Image: Peter and Maria Hoey
Like all big coal-fired power plants, the 1,600-mega-watt-capacity Schwarze Pumpe plant in Spremberg, Germany, is undeniably dirty. Yet a small addition to the facility—a tiny boiler that pipes 30 MW worth of steam to local industrial customers—represents a hope for salvation from the global climate-changing consequences of burning fossil fuels.
To heat that boiler, the damp, crumbly brown coal known as lignite—which is even more polluting than the harder black anthracite variety—burns in the presence of pure oxygen, releasing as waste both water vapor and that more notorious greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2). By condensing the water in a simple pipe, Vattenfall, the Swedish utility that owns the power plant, captures and isolates nearly 95 percent of the CO2 in a 99.7 percent pure form.
See what we're tweeting about
30 Comments
Add CommentWhile I am happy to know that the CO2 is being cleaned up; I wonder if there is anyone else out there who realizes that 9t CO2/hr is equivalent to 2.45t of carbon from the fossil hydrocarbon combined with 6.54t of Oxygen taken from our atmosphere! Lets convert it back into hydrocarbons and reuse it; OR find a way of returning the O2 to our atmosphere where the concentration is fairly critical to the ability of all living things on the planet to get sufficient for the purposes of Respiration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI listened in a lecture that even the mankind reduces the CO2 emissions to the level of 1990´s the final concentration of CO2 in atmosphere would be around 1000 ppm when equilibrium were reached.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan anyone imagine what will happen in this situation. We are experiencing many climatic changes with much less than 500 ppm.
So I strongly suggest you that we all have to mittigate much more CO2 than governments and companys are planning to do... and plant much more trees. Unless it happens we are sent ourselves (the mankind) toward the grove which is definitely very non sense.
As I sit here enjoying the present interglacial warming period, I give thanks for a warm climate. If I had been sitting here during a glacial period, I would be writing this from underneath about a mile of solid ice. When jgrpoco writes that we are "experiencing many climatic changes", I wonder what he / she is referencing. Is it our recovery from the Little Ice Age which brought so much misery to the human race and only recently ended in the mid to late 1800's? If so, I agree that we really have experienced some climatic change. Surely he / she is not blaming every cyclone or drought or heat wave on a few extra ppm of CO2 in the air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven a choice between a few degrees warmer or a few degrees cooler climate - I'll take the warmer option.
We need to create a CO2 cycle, not just throwing it underground and hope that it doesnt escape. No matter what precautions are taken, someone will dig into one of these "CO2 wells" and cause a leak.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 is part of life, and we have to look at ways of reduction, and using it, in order to create a solution that wont bite us in the end.
I believe I downloaded that same or similar lecture a while ago. It was very informative. Here is the one I watched: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4895291/TVO_-_Big_Ideas__May_9__2009__Gwynne_Dyer_on_global_warming_and
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is important to understand how we add CO2 that has been sequestered to the environment and that "fixes" such as selling recovered CO2 to beverage companies would simply be delaying the release of it, not eliminating it!
How would you feel about writing under several feet of water from rising ocean levels? A few degrees warmer globally is devastating, not balmy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Of course we are in a interglacial period, but why to accelerate the next one. Some scientists believe that the trigger for the next glacial period will be the north pole melting that will introduce many sweet water in ocean and can stop the flux of heat from equator to poles causing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2) Of course if you live in a cold place maybe you will prefere a warmer, but I live in a warmer place than you. Our forefathers have choiced the place were we born. So what?
3) I haven�t had the chance to go to north hemisphere yet, but with the transformation of the wind in equator in a permanent storm, who will take the changes to fly to there. Planes are experiencing much turbulence there and a fly of Air France have fall in the ocean recently (May 31th) probably because its inadequacy to fly through the storm wall.
4) Forget about this scrapp. Be happy while you can!
Doc:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly one problem with your assertion; sea levels are not rising.
While you're at it explain to me why we should accept computer models that show global warming when a recent model that assumed no warming was 24X more accurate in modeling the real world data than the IPCC models.
No offense, but the sucking sound you here is the IPCC models going down the drain.
