Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Making the Case for Carbon Capture and Storage

By Stephen Lacey, Staff Writer
February 27, 2009   |   60 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"There are many ways to make this work, to make it a reality. We need to store it underground and we also need to use it like a commodity, to find ways to sell it and spread the cost around."

-- Ruud Lubbers, former Dutch Prime Minister
60 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 60
February 27, 2009
CCS is not the answer. It doesn't solve the problem, it just LITERALLY sweeps it under the rug. It is useful as a patch while the world alters it's power generation to renewables and nuclear plants, but CCS will never be a long term solution.
Grid decentralization with green energy sources is the best way to defeat the build up of CO2, but it will take some time to fully implement a Green and Efficient Grid. During this transition CCS is viable, but there are not enough uses or places to put captured CO2 for this technology to stay economically reasonable for long. Wind, Solar(PV, CPV, Convection Towers), Hydro(dams + passive), Oceanic(wave, tidal/current, offshore wind), AND Nuclear, it's a heck of a balancing act. But we do NEED to pull it off. Fossil fuels ought to be phased out in the US in 25 years: faster is better, but impossible too.
Comment
2 of 60
February 27, 2009
I would only consider it for old plants whose capacity couldn't be replaced fast enough by renewables. It makes no sens for new plants; renewables are cheaper.

StephenB
Comment
3 of 60
February 27, 2009
Joe, you say clean coal is literally "sweeping it under the rug" but then advocate switching to green energy and NUCLEAR?? Talk about sweeping something under the rug. What do you plan on doing with all the spent fuel rods? Although nuclear may not be as dangerous as many of us were lead to believe in the late 70s, it still produces some nasty toxic stuff that requires a lot of supervision and cost years after the old nuke plant has been decommissioned. From what I've read nuclear is not a cost effective remedy anymore. Once you factor in all the subsidies and external costs it becomes too expensive to build, maintain and dispose of when compared to even present day unsubsidized alternatives energies. I agree we may have to pursue clean coal for awhile since 50% of our electricity is dependent upon it, but I wouldn't advocate nuclear as an alternative anymore. And I don't think I am alone on this. Did you notice in the presidents speech on Tuesday night that he mentioned renewables, and clean coal, but did not speak a lick about nuclear, which he had done before on the campaign trail? I see that as a significant omission and one that didn't occur by happenstance.
Comment
4 of 60
February 27, 2009
coal will never be clean, sustainable nor human friendly. mining alone causes enough problems.
Comment
5 of 60
February 28, 2009
Every time I see these < 2GW power plant ideas makes me wonder if anyone else knows what the economic power of producing solar panels at high mass production rates. No where in the article does it say the cost of the system to do the whole 1.1 GW plant's output of CO2 to zero. When the total cost is taken into account the cost of "clean coal" is more than the total "sand to shine" cost of solar for the same 1.1 GW of power. And the panels can continue to be made after the 1.1 GW of solar panels are made.

Realize that "clean coal" is cheaper than nuclear, so the same statement above can be made towards nuclear.

The talk of clean coal and nuclear is just letting time tick away.
Comment
6 of 60
March 2, 2009
fireofenergy says: "Isn't there a way to convert CO2 into just plain carbon and oxygen? Suppose that would take more energy than it's worth."

Correct, of course. There is a company called Doty Energy (windfuels.com) that proposes to capture CO2 and convert it back to hydrocarbons and alcohols, via reduction with hydrogen. The carbon-neutral process depends on having large amounts of hydrogen available, obtained by electrolysis of water. They propose using electricity generated from wind power. They make it sound feasible, but it is very energy intensive and it strikes me that we will need that electricity elsewhere. If we had that much spare electricity available we could shut down the CO2 producing power stations.
Comment
7 of 60
March 3, 2009
It is worth noting that the goal of Doty energy is to produce liquid fuels for transportation from wind energy and waste CO2. The scheme only makes sense because transportation fuels have a huge price premium compared to intermittently generated electricity. If the goal was to minimize production of CO2 the optimal strategy would simply be to displace coal fired electricity generation directly by wind generation, which would decrease CO2 production by at least a factor of 3 times (coal power plants are only about 35% efficient) as much as the planned conversion scheme (which has the virtue that it might be more profitable).
Comment
8 of 60
March 3, 2009
Continuing burning fossils is costly on many vectors:
1. 25% of the original energy content is lost in the process of cleaning up
2. cleaning up adds 40 to 65% to the cost to consumers
3. taking all costs into account (mining, transport, emissions, residues) makes it even more expensive
4. $$ invested in this technology are not spend in true clean solutions (solar, wind, geo thermal, wave, etc)
5. any $ invested has a good chance to never deliver climate relief at all, since it is not proven it will work at large scale
6. if it works, it will start making a difference in 15 years (source: Shell's US CEO)
7. the cost in $$ and materials for the pipeline-network between coal power plants and sites where CO2 can be injected are very high, due to large distances involved

And it's unneccesary, since alternatives are already there and only need scaling up.

When solar thermal power plants (which have a spotless track record for reliably delevering energy for decades) would be coupled with wind farms, geo thermal and other -local- sources through a super grid & smart grids (including plug in cars) we would be having the basis for a solar powered circular economy.

