from the it-was-never-going-to-be-easy dept.
ScienceNews is running an in depth article about Carbon Capture and Sequestration, (CCS) and the two large scale projects that will come on-line in 2015.
In North America, two commercial-scale power plants are on the cusp of firing up CCS technology for the first time. Both are entering the final stages of construction. The projects, one in Mississippi and the other in Canada, already have made it further than any other carbon capture demonstration project to date. If the two projects come online, they could clear a path for other CCS-equipped plants around the world, lower emissions and help to combat climate change.
Note: Another large scale project is being funded in the UK.
The potential for CCS to help fight climate change makes the struggle worthwhile: Global CO2 emissions linked to fossil fuel combustion reached roughly 31 gigatons in 2011. Of that, 42 percent, or about 13 gigatons, came from the generation of electricity and heat, according to the International Energy Agency. Expectations are that 90 percent of a power plant’s emissions can be captured and sequestered by the CCS technologies employed at these two North American plants.
However, the industry and the science is still licking it's collective wounds over past failed projects, and still bickering over methodologies.
The report offers a good read, provides an overview of the the two different processes being used, and the smaller scale demonstration projects around the world.
The report doesn't gloss over the dissension among scientists or the objections of environmentalists about enabling the continued use of coal.
(Score: 2) by RobotMonster on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:41AM
Storing billions of litres of CO2 underground... What [wikipedia.org] could possibly go wrong? [wikipedia.org]
Of course the geologists employed by the stakeholders will explain that it's all perfectly safe, but you won't catch me living anywhere near one of these ticking time bombs... [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by johaquila on Wednesday August 27 2014, @09:48AM
Exactly. This is obvious fraud since serious accidents and the release of most of the gas can be expected in the medium term.
A much more reasonable idea is turning waste organic material into low quality coal and putting it into old mines. Producing coal basically works by putting the material into a pressure cooker (not a household one, as it will explode) with water and citric acid. After about a day at high temperature - you just need to heat it initially, since the process itself is exothermic and essentially sustains itself - you get some kind of mineral oil, peat, brown coal or even low quality black coal, depending on the precise timing.
The possibility was discovered a few years ago. They are currently working on making this feasible at an industrial scale.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:59PM
C02 saturated water from known sources is hardly the same thing as CO2 injected under several layers of impermeable rock.
As the story (which you clearly didn't read) mentioned: More than a dozen small trials worldwide have proven that CCS can cut emissions from power plants and safely store the captured gas in rock formations deep underground.
With a US estimated economically accessible 257 billion short tons of coal and a total US consumption of 925.1 Million short tons, any method of storage of CO2 (returning it where it came from) means ~300 years of scrubbed, de-acidified, de-gassed, energy until all the wind and solar and nuclear come on line (or what ever magical thinking is in vogue today).
There's actually twice that much coal reserves in the ground, but some may be commercially uninviting at current prices.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by RobotMonster on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:40AM
Sure, it'll be safely stored for awhile, until it isn't.
You can't prove the 1000 year safety of a geological formation with a small scale 5 year test.
The theory of plate tectonics has only been accepted for ~50 years.
Stuff happens.
I'm sure you'd also argue that fracking couldn't possibly contaminate the water table if a geologist says it won't?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @04:36AM
That's extremely uncertain. Your numbers only discuss how much carbon might be put back in the ground. The word worthwhile means that there is some known and generally agreed upon value to doing this, which is not the case.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday August 27 2014, @05:40AM
Wish I had mod points - and could combine the parent post with the one above it. Hugely dangerous stuff, because a leak can flood an entire region with CO2; on a calm day, it will blanket the ground and kill everything. Meanwhile, the actual benefit is unknown and impossible to test.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Wednesday August 27 2014, @07:26AM
You mean if one ignores - among others - the norwegians since 1996? [wikipedia.org] or maybe they only meant with coal-burning plants and not other processes?
(Score: 2) by r00t on Wednesday August 27 2014, @10:13AM
The energy magnates aren't about to loose their market position in the consumer economy. Their "best solution" is quite likely going to be the one which is cheapest for them and the most expensive for people and the environment. Look where fracking [dangersoffracking.com] ended up.
Solar energy is becoming surprisingly efficient [abengoasolar.com] and will get better with time. 280 MW from the sun is getting close to the output of a typical 500 MW coal fired plant without the nasty by-products [ucsusa.org] or environmental impact.
2000 acres of desert for 280 MW of renewable energy!? C'mon, that's a no brainer. Just scale it up. There's a ridiculous amount of desert in the world and solar farms seem the perfect use for it. Supplement that with some wind farms for the 2 days out of the year it's cloudy and I'd say that's a much better solution that turning living space into a pressure cooker.
The other part of the solution is for people to unplug and use less, but that mindset doesn't scale past 4 people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @03:25PM
actually co2 is a gas?
if one would liquify or solidify it to either so-called oil or so-called coal it would be way more compact and take up less space?
but it requires an energy input you say?
this being true we do have a free fusion device in the sky which, alas, we cannot tap directly but just basking in the general free output is plenty much ...