Subscription Center
Mar 6, 2009 06:22 PM | 35
Does the world really need the ability to trap carbon dioxide before it invisibly billows from power plant smokestacks or out car tailpipes and bury it permanently to slow global warming? You bet, argued some environmentalists, academics and corporate executives at a carbon capture and storage (CCS) conference held at Bloomberg headquarters yesterday in New York. Among the reasons: China (the world's leading emitter of carbon dioxide) will need it, the technology already exists and if we don't get a handle on ever-rising greenhouse gas emissions, climate change will reach catastrophic proportions.
"The reason that we believe CCS is a critically important part of the toolbox is there's a huge gap between what can technically do and what we are doing, and part of that is politics," said David Hawkins, director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). He said that 30 states either mine coal or burn it for the majority of their electricity and therefore support technology that would allow that to continue even as the nation reduces CO2 emissions.
Yet, at the same time and in the same city, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups were protesting the New York Coal Trade Association's annual conference, proclaiming that "Coal kills" by, for example, emitting the heavy metal mercury, a neurotoxin, when it is burned. CCS is, in large part, a lifeline for burning coal in a world trying to avoid the CO2 emissions such coal burning produces in copious quantities. The good news is that the technology—and technical know-how—to do something about the roughly 40 percent of manmade CO2 emissions that come from burning coal already exists. Whether it's adding chemical scrubbers to existing coal plants or building entirely new ones that gasify the coal before burning it (allowing the CO2 to be separated out), industrial plants using the same technology have already been built.
There are at least four projects underway worldwide that are storing CO2 deep underground today. Norway with two is leading the charge, thanks to a carbon tax that works out to about $50 per metric ton of CO2. Both projects separate CO2 from natural gas (before said gas is sold into the world market) and pump the CO2 back underground to get more gas out as well as permanently store the ubiquitous greenhouse gas. With 30-plus years of data collected, these projects and others demonstrate that CO2 is safely stored in the earth without significant leaks.
"Once down there, it can't all come out because of physics and it's quite reliable," Susan Hovorka, a geologist at the University of Texas, who has run her own CCS experiments, said at the conference.
All four projects combined, however, only add up to roughly .006 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions—and the U.S. now pumps out less CO2 than China, though individually, or per capita, Americans are among the world leaders in emitting the greenhouse gas. Plus, neither of the Norwegian projects nor the ones in North Dakota and Algeria are tied to an actual coal-burning power plant.
At present, there are two such power plants in the world—one in China that is under construction and a small one in Germany that separates out the CO2 to store it in an abandoned natural gas field. Adding such CCS technology to coal plants tacks on roughly $65 per metric ton of CO2 to the cost of electricity, according to Howard Herzog, a research engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), who also noted that it will take at least seven years until a commercial scale CCS power plant could even be built in the U.S., because of legal issues, permitting and the length of construction.
That said, there is urgency to the task, according Gardiner Hill, head of environmental technology at oil giant BP, which is participating in the CCS project in Algeria. "For every five years of inaction, it requires an extra gigaton of reductions," he said. And that urgency—plus U.S. and global political realities—are pushing even environmentalists to back CCS for coal.
"There are many challenges associated with coal," including mercury pollution, residual toxic coal ash, water consumption, mining practices and worker safety, admitted Mark Brownstein, managing director of business partnerships in the climate and air program at Environmental Defense Fund. But "we have to deal with coal in order to achieve the kind of reductions we need to make in the timeframe we need to make them."
Photo of decommissioned Athlone Power Station, Cape Town, South Africa, by DanieVDM via Flickr
Tags:
carbon capture,
carbon capture and storage,
coal,
energy
More News Blog:
Next: Obama to lift restrictions on embryonic stem cell research
Previous: Do optimists live longer?
See what we're tweeting about
docfreeride @DrBondar @tvjrennie Is it wrong that I want to make my offspring WATCH us party to increase their epic embarrassment?
DrBondar Yep. in EST it's officially my birthday. 26 feels so OLD!!!! DrBondar . @tvjrennie @docfreeride love you both. seriously. when can we party again?! offspring be damned!!!!