Nations, enterprises, academia, media, communities should stop squibbling.

Start realizing WE are the terrorists of our children, standing between them and solutions gathering dust on the shelves enabling a good life for them.

Start acting as if the future of all children, of all species of all times would interest us. Raise our voice, so our leaders know what we want / what will keep them in office & business.

Next stop: http://en.cop15.dk/
Comment
9 of 60
March 3, 2009
Coal has served us well in the past, but considering its side effects, has run its course.

If cleaning it up were realistically possible, deliver relief sufficiently quick and not drain $$ at the detriment of real / final clean power generating options, we should put our cards on that option.

But that simply is not the case. It is not possible on any significant scale / it will take at least 15 years to deliver a significant relief. And in the mean time facilitate a fossil / defensive / substandards-excusing state of mind, which we enact to our own detriment.

It will press heavy on our $$ and material budgets. After which we've not addressed the underlying issues: our unsustainable use of resources, be they coal, oil, natural gas, rare materials. Whatever people kill one another for. See www.oilcrashmovie.com on this.

Think of what a war-like economic effort, of all industrialzed nations could do. An effort to address the consequences of our fossil-party driven high standard of living. This would evoke the best in other nations and will multiply our effort, thus making it effective.

This would be an honorable and intelligent pathway towards a better place for all children, of all species of all times.
Comment
10 of 60
March 3, 2009
and by the way: CCS in the Netherlands is used for enhanced oil recovery. A process that allows Shell to enhance its oil reserves. Dutch taxpayers assist Shell with this endeavor, albeit unknowingly.

the use of coal is further a source of income for the city of Rotterdam, with all these ships unloading coal for the new to be build coal fired power plants

CO2 trade is another spearhead of Dutch policy, being a driver behind the preference of investing in coal

Dutch parlaiment has twice voted with 90% support for solar thermal power imported from the N-Sahara (http://www.desertec.org/) and once for a substantial facilitating gov't policy for the large scale introduction of electric cars, using this electricity (combined with wind parks at sea, connected through a super grid + smart grids (including these cars))

after the usual formal phrases of compliance.. nothing

Ponzi anyone?
Comment
11 of 60
March 3, 2009
In comment #9 Emil writes referring to coal power generation: "And it's unneccesary, since alternatives are already there and only need scaling up."

Scaling up is harder than one might think and far more costly. Almost none of the alternative energies are currently even remotely economical and large production from many (solar, wave, etc.) could not be had at any price for many years. In the mean time, burning coal or natural gas is how most of the world's electricity is generated and this isn't going to change. Thus, research into mitigating potential environmental damage from this usage is very worthwhile.
Comment
12 of 60
March 3, 2009
In comment #13, John writes:" 'Store' the CO2 in the form of algae. Make biofuel from the algae"

If you then burn the biofuel the CO2 is no longer stored so this does not solve the atmospheric CO2 concentration problem....
Comment
13 of 60
March 4, 2009
Personally, I would rather store nuclear waste than carbon dioxide, because I always doubt that human can find so large underground room to store so many carbon dioxide, compared to relatively small amount of nulcear waste, which is considerably more easy to handle, so I abolutely prefer nuclear energy in terms of low carbon energy resources.

Forget about CCS.
Comment
14 of 60
March 4, 2009
60-70% of the energy is wasted in traditional coal-fired power plants! With carbon capture and storage, this figure would probably come closer to 75-85%. What a waste!!!!

This is stone-age technology that is, however, still being built in huge numbers in China and other developing countries.

There are so many better ways to use this energy, e.g. in decentralised combined heat and power plants. These achieve an efficiency of 80-90%, i.e. only 10-20% of the energy is wasted!

WHAT A WASTE! TURN OF THESE DINOSAURS!
Comment
15 of 60
March 4, 2009
Everyone talks about storing tons of CO2 and seems to forget to consider the space (volume) required to store it, so here are a couple of points:

a) 1 cubic metre of oil produces about 3 cubic metres of LIQUID CO2
b) 1 cubic metre of carbon (pure coal) produces about 12.5 cubic metres of LIQUID CO2.

The real answer to CO2 emissions reductions is not CCS but CCC the 'Closed Carbon Cycle', i.e. convert captured CO2 back to carbonaceous fuels, either synthetically or biologically (biomass crops), using solar energy.

If we are to store/sequester carbon, which we may need to do in order to positively reduce anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 levels, then the most effective storage method is as carbon (e.g. charcoal), possibly by using it as soil conditioner as the ancient Aztecs did.

The above approaches also have the advantage of giving the CO2 a market value.
Comment
16 of 60
March 4, 2009
CO2 is deliberatly generated for Greenhouse operations and massive greenhouses in and near Holland could benifit from timely (sunshine hours)release of CO2 in these facilities. Albeit this would probably be a drop in the bucket as far as use v. sequestration capacity. I agree w/ John(comment 13) Since proposed and pilot "floating greenhouse farms" are becoming a reality these could also be algae biofuel production bases in addition to condensation - Desalinization - water production sites.
Comment
17 of 60
March 4, 2009
Re my previous comment (17) the ideal electricity generation element of a CCC system would most likely use DCFC technology.

