Category Archives: CCS

Greenies right that CCS is pointless and expensive

See why here.

New ‘dash for gas’ will cost consumers

A new “dash for gas” in the UK could raise consumer energy bills by increasing the cost of cutting the country’s carbon emissions, a think tank has warned.

Green Alliance said the UK’s first dash for gas in the 1990s was good for the country because it brought down carbon emissions and electricity prices as power generation switched from more-polluting coal to gas.

But the UK now has a slew of new gas plants, being built or planned, and a report from the think tank warns that they could lead to the UK missing its carbon targets for the 2020s.

Fitting gas-fired power stations with unproven technology to capture and “permanently” store emissions once they have been built, to cut carbon, could increase the cost of producing electricity for firms who will pass the extra cost onto customers. (TDT)

Safe? Who cares? It’s expensive and unnecessary, in fact, pointless.

Shell says must explain CO2 storage better

Oil giant Shell says that it is working to explain to Canadians that underground carbon storage is safe, following rejection in the Netherlands. (Reuters)

There is no value in this nonsense.

Enhanced oil recovery we can live with but CCS is a total nonsense

U.S. Can Curb Carbon Emissions While Boosting Domestic Oil Production, Report Says

AUSTIN, Texas — A report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and The University of Texas at Austin urges the U.S. to accelerate efforts to pursue carbon capture and storage (CCS) in combination with enhanced oil recovery (EOR), a practice that could increase domestic oil production while significantly curbing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).

For decades the oil industry has used CO2 to extract oil from mature fields, often relying on purchased CO2 from natural sources. The idea of seeking CO2 from industrial sources, such as coal- and natural gas-fired electricity plants, has gained currency because of public concerns about carbon dioxide emissions.

Widespread adoption of combining enhanced oil recovery with carbon capture and storage faces major hurdles, including development of infrastructure, regulation and economic incentives to manage supply and demand of CO2. (UT)

Hydrocarbons literally to burn – another potentially huge source

Note that this would be one of the few cases where we could support CCS (more correctly “CCE” for Carbon Capture and Exchange), if done profitably in terms of both energy and finance.

Next Energy Revolution? Sequestering CO2 To Extract Methane Hydrate
Thursday, 19 May 2011 13:48 Jeff McMahon, Forbes

They’ve done it in a laboratory: Scientists have injected carbon dioxide into the kind of methane ice that underlies vast tracts of permafrost in the Arctic and lurks beneath the deep seafloor throughout the world. In that experiment, the carbon dioxide exchanged with the methane molecules. While the CO2 was sequestered inside the ice, the scientists extracted an energy source that may exist in nature in greater volume than all other fossil fuels combined.

Now DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, in partnership with Conoco Phillips, will try to repeat that success on the North Slope of Alaska. (GWPF)

Not viable? Excellent! We’d hate to think some fool might actually do something so harmful.

REPORT: DIRECT REMOVAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE FROM AIR LIKELY NOT VIABLE

Technologies for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are unlikely to offer an economically feasible way to slow human-driven climate change for several decades, according to a report issued by the American Physical Society and led by Princeton engineer Robert Socolow. (Princeton)

APS Releases New Technical Assessment: Direct Air Capture of CO2 with Chemicals

Continue reading

Idiotic, pointless, resource-wasting  scams  schemes collapsing, good riddance

CCS Demos Grinding to a Halt

… However, globally there are now fewer than half a dozen full-scale CCS projects in operation around the world. There were as many as 235 proposed CCS projects globally, 45 of them full-scale. Now there is one in the US (Wyoming), two in Norway, one in the Netherlands, one in Canada, and one in Algeria. All but one of these capture carbon from natural gas, which has only about half the greenhouse gas emissions of coal – because that is easier and cheaper to do. Coal is where the greatest need is.

But with the collapse of climate legislation that would have put a compulsory cap on carbon, polluter-pays funding for potential projects is now non existent in the US. Most of the eight or nine projects under way in the United States are now in doubt, says Howard Herzog, who researches sequestration at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

“A lot of the momentum that has been built up is just going to grind to a halt,” he says. “My hope is that we will see a few projects go ahead and serve as an example of what can be done when the politics turn around.” (Clean Technica)

Spending vast sums to waste an invaluable resource is “excellent progress”? I think not

Actually I think it is possibly the world’s dumbest activity:

Germany Squanders Chance to Pioneer CO2 Capture Technology
By Alexander Jung

German scientists and industry had been hoping that carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology could help the transition to a low-carbon future. But a new bill drawn up by the German government has put the brakes on the technology before it was even properly tested.