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
35 Comments
Add CommentBuild carbon capture in China, but eliminate all carbon pollution in the United States by going all green with other sources of energy that does not include oil and coal. If you are going to pump all that money into cleaning up the environment, why not do it right the first time and prevent any future pollution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about plants?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven that there is no scientific proof that CO2 is causing climate change, which is a natural and ever-present process, and given that man-made CO2 is less than 3% of total global CO2 production (from NASA), and given that the world has been cooling for the last eight or nine years - not predicted by any of the scare-mongering global warming models, which are thereby invalidated - there is no need for CCS. If too much CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, plant growth will slow and food production will fall, driving more and more people into starvation. CO2 is not pollution, it is a part of the cycle of life, and has rarely been at as low a level in the atmosphere as it is currently. The major driver of climate change on earth is the Sun, and if there are no sunspots soon, it's going to get rather cool over the next few years! Introduce CCS, which will do nothing for the climate, and some people will become very rich, while the poor will get ever poorer. That's often how revolutions get started.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is clear that you haven't read the research. There is scientific proof that CO2 has increased in the atmosphere. To hypothesize that if we capture CO2 we would be in danger of slowing plant growth shows your lack of knowledge in the area. The rest of your argument has been similarly dismissed in the scientific literature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarbon capture and sequestration is impractical. respectfully, Albert
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas everyone forgotten what CO2 is? It is ONE part carbon and TWO parts OXYGEN. To permanently sequester CO2 is to remove, twice as much O2, from the biosphere permanently. While 20% to 21% oxygen seems like a large amount, less than 19.5% oxygen results in unconsciousness. A small reduction in O2 will render high altitude locations (like Andes, Himalayan, Swiss) uninhabitable. Plants recycle "used" oxygen ( CO2 ), by breaking off the carbon, and releasing the oxygen. Both carbon and oxygen are the "life essentials". Any tinkering, with these life essentials, is rife with unintended consequences and extremely dangerous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 has been extremely high in the past 2 billion years, and life thrived, as it should. Anyone who considers CO2 a pollutant, should keep in mind that we administer 6000 ppm CO2, to preemie babies, to prevent sudden death syndrome. People with sleep apnea are given 10,000 ppm CO2 to prevent breathing lapses. These numbers are a long ways from our current 385 ppm levels.
Since the last decade of global temperatures, have flattened and actually decreased, despite increasing CO2... do we really want to start sequestering oxygen and carbon? I suggest we keep our hands in our pockets, a little while longer.
The process of carbon capture also consumes energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this method to decline CO2 emission is inefficient. So it is unavailable unless there is a method with very low cost.
Time to hit 'refresh' on your science updates Peter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFour carbon capture schemes are virtually insignificant compared to total emissions. It is very likely that we will never be able to scrub all CO2 emitteurs. The only viable alternative is biochar technology, that is, to allow biomass to soak up the excess CO2, harvest it and convert it into charcoal to bury and restore soils. Only a massive world-wide biochar effort can save us from irreversible Climate Change. See : WWW.EPRIDA.COM
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUh. Karst, I believe you mean we give O2 to babies and people with sleep apnea. They are on oxygen, not carbon dioxide. Yes CO2 has two atoms of oxygen, but the presence of the carbon changes the chemical and molecular characteristics. Our bodies can't use carbon dioxide, that's why we exhale it. Look it up and check the facts. No one has a carbon dioxide mask.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can see two possible benefits to developing the technology for carbon capture and sequestration, then NOT using it for that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. To sequester the carbon gas, you have to verify which underground formations will securely hold the gas. Those formations would probably work just as well for another sustainable energy venture, Compress Air Energy Storage. All the work done during the previous US administration on the on-line Carbon Sequestration Atlas (http://www.natcarb.org/, and http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/atlasII/ ) can give "dual use technology" a good name.
2. If we can develop carbon-capture techniques that are affordable, perhaps we can start thinking of better things to do with it than stick it underground. With the research that's happening with carbon fibers, nanotubes, etc, can we come up with pathways that affordably turn this carbon into raw materials? Wouldn't long-lived capital goods qualify as a form of sequestration?
