http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/02/carbon-sequestration-not-happening/
[If carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) - not to be confused with
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) where carbon dioxide is temporarily pumped
into old oil fields to increase pressure and oil production - was a real
and cost-effective solution, the private sector would be clamouring to
have carbon credits and be funding the development for profit, instead
of sticking taxpayers with the bill.
In reality, we are reaching the point that wind generation with
electricity storage is now more cost effective than burning coal or oil
for electricity generation, even before adding the cost of carbon
capture. Electric cars are less expensive to operate from sustainable
(non-carbon) electricity sources today than using petro-diesel or
gasoline. The purchase price of electric cars is dropping year over
year to be competitive with gas cars now (e.g., Chevrolet Spark EV at
US$15,000 including rebates in the three U.S. states where it is
available vs. US$14,405 MRSP for the base gasoline version).
CCS. Last gasp for coal-fired electricity generation. Still not
available in real form (the Saskatchewan Boundary Dam project is not
CCS, it is EOR). Still a bad idea.
links and image in on-line article]
Once Hailed As Solution to Climate Change, Carbon Capture and Storage
‘Is Not Happening’
Paul Brown, Climate News Network | July 2, 2015 12:03 pm
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is backed by governments and the
International Energy Agency (IEA) as one of the best methods of reducing
carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and saving the planet from
overheating.
The problem is that despite this enthusiasm and the fact that CCS (also
called carbon sequestration) is technically possible, it is not
happening. It is cheaper and easier to build wind and solar farms to
produce electricity than it is to collect and store the carbon from
coal-powered plants’ emissions.
For years CO2 has been used by injecting it into old oil wells to
extract more fuel, but the cost of building new plants just to store the
gas is proving prohibitive.
Hundreds of plants were expected to be up and running by 2030, but so
far none has been built. Despite this, the IEA and governments across
the world are relying on CCS to save the planet from climate change.
For example, official policy in the UK still envisages up to 50
industrial plants and power stations using CCS being linked to CO2
pipelines which would inject the gas into old oil and gas wells,
removing it from the atmosphere forever.
But research by Mads Dahl Gjefsen, a scientist at the TIK Centre of
Technology, Innovation and Culture at the University of Oslo, Norway,
says pessimism prevails within the industry about the future of carbon
capture and storage in both the U.S. and the European Union (EU).
Cost too high
Collecting liquid carbon dioxide by pipeline from large plants powered
by coal is designed to allow steel, cement and chemical industries to
continue to operate without making climate change worse.
But the cost is proving so high that plants are not being built. This is
partly because the penalties imposed by governments in the form of a
carbon tax or charges for pollution permits are so low that there is no
incentive for carbon capture.
Another problem is that the technology for removing carbon from fossil
fuels, either before or after combustion, uses 40 percent more fuel to
achieve the same amount of power.
In conferences designed to promote the technology enthusiasts wonder how
long they can continue, despite the “fine promises” that it was this
technology that would save the oil and gas industry, Gjefsen says.
He gives the example of Norway, which has invested billions of kroner in
the research and development of CCS. In 2007 the former prime minister,
Jens Stoltenberg, said that CCS would be “Norway’s moon landing.”
However, a full-scale treatment plant at the industrial site at Mongstad
never came to fruition. The technology proved too energy-intensive and
costly for large-scale use.
No takers
Four years of study and talking to industry insiders and environmental
organizations, some of which have backed CCS, show the arguments for
carbon capture differ from country to country, but in none of them is
the technology taking off, he reports.
Gjefsen says that in America the major political restrictions on
emissions never materialized. The only way that sufficient incentives
could be provided to hasten the development of CCS is if emission cuts
were imposed and the polluter made to pay.
In the EU, emission quotas were so generous that it was difficult to
finance CCS because the price of carbon was so low.
Despite the fact that the technology is not being developed, the
official position of governments remains that it is part of the solution
to climate change.
They all accept the IEA estimate that to achieve a 50 percent cut in
global CO2 emissions by 2050 (widely believed to be equivalent to
limiting the increase in global temperature to two degrees Celsius), CCS
will need to contribute nearly one-fifth of emissions reductions, across
both power and industrial sectors.
The IEA has also estimated that by 2050 the cost of tackling climate
change without CCS could be 70 percent higher than with it. The message
from EU estimates is similar: 40 percent higher without CCS by 2030.
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