The DCFC (Direct Carbon Fuel Cell) is similar in principle to the HFC (hydrogen fuel cell), but instead hydrogen they convert carbon directly into electricity with a demonstrated efficiency of 80% and a theoretical efficiency of a gnat's whisker over 100%! This is considerably better than HFCs, which have a maximum theoretical conversion efficiency of 83 percent, and DCFCs are also 2 to 3 times more efficient than a coal fired power station.
Another great bonus of this way of producing electricity is not only that it is more than double the efficiency of coal fire power stations but also the waste product is virtually pure carbon dioxide ready for bottling, storing etc. with no further processing, so CO2 capture is straightforward and cheap.
It is also possible that because DCFCs run at quite high temperatures, in the region of 700-800 degrees, so they could be run in a combined cycle system with a steam turbine which may push the overall efficiency up to about 90%!
There is also no reason why the carbon could not be sourced from Biomass (e.g. Biochar) or synthetic carbonaceous fuels. If Biochar is used it may in turn be a by-product of biomass gasification to produce biogas to feed into the gas main.

Other potential advantages of DCFCs are
> Carbon as a fuel provides easy long term storage of large amounts of energy, e.g. to cater for seasonal variations.
> Potentially fast response to demand variations
> Indications from researchers are that plant build costs could be significantly lower than coal fired power stations.

Timescales? From speaking to researchers possibly 5 to 10years for commercial sized demonstration plants.
Comment
18 of 60
March 4, 2009
this is clearly another fine example of PUTTING LIPSTICK ON A PIG!!!
and wasting millions to do it.
Comment
19 of 60
March 4, 2009
I have to laugh - people want Carbon capture, then cry about potential problems with sequestration! There are plenty of depleted gas and virgin porous rock formations miles underground to store CO2 safely. Also maybe some day in the future the stored carbon could be tapped and used.

If the USA wasn't so doggedly stuck on it's near sighted "non-proliferation" mantra, nuclear would be a viable solution, say like in France. Without recycling of spent fuel, it's a problem. Currently the used fuel rods are just piling up and piling up....
Comment
20 of 60
March 4, 2009
What if I told you that we have developed a process (patent filed) where we convert not ONLY CO2 but also the 'other' greenhouse gas, viz., water into CO and H2 - both of which are perfect fuel for fuel cells?

see here:

http://ceramictechweekly.org/?p=1810
Comment
21 of 60
March 4, 2009
I'd like to see a detailed, honest accounting of how much energy is embodied in the entire exploration-mining-refining-enrichment-storage-delivery cycle of uranium fuel rods, as well as the amount of energy embodied in the whole reprocessing cycle. I'd also like to see an honest accounting of the various costs and hazards associated with decommissioning, demolishing and disposing of radioactive waste of worn-out nuclear power plants. Does anybody out there have any info or links?

I'd also like to see the politicians and coal company executives who are responsible for mountaintop removal mining of coal to be hauled away in handcuffs and forced to work in remediation crews for the rest of their lives.
Comment
22 of 60
March 4, 2009
The injection of CO2 into the ground for "sequestration" is much like accumulating soiled underpants in a special drawer for your mom to discover when you go off to college. It's a childish concept.

Sending power-plant CO2 off to other users (greenhouses, algae production) provides only a momentary delay in its release. Agriculture should not be dragged down by further collusion with these polluters. If growers want to help with the current atmospheric CO2 problem, there is more than enough available to concentrate and use to enhance crop production.

The vast number of government-supported CCS projects stands as a testimony to either the gullibility of decision-makers or worse, their price tag.

Möller you are correct, this smells like a Ponzi.
Comment
23 of 60
March 4, 2009
I would like to know what efficiency Abdul-Majeed can get for capturing thermal solar energy with his process.

Without coal and nuclear power plants, natural gas turbine peaking generators will have to take more of the base load. This will make wind turbines more competitive in certain areas of the country, but there will still be energy transportation problems with gas pipelines the most economical way of transporting energy. So, something needs to be done to convert wind and solar energy to methane.
Comment
24 of 60
March 4, 2009
As some of the commentators have complained, the article is irritating because it doesn't translate either the €20 or 40 per ton cost into cents per kilowatt. Since I am not concerned about carbon capture with our technology, I don't have this conversion on my fingertips nor do I have the time or inclination to do the calculations.
Comment
25 of 60
March 4, 2009
@Steven comment #12 comment 1of2

'scaling up is difficult' :

yes, when one stays within current paradigms of how we deal with problems
no, when what you love is involved. As in when your loved one being abducted. You will move mountains, you will not stop at anyting.

look at our current global predicament and tell me about the role of paradigms. The old one got us here and is unable to address the monster it has created

'far more costly':

- more costly as what? As CCS; being a possible, partial, temporary, ever more costly, still dirty, special interest only serving and thus uninspiring option?
- what costs do you internalize? Increasingly, formerly externalized costs will have to be internalized, due to public pressure
Comment
26 of 60
March 4, 2009
@Steven comment #12 comment 2of2

'almost none of the alternative energies etc':

sure, but with the ones where the learning curve is overseeable (like with solar thermal), they can become economically viable soon. Looking beyond quarterly revenues is becoming the norm, now the model/paradigm based on these quick returns got us all in the current mess.