1) Of course we are in a interglacial period, but why to accelerate the next one. Some scientists believe that the trigger for the next glacial period will be the north pole melting that will introduce many sweet water in ocean and can stop the flux of heat from equator to poles causing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2) Of course if you live in a cold place maybe you will prefere a warmer, but I live in a warmer place than you. Our forefathers have choiced the place were we born. So what?
3) I haven´t had the chance to go to north hemisphere yet, but with the transformation of the wind in equator in a permanent storm, who will take the changes to fly to there. Planes are experiencing much turbulence there and a fly of Air France have fall in the ocean recently (May 31th) probably because its inadequacy to fly through the storm wall.
4) Forget about this scrapp. Be happy while you can!
Folks this version is improved in english
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Of course we are in a interglacial period, but why to precipitate the next one. Some scientists believe that the trigger for the next glacial period will be the north pole melting that will introduce many sweet water in ocean and could stop the flux of heat from equator to poles causing that.
2) Of course if you live in a cold place maybe you will prefere a warmer, but I live in a warmer place than you. Our forefathers have choiced the place were we born. So what? Mankind have to adapt to individual choices or vice-versa?
3) I haven´t had the chance to go to north hemisphere yet, but with the transformation of the wind in equator in a permanent storm, sincerelly I am in doubt about taking my chances to fly to there. Planes are experiencing much turbulence there and recently (May, 31th) a fly of Air France have disappeared in the ocean probably because its inadequacy to fly through the wall of storm.
4) Forget about this scrapp. Be happy while you can!
Doc - I happen to live about 600 feet above sea level, so I (along with the majority of the world's population) would not be greatly affected by a sea level change of a few feet. We are a very mobile society and changes in sea level occurring over a long period of time will not cause catostrophic disruption. Certainly it will be less costly to adapt than to heap cost on everyone for carbon capture, cap and trade, uneconomical solar and wind energy etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world has evolved continuously over time and life has adapted. Life goes on.
Not that I think anything drastic will come about as a result of a few hundred more ppm of CO2, but if it did .....
jgrpoco,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with point 4, which is pretty much my point. Most of this speculation about global warming possibly leading to global cooling is simply that - speculation. Much more is unkown than is known and you can't model the knowns when you are totally unaware of the unkowns. So just don't worry, just be happy.
Shoshin: My point was more to the rise in CO2 levels...I'm not ready to throw out my hip waders yet. The ice caps are melting, denying global warming is putting your head in the sand, and Nasa has measured an increase in sea levels over the past decade that is great than recent decades. Ice melts and becomes water....where is it going?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoc;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo your homework. While there is a minimal amount of sea level rise it is far, far less than what was naturally occurring in the recent past and bears not even the slightest resemblance to what AL Gore et. al are touting.
There have been no predictions made by AGW Believers that have panned out. Every time they said a hot spot should show up or the heat content of the planet should be increasing, or something measurable, testable or verifiable, AGW has struck out. Not even on base, just three and out.
The "theory" of AGW belongs in the garbage and would long ago have gone there but the movement has spawned the Climate Industrial Complex and now trillions of $$$ are at stake.
Funny how when people have a vested interest in some idea, no matter how unscientific, proven wrong and outrageously silly it is, it stays around far longer than it should. But, AGW is paying a lot of scientists mortgages right now and creating or saving lots of jobs.
If nuclear is so expensive, �en why is electricity in France so cheap?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf nuclear is so expensive, �en why is electricity in France so cheap?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf nuclear is so expensive, �en why is electricity in France so cheap?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There have been no predictions made by AGW Believers that have panned out."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about stratospheric cooling or polar amplification, or tropical expansion or the exact prediction of cooling caused by the eruption of Mt Pinatubo?
Do you really understand the science of AGW or you just parrot pre-digested talking points?
"why is electricity in France so cheap?"
Because nukes are owned by a state company and the cost of electricity is subsidized.
