Guest essay by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
The war on climate change has produced many dubious “innovations.” Intermittent wind and solar energy sources, carbon markets that buy and sell “hot air,” and biofuels that burn food as we drive are just a few examples. But carbon capture and storage is the Edsel of energy policies.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS), also called carbon capture and sequestration, is promoted by President Obama, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for coal-fired power plants. In September, the EPA proposed a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 emissions per megawatt-hour of electricity produced, a regulation that would effectively ban construction of new coal plants without CCS.
Coal is the world’s fastest growing hydrocarbon fuel. Increased use of coal by developing nations boosted coal use from 24.6 percent of the world’s primary energy supply in 1973 to 28.8 percent in 2011. Wind and solar remain less than one percent of the global energy supply. Proponents of the theory of man-made warming realize that world use of coal will remain strong for decades, so they insist that coal plants use CCS to limit CO2 emissions.
CCS requires capturing of carbon dioxide, a normal waste product from the combustion of fuel, transporting CO2 by pipeline, and then storing it underground. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says, “CCS technology is feasible and it’s available.”
Carbon capture is feasible, but it’s very expensive. The DOE estimates that CCS increases coal-fired electricity cost by 70 percent. This does not include the additional cost of building pipelines to transport the carbon dioxide and the cost of establishing reservoirs to store the CO2 underground.
An example is Southern Company’s planned coal-fired plant with CCS in Kemper County, Mississippi, which is scheduled to begin operations in 2014. With recent cost overruns, the Southern Company now estimates a $4.7 billion price tag for the 582-megawatt plant. This exceeds the price of a comparable nuclear plant and is almost five times the price of a gas-fired plant.
The DOE pledged $270 million in funding for the Kemper County plant along with a federal tax credit of $133 million. Mississippi customers will be socked with a $2.88 billion electricity rate increase to support the plant.
Nine US plants currently capture CO2 as part of normal industrial processes, such as natural gas or chemical refining and fertilizer production. All nine facilities sell CO2 to the petroleum industry for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), a process which pumps CO2 into the ground. The Kemper County plant will also provide CO2 for EOR. Another ten US projects are underway to capture CO2 and most of these projects are subsidized with federal money.
Ford spent $350 million on the Edsel, the most famous car failure in history. But CCS is a much bigger financial boondoggle. From 2008 through 2012, governments committed to spend more than $22 billion on CCS projects. The United States leads the way with a commitment of more than $5 billion.
Despite support by US and world governments, carbon capture is not headed for success. A report released by the Global CCS Institute this month shows that international investment in CCS is now in decline. During the last year, the number of large-scale CCS projects declined from 75 to 65. Five projects were cancelled and seven were put on hold, with only three new projects added. The institute reports that private organizations are not investing in CCS.
The number of CCS projects in Europe has declined from 21 to 15, where no new project has entered commercial operation since 2008. The Global CCS Institute states that an “urgent policy response is required” for success. In other words, governments must impose carbon taxes and provide big subsidies for CCS.
Would carbon capture really have a measureable effect on global warming? CO2 emissions from power plants total less than one percent of the carbon dioxide that naturally enters the atmosphere each year from the oceans, the biosphere, and other natural sources. If the world fully implements CCS, it’s unlikely that we could detect a change in global temperatures.
But, worse than this, if the theory of dangerous man-made global warming is false, CCS becomes an expensive solution to a non-problem. When the dust of history settles and the ideology of Climatism fades away, failed CCS projects will be remembered as the Edsel of energy policies.
===
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Carbon capture is feasible…
—————————————-
fea·si·ble
/ˈfēzəbəl/
adjective
adjective: feasible
1.
possible to do easily or conveniently.
synonyms: practicable, practical, workable, achievable, attainable, realizable, viable, realistic, sensible, reasonable, within reason
In regards to my previous post,
BWAAHAAHAAAAAA
“The war on climate change has produced many dubious “innovations.” Intermittent wind and solar energy sources, carbon markets that buy and sell “hot air,” and biofuels that burn food as we drive are just a few examples. But carbon capture and storage is the Edsel of energy policies.”
With respect, grid-connected wind and solar power, carbon markets and carbon taxes, and food-to-fuel are nonsensical policies.
They are all much worse than the Edsel.
They are butt-ugly and have cost society more than a trillion dollars in squandered scarce resources.
The Edsel was butt-ugly too, but it only cost the Ford Corporation several hundred million dollars – a few billion in today’s dollars.
And Ford killed off the Edsel after only three years, whereas this global warming nonsense is still going after three decades.