moreover: all new technologies go through learning curves. Bringing it up addresses a generic formal dimension, with no added value to the subject matter

as stated before: even if burning fossils could be cleaned up, it will take 15 years. 15 years of investing in a technology that has no future, while we add more CO2 and all the rest

'research into mitigating potential':

why? whatever one comes up with, it's too little too late. Researchers will ofcourse endorse your take. But we can go on researching until the cows come home. And what will we have done for our planet in the end of the day?

what prevents us to use all these fossil burning mitigating resources for renewables with known and attractive/feasable learning curves? Merely stating these renawables don't exist would negate 4 year of PhD research

it's a matter of being in love with this planet my friend. Like itsgettinghotinhere.org/2009/03/02/sights-and-sounds-of-power-shift-2009/
Comment
27 of 60
March 4, 2009
We need to use a plan that allows consumers to fund 100% of ALL energy projects and to directly benefit from their investment without any government subsidies, none, zero, not a dime. With such a plan individuals can decide where to spend their money and will receive electricity as their ROI. This would require that there be a carbon tax or cap and trade in effect as well to ensure that all the costs are included, not just construction and fuel, but externalized costs such as pollution and CO2. With such a plan in place,if CCS makes sense, that's where people will put their money. If nuclear with complete accounting for reprocessing and storage for 100,000 years makes sense, so be it. Such a plan exists but few know about it and it likely stands a snowballs chance in hell of going anywhere because it allows renewable energy to come out on top and as we all know, the renewable industry is WAY outgunned.
Comment
28 of 60
March 4, 2009
Conoco-Phillips, Peabody Energy (Coal), and E.On are in the process of testing the feasibility of carbon dioxide storage in Kentucky now. Oddly, the area that they are doing the test has no oil or gas production and is very near the Ohio River. The area does likely have deep cave formations though. The carbon dioxide is being delivered in tankers, not sequestered from a coal fired power plant. Yes, they do have grant funding for the project from the state and from the US DOE. Is it just me or does this whole exercise seem a bit insane?

Peabody Energy and Conoco-Phillips have been working together for at least a couple of years now on somewhat similar projects in Illinois and Kentucky. Now they have announced a project to convert coal to diesel fuel. They say that it is something new. I'm 55 years old, and I grew up in a small community in the middle of the Kentucky coal fields. Back when I was a kid, nobody heated their homes with natural gas out in smaller towns. Everybody used coal or this other stuff called "coal oil". Yep, they were making oil from coal fifty years ago, but somehow now it is a new technology.

It's not that I'm against coal. I was raised on the money may dad was paid for operating the largest coal shovel in the world. There is no such thing as clean coal,.but you can have "cleaner" coal. Even cleaner coal power plants should be considered as temporary, even though they may operate for 25-30 years. The older coal fired plants that are too expensive to convert and the oil fired plants can be phased out while the newer cleaner coal plants provide the needed power. This will buy time for us to develop true renewable energy sources. From experience I can say that you can build a coal fired power plant in 1/4th the time as a nuke. You can also build four coal fired plants for the coat of a single MW sized nuke. Plus no mountains in Nevada filled with spent fuel.

Cleaner coal now, only while we perfect renewables!
Comment
29 of 60
March 4, 2009
What is so marvelous about extracting CO2 from a boiler house stack ?
When I worked at Monsanto, Ruabon UK in the '50's they had been extracting CO2 from the boiler house stack for many years.

I designed and installed the compression liquifaction plant for a major expansion in Aspirin production - the end product using the CO2 via the manufacture of Salycylic acid
Comment
30 of 60
March 4, 2009
Developing nations possess enormous coal resources, and their demand for electricity cannot be met by more costly and less energy-dense resources like wind, solar and biomass. Asian countries alone are planning 600 GW of new coal capacity by 2025. The developed world must develop and refine not only CCS technology but more efficient supercritical and ultrasupercritical boiler technology -- then subsidize the deployment of this technology in the developing world.
Comment
31 of 60
March 4, 2009
It seems we are shifting our addiction from oil to electricity. Besides efficiency measures, we know the least polluting and cheapest electricity is the stuff you simply don't need to produce. Simply by laying off the bulk of heating and cooling needs onto solar direct in the form of thermal capture without running it through the large scale utility/grid/electricity structure over half our power needs could be done with current sunshine. This would also allow independence from the grid, although economic horrors for the big money machine and politicians because of the lack of PAC kickbacks. No big champions here like wind and PV margins. Just working practicality. I installed systems here in frozen Wisconsin, without rewards, and am well on the way to payback. It just took a will to do something. Check our web page;
Comment
32 of 60
March 4, 2009
Nuclear has two main advantages when reprocessed (which I suppose I forgot to mention in my last post {#1}). Fuel is more efficient per ton, and waste doesn't last as long(will still out live me, but less is better). CSS is a stop gap, but renewable is the future.
The problem with nuclear is it is SO useful. Expensive and hazardous, yes, but strong baseline power that produces no CO2 is exactly what we need. Renewable energy almost always is dependent on conditions. nuclear power is reliable, no matter the cloud cover, airspeed, or drought conditions, decay will happen, and we can use that to our advantage. The only other fully reliable power sources are dams (almost always working, but floods/droughts could effect it), and thier environmental impact is less than negligible.
We need nuclear for it's baseline abilities, but power storage combined with renewable production sources could easily fill our peak power needs and cover over low production conditions.
Personally working on a 24/7 passive hydro power system that doesn't obstruct flow or ruin the environment. Only draw back is the need to farm the harvesters because of low (~1 kW) output.
Comment
33 of 60
March 4, 2009
Nick;
Michael Antal at UH, is working with biocarbon's electrical properties in Carbon Fuel Cells;
http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/bio.r3.asp