Biochar.info is another site explaining the attributes of biochar. Organic matter is 58% carbon according to SciAm July 08. It's easy to store dried plants away from moisture so microbes wont break them down. That may be the most low cost and easy carbon storage method. Even if they only last 100 years it gives us plenty of time to come up with a better solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo Mdrutl, I did not mean oxygen. Check your facts. Oxygen is not given to stimulate the breathing reflex. The breathing reflex is stimulated by CO2 levels, not by oxygen levels ( in fact, giving O2 to such persons, would make it worse). Oxygen is given to patients who have inefficient breathing. Google breathing reflex and you will find plenty of references. How often this treatment is used, I cannot say (I am not that interested, to do further research), as it was only a point of argument. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChemistry people! Chemistry! The atmosphere has been comprised of only 0.03% CO2 (300ppm) since ancient times and has only changed 0.006% in the last 2 centuries. Such tiny concentrations in ANY greenhouse gas cannot influence global climate. Global warming has been occuring for 12000 years - the ice-caps that covered Canada have melted creating the Great Lakes. It's still happening, but there's NO evidence that CO2 has anything to do with it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChemistry people! Chemistry! The atmosphere has been comprised of only 0.03% CO2 (300ppm) since ancient times and has only changed 0.006% in the last 2 centuries. Such tiny concentrations in ANY greenhouse gas cannot influence global climate. Global warming has been occuring for 12000 years - the ice-caps that covered Canada have melted creating the Great Lakes. It's still happening, but there's NO evidence that CO2 has anything to do with it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't believe those people wish to hear the inconvenuent facts. Yelling techno-babble is more fun then doing the research of facts. People who believe in the AGW religion can not persuaded by facts, they have faith that they are the only ones that can see the truth, and theirs is the one true way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarbon capture and storage will only double the cost of electricity, carbon credits and cap& trade will only double the price of all energy. Drastic cutting the standard of living of everyone is a small price to pay for peace of mind for eco's. I am surprised they aren't out sacrificing virgins to Gia to save the world from runaway global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 capture is being promoted by parties who will gain financially in the short term by either the research grants or the delay in phasing out CO2 sources. The main scientific proponents such as Sally Benson (LBNL) and Susan Hovorka (UT) are building research empires from grant money. They are not impartial researchers. President Obama must gather a group of independent scientist to review carbon capture. I think any independent review will quickly realize that the likelyhood of carbon capture being useful is zero, a total waste of time and money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt should be illegal to complain non-stop unless that person has some time of answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust my 2 pennies
carbon capture information website: http://www.captureready.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscarbon capture and capture ready are very nessesary, see www.capturerready.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat article, it inspired me to write a blog actually digging into the numbers behind CCS and comparing it to another method of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. From what I found, it looks like CCS might not be the best solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://blog.mapawatt.com/2009/03/13/carbon-capture-and-storage/
It is very unlikely that standard CCS will ever be able to be applied to all the world's generators and other emitters in anything like the time required to reduce Climate Change. It is time to consider biochar technology which allows CO2 emissions, but recuperates them by pyrolysing biomass. This can be done efficiently by millions of forest workers pollarding trees for wood. See www.EPRIDA.com for full technical and financial details.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEntropy (not Energy) is the Issue
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to the Conservation of Energy Principle (The First Law of Thermodynamics), we can neither create nor destroy energy. This means we will always have as much energy as we ever had. So, how can we experience an energy crisis?
Our crisis develops from another law of energy: The Entropy Law. It states that energy use always results in some overall loss of availability, quality, or order. Physics characterizes such loss as an increase of entropy. This is where informed energy discussions begin.
The inevitable increase of entropy seems to have a slightly different character for each system under consideration. For example, heat always flows from the hotter to the colder body, never the reverse. Perfume molecules escape their container and spread throughout the room, but never gather back into the bottle of their own accord.
While heat is flowing, or perfume molecules are spreading, they can do work—are useful. Even after heat flows down its temperature hill, or the molecules spread out in a room, overall energy remains constant, but that energy is now unavailable for use--no good for doing work.
Entropy applies thermally, structurally, and environmentally. Just as a weight cannot supply any mechanical work once it reaches its lowest available level, thermal energy is not available for use after it falls to an ambient temperature. It simply becomes ‘waste’ heat, like car exhaust. Entropic disorder is commonly termed pollution.
There are various mathematical expressions for Entropy, such as S = k ln W (where k is a constant and W is the microstates per macrostate). Due to its broad, complex, and abstract formulations, some have rejected the Entropy Law—even deemed it an illegitimate natural principle because too ‘anthropomorphic’ (as if scientific laws had any other origin). Einstein, however, thought the Entropy Law was the one law that would never be overthrown.
Some have said that life transcends the Entropy Law, but no contradiction exists since the overall Entropy increase (system plus surroundings) still exceeds the entropy decrease of a structuring organism.
By extension of the Entropy Law, matter also becomes unavailable for use. High entropy copper junk (because dispersed in refuse dumps) can be too costly to recycle, both monetarily and environmentally, thus practically unavailable. Entropy’s economic decrements are developing beyond the control of today’s price mechanisms.
From an entropy perspective, economic growth is the progressive transformation of usable energy into unavailable energy. This means an overall decline in our environment—except that the sun’s outside gift of energy may compensate for this decline by driving the earth’s large-scale regenerative cycles (carbon, oxygen, etc). The sun’s finite input, however, can only compensate if economic activity’s entropy production is not too large.