Thankfully, global warming nonsense and the idiotic energy policies it spawned will not last much longer. Within a decade or so, they too will go the way of the Edsel.
http://nonesnotes.com/2013/03/17/remembering-roy-brown-designer-of-the-star-crossed-edsel-one-of-the-biggest-flops-in-automotive-history/
[excerpt]
“The design of the car was controversial. Its most memorable design feature was its “horse collar” grille, unfortunately referred to by some as a toilet seat. It was different from any other car on the market — but the notoriety wasn’t positive. Some wags joked that the car’s front resemble “an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon,” while others were even less charitable, noting that the grille design was suggestive of a giant vulva.”
________________
[One might wonder why it was not more popular.]
Coal-fired plants are old technology. The sooner the US and the world moves to Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), the faster economies will grow and the cleaner air, water and soil will become from the cheapest/cleanest/most abundant/efficient form of energy on the planet.
As is often the case, the US developed LFTR technology and other countries are now developing the technology, with China expected to have its first LFTR operational by 2020.
Coal-fired plants have destroyed China’s air quality but were essential in building its industrial base. China is now in phase II of its industrial expansion and once their LFTR program is implemented, a second wave of industrial production will flood into its shores to take advantage of their cheap LFTR energy, minimum corporate rules and regulations, low corporate tax rates, 1.2 billion consumers and cheap labor.
The US environmental lobby has effectively killed Light-Water Reactor development from the late 70’s and I’m confident they’ll be equally effective in killing LFTR development and the US economy, too.
The irony is that the quicker LFTRs are developed, the cleaner air, water and soil will become and the faster America’s economy can recover.
And so it goes….until freedom and sanity are restored.
There already excist a 100 percent efficient Carbon Capture devise .This device is Solar powered , no construction or developement cost .uses very little land with practically zero maintenance.Lasting in some cases hundreds of years.This device has zero impact and can actually be used to enhance the enviroment proving a natural habitat for hundreds of specis of wildlife and unlike Wind Turbine is aesthetically pleasing to the eye.
Other bennifits of this device include boosting tourism providing construction material, food and a source of fuel
The name of this wonder device is called a Tree.
Carbon capture is insanely dangerous. Inevitably someone, somewhere will overfill a geological reservoir, located conveniently near population centres. Here is an idea of what might happen when the reservoir cracks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos#1986_disaster
The amount of CO2 release by Lake Nyos is equivalent to the CO2 emitted by a large coal power station in a couple of weeks. A similar disaster near a major city could kill millions.
Love it , perfect response. Just let the freebies, Obama, etc know
Eric. Please explain. How do you have a CO2 disaster or explosion. Not possible. It’s not possible to get enough CO2 in free air to do any harm.
CO2 makes life happen
I have asked this time and time again.
But what happens if you get a well-blowout with your CO2 deposition well? Has anyone looked at the results of the 1986 Lake Nyos disaster?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos
Just how far from habitation would your well have to be to declare the well safe? How far can a cloud of CO2 travel along the ground, before it disperses? Anyone looked into this?
The wiki reference talks about the smell and burns. More like sulfer or sulfer dioxide. CO2 has no smell or action on a person. Yes in enclosed enviorments eg submarines or intentional misuse suicide cars it can be a problem
The 1.6 time density may be correct and if so supports the theory that increases inCO2 actually reduce temperature as is now happening
PaulC says:
Eric. Please explain. How do you have a CO2 disaster or explosion. Not possible. It’s not possible to get enough CO2 in free air to do any harm.
CO2 makes life happen
Pure CO2 is 50% heavier than air. When Lake Nyos fizzed up like a vast glass of pop, it released between 100 – 300,000 tons of CO2 all at once. The blanket of CO2 hugged the ground up to a height of around 50ft, suffocating most life in a 15 mile radius.
If through greed or negligence too much CO2 is forced into a reservoir, something will give way. If we’re lucky, the release will be slow. If we’re unlucky, the release could be abrupt, and a lake Nyos style blanket of suffocating CO2 could erupt and cover a large region. Remember also that when a gas expands suddenly, it cools – so the CO2 will be cold, which will enhance its ability to hug the ground.
“Mississippi customers will be socked with a $2.88 billion electricity rate increase to support the plant.”
And taxpayers will be socked with an increase to support the increased cost of state and federal subsidizing of government employees and the “poor” people’s utility bills.
And with 50+% of the populace receiving a government check then ,,,,,, a few more BILLION$ added to the cost of CAGW “junk” science solutions.
I noticed the trees looked dead ??
PaulC says:
The wiki reference talks about the smell and burns. More like sulfer or sulfer dioxide. CO2 has no smell or action on a person. Yes in enclosed enviorments eg submarines or intentional misuse suicide cars it can be a problem
When people commit suicide in a vehicle its the carbon monoxide which kills them, not carbon dioxide.