It does not matter if you believe in climate change caused by humanity or not. What I believe everyone can agree on is; we need high paying jobs and we need to stop paying big bucks for energy. Now is the time to exploit space power and resources. Sunlight is available in high Earth orbit 24/7, 365 days a year. We have had the technology since the late 60’s to transmit via microwave all the energy we could ever use, to Earth, from orbit. The material for constructing the space end of the system is available on the near Earth asteroids and the Moon. We the people need the government to fund the project just as the government funded World War II. Our survival as a people with liberty was threatened by mad men with weapons during WWII. Today our survival is threatened by mad men with oil. If we as a people shrink from the task at hand we will lose our liberty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the best way to solve the problem is to return CO2 to O2, which is a way of nature, just like trees. Capture and storage of CO2 is not a good method in long term, after all. Maybe it is useful in 50 years, 100 years, even 1000 years, but even 10000 years are not enough for human beings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo if they can scrub most CO2 simply from prototype power stations, well done. But what about all the old plant? It will take decades at least to equip them with scrubbers, let alone build the pipe-lines to get to storage sites. And what about the cost?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut the real problem that remains is ressource depletion : What use will CCS be when all the coal, oil and gas is gone? (and it will only be in a few generations time...)
So take a look at www.eprida.com This site will show you how Biomass pyrolysis resolves these problems. But investment in the technology has been desperately sparse... and time is running out.
Eco-Steve, the article mentioned work being done in Australia and China on technology that can be used to retro-fit existing plants for CCS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for resource depleation, I guess the point is that CSS will allow the existing resources to be exploitable while minimising the damage.
Obviously at some point we will need to switch to 100% renewable energy, its just a matter of when. At this stage renewables can and should be a growing portion of supply, but the technology will take decades to mature to 100%, in that time something needs to be done about minimising the pollution from coal, gas and nuclear.
The only real argument should be how to divide research resources among the different technologies we will need to evolve our society into one that is sustainable for the long term (200yrs+ into the future).
I assume the spaces between the sandstone grains where CO2 is to be stored are permeated by water, which is displaced by the CO2. If this can be considered a continuous depth of water for more than 1000 meters below sea level, the pressure means the CO2 is liquid and more dense than the water and will stay at the bottom of such a body of water. So it seems there is little chance of it escaping, unless the area becomes a volcanic hot spot. But I'm wondering about bicarbonate ions formed by the combination of water and CO2, that tend to dissolve carbonate rock, and their relative density. I'm guessing they'll take a very long time to migrate to the surface.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's of little value that some CO2 is sold for soft drinks and fire extinguishers, since it soon all ends up in the atmosphere. $.04/ KW-H seems like a small price to pay for sequestering every possible bit of CO2 produced by major sources.
None of the efforts to sequester or reduce carbon, even if they are effective, will have much change on the climate. The CO2 reduction goal will lower temperature 0.6 degrees C. No one will notice. What you will notice is the $1.6 trillion price tag. Ladies and gentlemen, this is nothing but a new tax, not any kind of an environmental bill.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDaniel35 - $0.04/kwh is about what it costs to produce electrical power (with efficient sources of energy like coal). So what you are talking about is a doubling of the cost to produce - not a small price to pay.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisoujun - if you could return the CO2 to it's components (oxygen and carbon) you would be reversing the chemical reaction that produced the useful energy in the first place, and theoretically using that same amount of energy to return them to their original state. Not a very practical idea.
Code 2501 : Yes, CCS will reduce damage, but I have read that the price tag will add 25% to energy bills. Did you look at the biomass pyrolysis site? This technology not only clears unwanted CO2 out of the air, but can also convert it to hydrocarbons in a closed economical loop. This would be a great complement to other renewables, but like them could still develop faster with a little more investment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo noe seems to address the destruction of the environment from the way coal is now extracted, i.e., leveling what was once one of God's most beautiful areas of the countryside and the additional slap in the face to the workers (they are no longer needed for mining) What about the mercury in the coal ? will the mercury be removed and sequestered safely?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you sequester CO2 the oxygen gets buried along with the carbon, instead of being return to the atmosphere by means of the plant cycle. What are we going to breath later?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr feed CO2 to plant life and have them make Oxygen. Oh wait...... that's what's happening now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"A recent model that assumed no warming was 24X more accurate in modeling the real world data than the IPCC models."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModels are so much easier to write when the result is right there in the assumptions. Or did it assume that there is no such thing as radiative forcing? Again, models are easier if they don't have to obey the laws of physics.