All large-scale technical fixes such as ‘clean’ coal, nuclear, or corn-ethanol create quality (entropy) issues. Energy from coal results in acid rain, global warming, methyl mercury in food chains, and toxic, congesting particles in the air we breathe. Nuclear plants create radioactive waste in direct proportion to the energy produced—some of which (Plutonium 40) requires environmental isolation for hundreds of thousands of years. Nuclear decommissioning costs billions. Corn-ethanol production emits two to nine times the greenhouse gas emissions ‘saved’ by substituting it for gasoline.
Because of the high environmental costs we pay for creating high-quality (low entropy) energies such as electricity or hydrogen fuel, we should use them only where their quality is truly necessary. Coal-electric space heating and plug-in cars remain prohibitive.
The Entropy Law sets limits to the types of energy use humans can sustain. Since all earth-energized technological orderings result in an overall loss of order (even for pollution control devices and recycling), entropy compensating sources of energy must be external. Practically, this means the sun. Non-solar energy solutions become ‘uneconomic’ (if not snake oil) once price mechanisms factor in their entropy effects.
We can choose to assess and respect the Entropy Law’s implications, or we can continue to make energy policy in ignorance. A mix increasingly weighted toward low entropy solar applications is finally unavoidable. Reversible entropy is not merely a tree-hugger’s fancy; it is an ecological necessity.
For many energy applications, we have yet to determine the form, let alone the cost, of their attendant entropy (disordering). In the very big picture, however, specific calculations (the details) don’t matter. According to the entropy law, we either go (relatively direct) solar or decline.
A mathematical interpretation follows: The Entropy Law (Second Law of Thermodynamics) when applied to an overall system undergoing an irreversible (practical) energy exchange and consisting of a subsystem of interest in equilibrium with its surroundings is expressed mathematically as
dS(overall) = dS(subsystem) + dS(surroundings) > 0
where dS is the attendant change in entropy.
The surroundings are taken large enough to form an unlimited reservoir. Thus, equilibrium is maintained with the system of interest. The above mathematical inequality states that the overall, proximate change in entropy (subsystem plus surroundings taken together) for any practical energy exchange is always positive. In other words, all earth-alone energy exchanges result in a net disorder.
Should external (solar) energy enter the overall system, the mathematical inequality may no longer hold. The net entropy can be zero or even negative. In other words, inputs of solar energy can compensate the otherwise inevitable entropy increases of our energy exchanges.
Here are a few examples of how an entropy-oriented analysis might expeditiously cull out technological proposals.
Aren’t hydrogen-fueled cars ‘ecological’ since they emit only pure water? An entropy analysis cuts immediately to whether a solar component is involved. If no solar component exists to negate the entropy that attends hydrogen production, storage, and handling, the overall effect is ecological degradation. Note the economy of approach here. An entropy analysis doesn’t need to show precisely how the degradation manifests to declare it unecological.
‘Clean’ coal combustion is similarly dismissible. If coal’s CO2 (greenhouse) by-product could be dumped (‘sequestered’) without ecological consequences, the entropy law would be violated thereby making the whole science of thermodynamics incomprehensible.
Isn’t nature’s geothermal energy, if unused, simply wasted? This question is superficial because it deals only with energy. The relevant question is: Does geothermal have entropy negation (a solar component)? If not, it is unecological. From an entropy perspective, we don’t need to employ a team of engineers to investigate whether geothermal’s accelerated cooling of magma releases ‘too much’ CO2 to sequester. CO2 waste dumps aren’t ecological. If an energy project is purely earth-derived (no solar negation), it provides no ecological solution.
Of course, minor solar entropy compensations soon wash out among infrastructure, transportation, and other supporting technologies. This means our solar applications must be relatively direct (wind, solar panels/concentrators, possibly hydro, etc.).
Some may still cling to the idea of ‘affordable decline’. But keep in mind, most entropy effects ultimately manifest as waste heat. Here, we are up against our ecological limits. Global warming makes this abundantly clear. We can no longer settle for lesser evils.
Summing up, our only practical means of negating technology’s inevitable entropy (eco-degradation) is solar incorporation. No solar, no sustainability, no ecological solution. Go solar or decline!