Also he is investigating biocarbons for an important bridging technology, the scrubbing of Hg from Coal fired power plant emissions. This would allow for economic CO2 scrubbing.
This application could speed development of pyrolysis infrastructure now, and later, after coal's eventual demise, the biocarbon production could be redirected to the soil.

Ultimately we must leave the combustion age behind. Charcoal to the soil is a bridging first step as other energy conversion technologies bloom from Nano and bio reasearch. Thankfully we can do Terra Preta Soils now.

Oil interest must come to see the overwhelming value of their carbon as the feedstock for the manufacture ( via carbon nanotubes, fullerines, DNA programed nano self assembly, etc.) of virtually all things in the near future.

This convergences of different technologies will end the Combustion age.

Terra Preta starts as a soil nano technology with increased CEC, than a micro tech with our wee- beasties / fungus, and macro with bugs and worms.

Biotic Carbon, the carbon transformed by life, should never be combusted, oxidized and destroyed. It deserves more respect, reverence even, and understanding to use it back to the soil where 2/3 of excess atmospheric carbon originally came from.

We all know we are carbon-centered life, we seldom think about the complex web of recycled bio-carbon which is the true center of life. A cradle to cradle, mutually co-evolved biosphere reaching into every crack and crevice on Earth.

It's hard for most to revere microbes and fungus, but from our toes to our gums (onward), their balanced ecology is our health. The greater earth and soils are just as dependent, at much longer time scales. Our farming for over 10,000 years has been responsible for 2/3rds of our excess greenhouse gases.
Comment
34 of 60
March 4, 2009
I would like to point out to the people who believe CO2 is a problem that they emit a lot of it.

If they will eliminate that problem they will 'do their part'.
Comment
35 of 60
March 5, 2009
like he said 250 kg per hour is only a fraction of whats produced.

once again we are told the solution is burning more fossil fuels

better to replace these facilities, at a fraction of the cost of this scam
Comment
36 of 60
March 5, 2009
OK let's shut down all coal fired plants, name the date you're ready.
Comment
37 of 60
March 5, 2009
In comment #37 Dennis Baker writes:
"better to replace these facilities, at a fraction of the cost of this scam"

One can reasonably quibble about potential economics issues and technical merits of carbon capture but the term "scam" suggests a conscious attempt at fraud, whereas carbon capture advocates are engaged in an honest and rational effort to address global warming concerns. People who see conspiracy theories at every turn should visit a mental health professional for evaluation ASAP.

As for potential replacements for coal generation that are "a fraction of the cost" none now exist. Even enormously expensive potential replacements such as solar PV would, at current production levels, only be able to replace a couple coal fired plants a year, which is a drop in the bucket.
Comment
38 of 60
March 5, 2009
When worldwide factories are closing down, the time is ripe to convert these surplus plants and their employees to producing solar equipment of all viable types. The newly unemployed should be absorbed into the installation of solar equipment along with the power lines needed to move the power to it destination.

One only needs to look at 1939 when war production needs converted manufacturing overnight to successfully meet the needs of the war effort.

We are obviously in a similar situation now. Technology needs to be mobilized to fight the war on global warming. Lets get on with it, instead of producing cars, for example, which for the time being are not saleable, and at the same time providing a valuable way to reduce car building capacity. I believe, as in 1939, it can only be done by having the government issue orders to the people in charge of these manufacturing organizations that they must start immediately to build the equipment needed to fight the war on global warming. I was done. It can be done now.
Comment
39 of 60
March 5, 2009
Miles: Regarding your comment #40, 1939 era war production was achieved via massive deficit spending, which hardly seems appropriate here; nor does government control of the economy. Currently, solar PV generates electricity at ~30+ cents/kWh under favorable conditions. If you want to spend that much on your electricity, feel free to put solar PV on your roof, but I'd like to see some further research into more efficient methods. Paying vastly more for electricity while failing to significantly alter CO2 concentrations would be truly annoying and would be the inevitable result of the policies you propose.
Comment
40 of 60
March 5, 2009
Well said Steven, paying $.30/ kWh for PV compared to $.10/kWh from a coal fired plant is a high price. In a democratic capitolistic society that decision is not the governments to make. As far as global warming is concerned...the jury is still out. If scrubbers & precipitators reduce emmisions to acceptable levels...why not?
Comment
41 of 60
In my opinion the best way is to plant green plants, bushes and trees and to keep the sea clean. No need of carbon eating machines that cost money. Let nature do its work.
Comment
42 of 60
March 6, 2009
Regarding comment 43 "...the best way is to plant green plants...": This does not work; when a plant dies it decomposes and the CO2 that it had sequestered is released. CO2 levels were in balance prior to the industrial revolution and would not have been if plants represented a permanent sink.
Comment
43 of 60
March 7, 2009
1. Each countries's contracted wind energy price
Brazil 90Euro/MWh
Canada 56~83Euro/MWh64
China 41~49Euro/MWh
Costa Rica 52Euro/MWh
Estonia 53Euro/MWh
Mongolia 64Euro/MWh
Sweden 65Euro/MWh
USA 57~79Euro/MWh