There was sulfur and other volcanic gasses in the Lake Nyos disaster, but these gasses can’t have been a major component of the gas blanket, because there were survivors – if your lungs fill with sulphur dioxide or hydrogen sulphide, you don’t live to talk about it.
The 1.6 time density may be correct and if so supports the theory that increases inCO2 actually reduce temperature as is now happening
Its basic science – carbon, oxygen and nitrogen all weigh about the same, they are next to each other on the periodic table. So a CO2 molecule is by rough rule of thumb 50% heavier than O2 or N2, the major components of air – 3 atoms vs 2 atoms.
With apologies to sceptics who know this already, CO2 is a pristine, colourless, odourless trace gas. It is NOT a pollutant. It is a plant food. Without it all life ceases. The more atmospheric CO2 there is, the better. (World crop yields have soared in the last decade coincident with increased CO2 emissions.) It’s a crowded field, but CCS would have to be THE most bat crazy, brain dead boondoggle ever wheeled out by the alarmist industry.
Eric. Excuse my spelling mistakes. Tablet has a mind of its own
Just what was the concentration of CO2 with the explosion. And the SO2 levels.
Would bet the survivers had a lung full of good old CO2 and the dead guys Sulfur Dioxide.
I know what my choice would be
Guys, lets be clear – I’m not suggesting “CO2 is a pollutant”. As someone who is an occasional contributor to WUWT, I think CAGW theory is a crock.
But there are circumstances under which CO2 is dangerous – one of them is when a vast quantity of cold CO2 is released at ground level. It is not that people die from “CO2 poisoning”. The problem in these circumstances is the quantity of CO2 is so great, it displaces all the oxygen, literally pushing it out of the way, so people suffocate from lack of oxygen.
The lake Nyos disaster shows why very large concentrations of pure, compressed CO2, on the scale of the Lake Nyos release, or on the scale of a CCS programme, are unsafe – not because CO2 is particularly toxic, but because it is heavier than air, and the quantity involved is so great that it has the capacity to cover the ground in an unbreathable blanket for a significant distance from the source of the release.
I suspect that in the future we will capture CO2 in order to recycle it, not store it.
All those with the slightest knowledge of geology will know that while it is relatively easy to extract oil, gas and oil from underground reservoirs, those same reservoirs do not like being force filled.
Bottom line, apart from the obvious economic insanity, there can be unintentional consequences for carbon capture – put simply, Mother Earth does not like it.
For those who are stupid enough to believe fracking causes earthquakes, as opposed to occasional, harmless, minor tremors, then the following should make you think twice about carbon capture:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CFcQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.france24.com%2Fen%2F20131009-%2522offshore-gas-rig%2522causes-300-earthquakes%3Fpage%3D32&ei=fnReUpKhBI-ihgfqrYHgDA&usg=AFQjCNHRgi7UurSb1EHFdQmQR399_XKH3g&bvm=bv.54176721,d.Yms
Eric Worrall, completely agree with what you are saying I have also in the past to have raised the same and no one really seemed to “get it”. Wish you more luck.
Yes, compressed co2 in huge quantities is EXTREMELY dangerous. If you are looking for something that could suffocated even an entire city, that’s it, huge quantities of co2 rapidly (assumed accidentally) released. CO2 slides underneath, or oppositely oxygen and nitrogen just rise over the thick heavy co2 cloud like a warm front rising over cold air at the surface and can travel for miles and miles before mixing and dispersing but in the meantime killing EVERYTHING in it’s path. Want your city’s co2 sequestered underneath you? Not any sane person.
If you think protests against oil pipelines are bad just wait what residents along a CO2 pipeline will do, especially if they live in a valley where a leak could accumulate the stuff and displace breathable air. Dog cave incidents, anyone?
You can’t store CO2 as it’s temperature will rise, it will get extremely hot and melt its container! If you don’t believe me just look at the IPCC graphs. Keep doubling it from 200 parts per million to 1 million parts per million.
In addition to what Eric Worrall posted above
Oxygen displacement methods utilizing carbon dioxide are used in several areas, where welding ( ex. MIG / MAG ) and fire fighting are among the more common.
Carbon dioxide is also used in some types of air guns and in some cooling techniques.
Eric Worral: “Carbon capture is insanely dangerous.
Yep. And a catastrophic failure of an EPA mandated CO2 storage will be used to prove that the EPA was right to call it a pollutant and store it.
CCS promoters are well intentioned and ignorant of the chemistry and engineering, or they are aware of the chemistry and engineering and simply cynical.