CO2 is NOT the only greenhouse gas: nitrogen oxides, NOX, are considered MUCH more hazardous, for example. See my Summary of flue gas composition ranges for power plants fueled by gas, oil and coal at www.scribd.com/doc/16097260/Flue-Gas-Greenhouse-Gases-EOR
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only thing that has ever or will ever cause global warming is the sun. The FACT that the entire solar system cools and heats up in the same proportions the earth does is proof that global warming is a made up fear tactic to levy fines and taxes to perpetuate more governmental control over everyone. The other FACT is that carbon will not be reduced by the use of carbon credits, they are a financial item made up by the banks in order to control a new market that will extend their reach into our pockets. Buying and selling carbon credits and levying fines will do nothing to lower carbon emmissions, they will only cause the rise in prices because the laws regulating them provide their reduction over time. This will reduce the amount of carbon credits available for purchase, driving up their price and in turn the price of the goods or services the company buying them sells. Example-electricity we use every day. Almost every manufacturer will be required to purchase credits or be fined. Both result in the benefit to government and one to the banks and government. Wake up folks and see the big picture. Humans are a speck on the landscape and make no significant CO2 changes by our presence here. If we do however begin taxing and fining for the CO2 we produce, where does it end? Will dairy farmers and cattle ranchers and other farms of animal food products be made to buy credits or pay production fees? Will they need to invest in R&D to develop something for the animals? Will pet owners and people eventually be forced into compliance? Of course through fines and fees charged by government. This ridiculous unproven science that is rife with questions and unethical manipulations of the data in order to force this junk science along is just disgusting. To know that there are people out there who call themselves scientist when in fact they are no more than paid schills, thinking only of their own gain and self satisfaction and zero regard to humanity. Remember that saving humanity is the entire reason for this fear mongering. Trying to reduce CO2 is the most in crap science ever concocted. How can anyone fall for this garbage. CO2 has always been one of the most present gases in the atmosphere, for good reason too. Plants require it to survive. Wonder how all that oil was made we pump out of the ground? Plants that needed CO2 to survive and thrive. Give me the CO2 please and keep your government and its fees, fines, taxes, regulation, etc. etc. etc.Wake up and find the common sense and lose the bad science of misleading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNov issue "Burying Climate Change" by David Beillo. In the late 1990's I met with the "Clean Coal" group of DOE in Morgantown. They said my patent #6,117,672 did not qualify for a R&D grant because if combinided only proven available technologies. You should look at the patent and then evaluate that lower cost aprroach to the one you wrote about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLeon Breckenridge
Spokne Washinton
Which "think-tank" employs you Peter?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlan Kellogg writes "What about plants?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are one of the major kingdoms along with the animal kingdom.
They take sunlight and bind carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons, releasing oxygen.
They are often green.
We decorate our homes and nearby areas with their sexual organs.
We eat some plants. A few plants eat small members of the animal kingdom. Animals need plants and plants need animals.
That's just a few trivia bits about plants.
JamesDavis says: "Build carbon capture in China, but eliminate all carbon pollution in the United States by going all green with other sources of energy that does not include oil and coal."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds good. When are you going to start?
Here's the energy budget: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/renewable_energy.cfm
It also answers many questions that are being asked right here.
Eco-steve: There is no such thing as irreversible climate change. It is an oscillation. Change is inescapable. The last thing we need is yet another call for a massive world-wide "_" program (fill in your favorite environmental program).
mdrutl at 07:46 PM on 03/09/09 wrote: "Uh. Karst, I believe you mean we give O2 to babies and people with sleep apnea. They are on oxygen, not carbon dioxide. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. He ought to have cited a source, such as this one:
http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/150/2/561
Breathing is stimulated by the presence of carbon dioxide. Adding carbon dioxide will stimulate breathing which is undoubtedly a desirable side effect of "rescue breathing" (mouth to mouth resuscitation).
"Look it up and check the facts. No one has a carbon dioxide mask."
Excellent advice ;-)
Every living thing on Earth is built of carbon extracted from the air. Diatoms, corals, etc. have been too efficient making limestone and chalk, and have caused the current long term CO2 famine. We need to maximize CO2 output, I suppose, tho' there is no way we can actually influence the net balance much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarbon credit futures have recently fallen to 10¢/ton on the CCX; money walks! :D Perhaps if their value goes negative it will get the truth across?? :) ;)
Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air increase plant growth and also causes them to require less water. Burying this beneficial compound is stupid and reckless. It is the key for greater food production.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismy thoughts on sequestering a deadly gas....lake nyos in cameroon...21 august 1986...how do you prevent an earth quake/tremor from releasing it and killing...thousands/millions....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear energy is not sustainable : in 30 to 50 years time their will be no uranium ores left, only radioactive wastes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBiomass pyrolysis produces useful hydrogen and biochar, and has been tested over ten years and is now developped commercially. Furthermore, crude oil pyrolysis generates large quantities of hydrogen too, and leaves a residue of carbon, which can be stored in land-fill sites. Even methane can be decarbonised before burning it.
We have the technology to convert our carbon based society into a hydrogen one, simply and economically.