2. Electricity Price for each type without carbon cost
Excluding Carbon Cost & 5% Interest rate
Wind 49Euro/MWh
Gas 47Euro/MWh
Coal 35Euro/MWh

Excluding Carbon Cost & 8% Interest rate
Wind 60Euro/MWh
Gas 49Euro/MWh
Coal 41Euro/MWh

3. 0.65tons of Carbon for each MWh Coal Fired Plant

4. Conclustion
If you considers Corbon cost, Wind Energy is the most competitive One.

Thank You!(If you have any question, email me : howon.ha@doosan.com
Comment
44 of 60
March 8, 2009
Part 1
In this new hype of a questionable solutions to the carbon problem fundamental physics seems to be neglected by decision makers and many scientists. Please read the following arguments.

1. The underground cavities ("aquifers") are filled with water. This water will be replaced by pumping CO2 into these voids. Water is forced out of these rigid confinements. If it cannot leave the voids, one cannot fill them with CO2. But water will find escape paths and find ways to the surface. CO2 will follow soon or later.

2. The solubility of CO2 in water is about 2%. 98% of the "stored" CO2 will not go into solution. Even if it does, it will come to the surface later as "mineral water". The dissolved CO2 will be released into the atmosphere.

3. The critical point of CO2 is at 32°C and 78 bars. Lower temperatures and higher pressures are needed to keep CO2 in the liquid state. These pressures are reached in depths below 800 m, where the geothermal temperatures are typically well 32°C. Thus liquid CO2 cannot be stored in deep ground cavities.

4. Compressed gas or as liquid CO2 can be stored at higher below 32°C in pressurized, gastight caverns. Such sites are rare and seldom found near the coal-fired power plants. Expensive and energy consuming transport of coal, CO2 or both has to be arranged.

5. 1 kg of carbon yields 3.67 kg of CO2. For every ton of coal brought to a power plant 3.6 tons of CO2 have to be removed and safely deposited. All energy consumptions and losses considered, electricity delivered from one power plant is reduced to 50% by CCS. Twice as much coal is needed for the electricity delivered and twice as much CO2 is generated. Also, one needs two CSS plants for the same power generation. Investment may be much higher than replacing coal fired power plants with wind or solar generators.


Continued on next comment page


Ulf Bossel
European Fuel Cell Forum
PO Box 9
5452 Oberrohrdorf / Switzerland
www.efcf.com
Comment
45 of 60
March 8, 2009
Part 2

6. Without CSS a 1 GW power plant converts 3.5 million tons of coal to 11 million tons of CO2 per year. With CCS, 7 million tons of coal lead to 22 million tons of CO2. In 60 years lifetime about 1,300 million (1.3 billion) tons of CO2 have to be safely stored. In the US about 100 of such plants are needed to satisfy 50% of the electricity needs. Where can the CO2 generated in 100 power plants be safely stored forever?

7. Wind and solar energy are expanding so fast that the "clean coal" technologies will come too late for commercially applications. It will take years to perfect the CSS technology. Amortized wind and solar power plants will soon deliver electricity at prices so low that thermal power plants can no longer compete with electricity from renewable sources.

8. Chemical storage of CO2 without substantial energy inputs is impossible. CO2 is at zero energy state. It cannot react with other natural ground materials in an exothermic reaction, but energy is required to attach CO2 to other compounds. Most of the energy obtained by burning carbon is needed to combine CO2 with other chemical compounds for storage. The energy released by burning carbon is used for chemical storage of the emitted CO2. Chemical CO2 storage is a zero net energy change of the chemical composition of our planet. This cannot be the solution.

9. We now have great difficulties with the safe storage of modest amounts of radioactive waste for 25,000 years. We now attempt to safely store many thousand times more CO2 forever. As we cannot find acceptable solutions for the first, why do we think we can solve the much more severe problem of safe CO2 storage?

It does not make sense to continue the development of CCS technologies. Material and human resources should be used for the implementation of clean solar and wind generating technologies as quickly as possible.

Ulf Bossel
European Fuel Cell Forum
PO Box 9
5452 Oberrohrdorf / Switzerland
www.efcf.com
Comment
46 of 60
March 8, 2009
6. Without CSS a 1 GW power plant converts 3.5 million tons of coal to 11 million tons of CO2 per year. With CCS, 7 million tons of coal lead to 22 million tons of CO2. In 60 years lifetime about 1,300 million (1.3 billion) tons of CO2 have to be safely stored. In the US about 100 of such plants are needed to satisfy 50% of the electricity needs. Where can the CO2 generated in 100 power plants be safely stored forever?