It’s an unusual drilling facility that stands on the outskirts of Ketzin, a town in the eastern German state of Brandenburg. Instead of pumping something out of the ground, it is forcing something into the earth.

That something is carbon dioxide. The scientists with the Potsdam-based German Research Center for Geosciences are injecting the gas into porous sandstone 650 meters (2,100 feet) beneath the surface. “We are making excellent progress,” says project director Michael Kühn, adding that their efforts have been “very successful.” (Reuters)

Uh-oh! CCS may be carcinogemic

Health effects of amines and their derivatives
Published 29.03.2011 , updated: 01.04.2011, 11:15
Stikkord:Air pollution

Illustration photo: colourboxCO2 capture by means of amines is considered to be the most appropriate method to quickly begin with CO2 removal. During this capture process, some of the amines escaping the recycling process will be emitted into the air and will also form other compounds such as nitrosamines and nitramines. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH) was commissioned by the Climate and Pollution Agency (Klif) to assess whether these new emissions are harmful to health – particularly in terms of the cancer risk to the general population. The results of the risk assessments were submitted today.

These amines by themselves are not very harmful at typical concentrations that might occur, for example, near power plants. However, the amines could take part in complex chemical reactions and form new compounds such as nitrosamines and nitramines, which can affect health and the environment.There is relatively little knowledge about the various health effects for many of these compounds, but it is known that several of them can be highly carcinogenic. The cancer risk ultimately depends on how much is formed, how much is released, how much is decomposed in the atmosphere by light and how strong the cancer-causing substances are.

The NIPH has assessed the cancer-causing ability of compounds that can be formed in connection with CO2capture. Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) was found to be one of those that may be the most carcinogenic. Therefore, this compound is used to calculate the risk from the total amount of various nitrosamines in the air. (Norwegian Institute of Public Health)

In truth we are not particularly fussed over hypothetical carcinogens involved in carbon capture and storage – we just happen to know it’s about the worst idea in captivity!

More CCS wishful thinking

The Nuclear Effect on Carbon Capture Plans
Fukushima could speed up the quest to scrub CO2 from fossil fuel

By Alessandra Migliaccio and Jeremy van Loon

As the Fukushima crisis throws a question mark over nuclear energy use, many European countries are trying to accelerate the development of technology that cleans carbon dioxide emissions from conventional fuel plants. “The use of coal in some countries like China and India is actually growing,” European Union Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger said at the Mar. 1 inauguration of a carbon capture project in Italy. “If we can prove that this technology is safe and reliable, we will have a product that we can export in countries where coal production remains key.”

Nuclear energy, which offers homegrown low-carbon power to nations that use it, took a blow from Fukushima, especially in Europe. Germany halted 25 percent of its nuclear capacity and may close its oldest plants permanently after the Green party surged in Mar. 27 state elections. Switzerland shelved plans for new reactors, the U.K. said it may delay plans, and Italy is holding off on its newly launched nuclear program.

Any lost generation is likely to be made up with natural-gas-fired plants, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), but the trend also lends urgency to projects seeking to extract carbon emissions from fuel combustion and lock it deep underground. (Bloomberg)

More CCS nonsense – it doesn’t matter whether we can do it or not

Yes, yes, “tuck in” CO2 just like one of our children, snug as a bug in a rug… what lovely nonsense imagery.

Now for the bad news. Of course we can sequester CO2, with enough energy and effort we can do most anything but that matters not at all. What matters is whether we should do it and the answer is a resounding “No!”.

There is no value in so doing, so any cost is pure waste. Forget about CCS – what’s so hard to understand?

Tucking Carbon Into the Ground
By MATTHEW L. WALD

IF carbon is going to be kept out of the atmosphere, a lot of it is probably going to have to be injected back into the ground from which it was mined as coal or extracted as oil or gas.

Not even the most ardent optimist about alternative energy would suggest that fossil fuels are going away soon. So carbon capture and sequestration — C.C.S. in environmental shorthand — is essential to a national energy policy. But almost all the discussion has been on the C.C. and not much on the S.

Yet there are signs of progress. The first large-scale sequestration project in North America, on the banks of the Ohio River in New Haven, W.Va., is going to complete its mission soon, with an unexpected bit of good news.

