei: Thank you for your comment and the charts and graphs. I am familiar with el nino and el nina.
The only point I making with the "drubbing" was that despite the fact that some parts of the country are getting lots of snow and despite the fact that this winter has been a little cooler for some of us doesn't mean anything has changed as far as the warming prognostication goes, as my link to the story, "What snow? This Year Could Be The Warmest On Record" in the National Post alludes.
Essentially we're in agreement on warming.
As for sequestration, I realize it has been successfully done. It's just been found by some studies to be expensive. If you think it's a good idea to strip CO2 from burning coal to help pump more oil out of the ground to be burned to produce more CO2, that's your prerogative.
Reply
KarenRei 5:25PM (3/24/2008)
Oh, I certainly don't think it's the best of ideas when all possibilities are considered (I'd much prefer an EV economy). But as long as we need hydrocarbons fuel, yeah, I'd prefer it to a lot of the other options. Might as well sequester a little CO2 in the process.
Sorry for misreading you about the "drubbing" statement. :)
Reply
Kevin 8:05PM (3/24/2008)
OR HOW ABOUT WE not waste millions of dollars on ineffective methods such as these and just clean up our act. Instead of shitting on our selves and then try to wipe it faster why don't we just sop shitting on the worlds so much . Essentially what i am saying is instead of trying to cover your dirty prints how about you not create them in the first place. How about those researchers go fly a kite first off and instead of wasting millions of dollars on such a bull shit method how about they invest in persevering the rain forest and plant millions of trees. After all don't trees suck in co2 . Or did somebody forget about that !
Reply
Mik_Cal 12:57AM (3/25/2008)
The difficulties with carbon sequestration, whether you are optimistic about its technical feasibility or not, make renewables look a lot better in terms of their financial viability. In additional, the notion of building a sustainable energy system is an added value of renewables.
Rafael,
It's true geothermal wells can cool down over time. That means they need to move the plant every few decades depending on the resource. When deep geothermal (EGS) is better developed, there will be the opportunity to move the wells more easily.
Reply
Rick 7:05PM (3/25/2008)
I'm not very educated on the subject but I still don't understand why the deserts in Nevada aren't giant soal panel farms yet? We have something that can produce limited effecient energy that is free and clean. Why isn't that being persued?
Reply
Steve Z 7:14AM (5/03/2008)
Trees yes...
Algae better... greater density and growth rate.
Anyhow I do not see why a large greenhouse can not be build with the quickest growing vegetation it in and have the CO2 to be pumped through it...
I imagine that 200K sq ft of vegetation would do the trick for just about any size power-stations
Now what do to for the nights and the cloudy days....
Reply