Forgive me but how does 3.5 million tons of coal become 11 million tons of CO2/yr (or 7 million tons of coal become 22 million tons/yr of CO2 w/ CCS)?
Comment
47 of 60
March 9, 2009
Regarding Ulf Bossel's remarks in comments 46 and 47, virtually all are hyperbole or misstatements. There are plenty of geologic formations (oil wells, coal seams, saline aquifers) where CO2 can be placed in long term storage. The storage itself is not the main difficulty, rather it is the cost of the capture and transportation and the associated infrastructure that is the real concern. Ulf assumes that the energy cost for capture will be a factor of two; this seems pessimistic, but would still make coal fired generation affordable compared to many methods.

Ulf assumes (point 9) that we will need to store this CO2 forever, but this isn't true. We only have to prevent a large fraction from escaping within the next century or so while we get other sources of CO2 generation under control. Comparing CO2 to nuclear waste is inappropriate, if a small potion escapes it is no big deal because it is nontoxic.

Ulf also exhibits wild optimism when he states: "Wind and solar energy are expanding so fast that the "clean coal" technologies will come too late for commercially applications." Solar is still ~30 cents/kWh in favorable situations and available only in small quantities at any price. Wind is not suitable for significant generation in many areas (the southeast US for instance). Given all the extant coal plants that no owner will want to shut off, and the enormous uncertainly about alternatives, a bit of research into CO2 sequestration is well warranted.
Comment
48 of 60
March 9, 2009
Maurice, in answer to your question in comment 48: Coal is mainly carbon (mass = 12 amu) and reacts with O2 (mass = 32 amu) to give CO2 (mass=44 amu). 44/12 = 3.7, so the exhaust of 3.5 million tons of coal is approximately 3.5 * 3.7=13 million tons of CO2.
Comment
49 of 60
March 10, 2009
Steven, thanks for your reply. I'm an electrical/electronics kind of guy so I'll take your word for it.

After your post I went to Wikipedia and got even more confused. It's a shame some use for CO2 could not be found, such as promoting plant growth etc.

In the Carbon Cycle is our artificial contribution significant compared to the natural contibution? Have we actually seen a full cycle in nature to be able to say Global Warming is a real issue? Would our involvement have unintended consequences?
Comment
50 of 60
March 10, 2009
Maurice, in answer to your questions in comment 51:
CO2 generated by fossil fuels is relatively small compared to the total amount generated, but it disturbs a delicate balance. Prior to the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were essentially constant for a long period of time because the large amounts generated were equally matched by the large amounts absorbed (by plant photosynthesis, ocean absorption, etc.); combustion of fossil fuels has led to a ~30+% increase in atmospheric concentrations as observed in direct measurements (disputed by no one), and this increase is expected to accelerate. Some of the increased CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has made its way into the various sinks (e.g., the ocean, leading to mild pH changes) but most remains in the atmosphere. The precise effect of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations on the climate is controversial and difficult to predict with precision, but almost all models suggest significant climate change. Global warming is a serious concern and one should not let uncertainties about the precise effects of these atmospheric changes serve as an excuse for procrastination.
Comment
51 of 60
March 10, 2009
Steven, Re:52, I'm in total agreement with reducing smokestack emmissions and all other forms of pollution. I love the outdoors, SCUBA, camping, boating , hunting & fishing.

However, if we get too carried away and try to move too quickly we could very easily create a full blown depression and not have the means to do any of what you speak of.

True, we should not be building new polluting plants and if permits can't be denied they should be taxed heavily to discourage such behavior.

If said for years if the intake to an industrial facility were required to be downstream of a plants outfall very little damage would be done to the river.

Industrial facilities should be given a schedule of ever increasing stringent requirements with rewards for exceeding the standards and fines for not meeting them. A plant I work for (not proud of it) would blend low & high sulfur #6 fuel oil so they just met standards.

Thanks for the fine info, it's not my strong points.
Comment
52 of 60
March 21, 2009
No matter what you do at the smokestacks--scrubbers, carbon capture, sequestration etc. etc.---- coal still comes from mines, strip mines that destroy the earth, poisons water sheds, and poisons the air, and produces mountains of cinders and ashes, and highly toxic creosote full of heavy metals and carcinogens.

When you try to put lipstick on a wart hog, all you end up with is a mad wart hog.

The only thing that coal is used for is to boil water. We can boil water with natural gas. Natural gas does not come from strip mines, natural gas does not pollute water, natural gas does not produce particulate air pollution(it is already a gas). Natural gas can be shipped by pipeline and does not require shovels, bulldozers, trucks, front loaders, conveyor belts or shovels to handle. Natural gas can be used by simply by removing the grates from the coal furnaces and installing burners similar to your kitchen stove or water heater---nothing else needs to change, the boilers, turbines, generators, buildings and controls all remain the same. Natural gas is mostly methane, exactly the same methane that is in biomethane. Biomethane can be mixed with natural gas in any proportion with no loss of performance when and as production of biomethane increases. Natural gas can even be used to power engines directly increasing overall efficiency.

http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=37533&x=7
Comment
53 of 60
March 21, 2009
Steven----"Global warming is a serious concern and one should not let uncertainties about the precise effects of these atmospheric changes serve as an excuse for procrastination."------

YUP!!!! We've already had WAY too much procrastination.