In one kind of rock, at least, carbon dioxide seems to slip into the small open spaces more easily than projected, meaning the job may be easier than thought. And more than 500 miles to the west, near Meredosia, Ill., a bigger project to try injecting carbon into a more common kind of rock is making progress toward start-up. (NYT)

Still squabbling over whether CCS is merely foolish or extremely stupid

Energy at 2050

The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently produced a new edition of its ‘Energy Technology Perspectives- Scenarios and Strategies to 2050’. It evaluates possible ways of reducing global carbon emissions while not curbing rapid economic growth in developing countries. It’s main BLUE Map Scenario has carbon emissions levelling off by 2020 and then declining by 50% from today’s level by 2050, to about 14 Gt of CO2 per year, with fuel saving/efficiency contributing 58% of this reduction. That is made up from increased efficiency in fuel and electricity end use, which saves 38%, end use fuel switching, which saves 15% and power generation improvement and fuel switching, which saves 5%. That leaves 42% of the overall reduction to come from more renewables, more nuclear, and by the wide-scale introduction of carbon capture and storage (CCS). Within that, nuclear accounts for only 6% of the CO2 saving, renewables for 17% and CCS 19%, by 2050. (ESR)

CO2 Pressure Dissipates In Underground Reservoirs

The debate surrounding carbon capture and storage intensifies as scientists from the Earth Sciences Division at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) examine the capacity for storing carbon dioxide underground, in a study published in the new journal Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology.

The study debates some of the conclusions drawn in an earlier study by Ehlig-Economides and Economides1, countering their claims that carbon dioxide cannot feasibly be stored underground. These earlier findings, according to the Berkeley Lab researchers, only considered closed-system subsurface formations, with limited mechanisms for relieving the pressure.

Continue reading

UK finds green nonsense simply unaffordable

Budget constraints knock UK green policies off track

David Cameron may regret saying he wanted the coalition to be the “greenest government ever”. Not because he didn’t mean it, but because as ministers strive to keep to the tough spending allowances granted by the Treasury, it is an aim that seems to be slipping further and further away.

The last week has seen a slew of announcements that appear to signal a retreat by the government from its green ideals. Firstly, we had the cut to solar subsidies in the form of the feed-in tariff.

Officials at the energy department claim the changes to the feed-in tariff are primarily aimed at redistributing the money away from large-scale solar farms and towards households and small businesses, rather than cutting it. But if this was the case, the amount of money that had been cut from large producers would surely have been recycled in the form of higher subsidies for smaller ones.

Instead, what happened is that an overall £30m was cut from the solar subsidy budget. And it is no coincidence that the Treasury has asked for savings of £40m from this budget by 2014-15.

Then on Tuesday, we had advance warning of two other moves in Wednesday’s Budget which will be viewed by environmentalists as regressive steps. (Financial Times)

UK spared levy for idiotic scheme

Levy for carbon capture projects dropped

Consumers will no longer face the prospect of a new levy on their bills to raise billions of pounds for “carbon capture and storage” projects under a decision set to be announced on Budget day.

Ministers are keen for Britain to become a world leader in the fledgling technology, which involves capturing carbon dioxide from fossil fuel power plants and burying it in caverns deep underground.

In last autumn’s spending review the government announced it had set aside £1bn for at least one CCS pilot scheme, saying it would use either a levy on bills or public money to fund at least three further projects in the future – at the cost of another £3bn. The decision would be made by the spring, it said.

A levy has now been ruled out, according to several sources, as the coalition shies away from imposing fresh costs on the British public at a time of severe austerity. (Financial Times)

See our climate features page for items on why CCS is a horrendously expensive waste of effort and energy.

Prestige? Commercial opportunities? Not from CCS

Slow progress for Scottish carbon capture

Scottish Power risks being overtaken by US companies in the race to build the first full-scale demonstration of carbon-capture and storage (CCS) at Longannet in Fife, experts have warned.

They blame Government delays for the threatened loss of prestige and commercial opportunities that would accompany a global first in this technology. (Herald)

Sorry fellas but undertaking CCS is the dumbest, costliest activity in Christendom, save actually attempting carbon constraint in the first place.

Fantasy coal plays or “How not to invest”

These guys think wasting 30-50% of your resource is a profit-maker: When Clean Coal is King

By Damon van der Linde – Exclusive to Coal Investing News

Although there have been calls to ban coal as a source of energy because of the amount of pollutants released by power plants that are harmful to people living nearby—as well as being a major source of anthropogenic climate change—the world’s largest emerging economies have no plans to phase out this fuel as energy needs continue to grow. Instead of phasing out the use of coal, analysts see the trend leaning more towards the development of “clean” coal technologies.

“With all the concerns about climate change, pollution, etc., the logical conclusion is that “clean” coal carbon capture and storage technologies will be the technologies of the future because they allow coal to be reconciled with the environment,” said Emmanuel Fages, Head of CO2, Gas, Coal and Power Research for Orbeo, an international emission trading company.

Continue reading