Carbon capture for coal costly, study finds
-
-
- JanforGore
- added this
Excerpt:
Harvard University researchers have issued a new report that confirms what many experts already feared: Stopping greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants is going to cost a lot of money.
Electricity costs could double at a first-generation plant that captures and stores carbon dioxide emissions, according to the report from energy researchers at the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center.
Costs would drop as the technology matures, but could still amount to an increase of 22 to 55 percent, according to the report, "Realistic Costs of Carbon Capture," issued this week.
These projections "are higher than many published estimates," but reflect capital project inflation and "greater knowledge of project costs," wrote researchers Mohammed Al-Juaied and Adam Whitmore.
Coal is the nation's largest source of global warming pollution, representing about a third of U.S. greenhouse emissions, equal to the combined output of all cars, trucks, buses, trains and boats.
In the U.S., coal provides half of the nation's electricity. Many experts believe that, because of vast supplies, coal will continue to generate much of the nation's power for many years to come.
Climate scientists, though, recommend that the nation swiftly cut carbon dioxide emissions and ultimately reduce them by at least 80 percent below 2000 levels by mid-century to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
Industry supporters say the key is for scientists to perfect technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and pump those gases safely underground. But such technology has never been deployed on a commercial scale. Critics worry about the expense, safety and a host of technical hurdles.
-
- groups:
- Tech, Green, Earth and Science, Solar Energy
-
- tags:
- CO2, Toxic, Coal, Carbon Emissions, 6 more
-
-
JanforGore
-
Carbon Capture and Storage is A Myth:
#1: CCS cannot deliver in time to avoid dangerous climate change
The earliest possibility for deployment of CCS on a large commercial scale is not expected before 2030. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not expect CCS to be commercially viable until at least 2050. Nor does Oil-giant Shell who "doesn't foresee CCS being in widespread use until 2050."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2: CCS wastes energy
The technology uses between 10 and 40% of the energy produced by a power station. Wide scale adoption of CCS is expected to erase the efficiency gains of the last 50 years and increase energy consumption by one-third.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3: CCS is expensive
CCS could lead to the doubling of plant costs, and an electricity price increase of 21-91%. The US Department of Energy (DOE) recently pulled out of the only "clean coal" pilot project with CCS technology in the US due to massive budget increases from initial estimate of $800 million to $1.8 billion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4: "Capture Ready" coal plants are pure greenwash
CCS is being used as an excuse by power companies and utilities to push ahead with plans to build new coal-fired power plants, branding them as "capture ready." Promises to retrofit are unlikely to be kept. Retrofits are very expensive and can carry such high efficiency losses that the plants become uneconomical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#5: Storing CO2 underground can have unintended consequences
The world has no experience in the long-term storage of anything, let alone CO2. A 2006 United States Geological Survey (USGS) field experiment showed there is every chance that carbon dioxide will behave in ways that are totally unexpected.
The researchers were surprised when the buried CO2 dissolved large amounts of the surrounding minerals responsible for keeping it contained.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
JanforGore
-
Coal is not clean. Period.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
larrysnotes
-
In a 30 megawatt test coal plant it is clean, and getting cleaner. Germany 2009.
- 2 years ago
-
larrysnotes