Maurice--"Steven, Re:52, I'm in total agreement with reducing smokestack emmissions and all other forms of pollution. I love the outdoors, SCUBA, camping, boating , hunting & fishing.

However, if we get too carried away and try to move too quickly we could very easily create a full blown depression and not have the means to do any of what you speak of."---------

I'm with you Maurice. However, I think we are already on a greased slide into a depression(maybe not by the economist's definition yet, but when you've lost 3.5 million jobs in only six months, it sounds like a depression to me). We need to create jobs, and rebuilding our energy production and distribution infrastructure can provide a lot of jobs. Jobs doing things that should have been done 30 years ago. I don't think that making this a national priority and investing all we can in it is going to hurt us. After all, if we don't, we are sliding into depression anyway----doing nothing only reinforces the probability that we will get nothing back if we continue the same course.
Comment
54 of 60
March 22, 2009
Fred, (Re:55) I fully agree we should not build any new coal plants. But, working for one of the world's engineering companies in coal, synfuel, nuclear facilities for over 40 years I still contend we don't have the infra structure in-place to pull the plug on any of the above today.

We have a lot of Nat. Gas but it won't be available to replace but a fraction of what's needed in the short haul. And, it too may have "peaked", per recent assesments.

We need change, but not for the worst.

Every area of our country has at some asset or another. If those resourses were utilized, without the "not in my backyard mentality" we could turn our situation around, over time.
Comment
55 of 60
March 22, 2009
Maurice------"We have a lot of Nat. Gas but it won't be available to replace but a fraction of what's needed in the short haul. And, it too may have "peaked", per recent assesments."---------

You may be right about natural gas---however, it is clean, causes minimal environmental damage to mine compared to coal, virtually no pollution, is more efficient to move and handle than coal, and is inherrently more efficient to use. We can even use natural gas directly with internal combustion engines eliminating several efficiency robbing steps in power generation. It is still a fossil fuel, but use in an internal combustion engine would make CO2 capture relatively easy. And since the methane in natural gas is exactly the same chemically as the methane in biomethane, we can mix the two in any proportion with no loss of performance. As we are able to produce more biomethane, we can reduce the fossil methane portion of our fuel mix.

Increase the amount of solar and wind generated power, and fill in the gaps at night or when winds subside with natural gas mixed with biomethane seems to be a realistic goal to aim for; at least to me.
Comment
56 of 60
March 22, 2009
Fred, I agree with you long term but the present Administration has the whole Country fired up and ready to shut down every coal fired power plant tomorrow.

How do they expect to replace 80% of our electrical needs overnight?
Comment
57 of 60
March 28, 2009
Maurice, replace some with NG and start ramping up biomethane production, we can always mix in as much biomethane as we want with NG later with no loss of performance. Use conservation to replace some of the need. Use solar and wind to replace some of the need. Use hydro and tidal to replace some of the need. Use biofuels to replace some of the need. I think we could do it.
Comment
58 of 60
March 28, 2009
Fred, I hear what you're saying and I know you mean well but our production of biomethane and alternative energy is minimal at this time not to mention how limited our ability to get it to the generating stations.

I live near a coal fired plant that uses 100 railcars a day of coal. They have Nat gas fired generators to catch peak demand. The Nat gas lines to the plant are way too small to fuel even one of the five boilers. Miles of large lines would need to be run before we could begin what you're advocating.

Obama has declared war on coal without any way to survive without it.
Comment
59 of 60
March 30, 2009
-------"The Nat gas lines to the plant are way too small to fuel even one of the five boilers. Miles of large lines would need to be run before we could begin what you're advocating."---------

Why is that a problem? Once you lay the pipe, that is all you need. With coal, you not only need rail lines laid, you also have to have loaders, rolling stock(locomotives, coal frieght cars), bridges, switch yards, operating crews, crossing signals, fueling facilities for the locomotives, trucking from mine to storage to railhead, roads from mines to railhead, and/or barge loading---navigation and pusher tug capability and the whole attendant water navigation system. All run by workers who need to be trained, paid, insured, licensed, etc.etc. etc.

With NG---you pump the gas in under pressure at one end, and take it out of the other end. And you can make the other end anywhere you want. Or as many other ends as you need. Put in the NG in Oklahoma, and open a valve in Indianna----you've got gas, close the valve in Indianna and open a valve in Minnesota, you've got gas.

It seems a whole lot simpler and more efficient to me.
Comment
60 of 60
April 1, 2009
I believe we have the same problem in my town as the rest of the Country lack of infrastructure.

Nat gas is simply not available here. We've been trying for decades.
There is a three year wait to hook up a solar panel to the grid.
Geothermal systems are miles away from the grid.

Because of a little thing called "sonic flow" no matter how high the injection pressure there is no increase in flowrate, if the lines are too small.
And, the lines are too small.

Don't make the coal companies too mad today..you may not have power tomorrow.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

OTTI - Ostbayerisches Techn. Transfer Institute Stoel Rives LLP Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems Maritime Geothermal Mersen (formerly Ferraz Shawmut) Ambient Technologies, Inc. Solectria Renewables LLC
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters