 | Can New York Replicate Water Success with Energy | The Oil Drum: Local | Wanted: Visionary Leader for NYC DOT |  |
82 comments on The State of the (Energy) Union (and a SOTU open thread)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
PONYC Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
CO2 sequestration is an imaginary technology.
Even if you capture the CO2 effectively, there is currently no known reliable way of storing it for geophysical time, which is the requirement.
Not only that, any potential solution would depend intimately on local geology which may not
be compatible where the coal plants otherwise need to be.
Unfortunately, I see this as a total loser.
The mentions of 'sequestration' are a greenwashing of black coal, sort of like the "hydrogen car of the future" is a distraction to preclude having to increase efficiency standards now.
Let's compare this to a nuclear fission. If you write a cheque you will get a working plant with technology well-evolved through many decades, and you know that its operation will result in almost no greenhouse emissions versus coal.
The waste instead of being gaseous is small in volume and compact solid, and easily monitored.
And in future actinide-burning reactors that waste may be fuel of its own and be transmuted to a much lower half-life.
Mineral carbonation works forever.
I doubt fossil + CO2 capture will be price competitive with nuclear power though.
If it comes out slowly over a few thousand years it will be enough. Once we finsh burning the carbon in the coal and oil, makind's CO2 emmision will plumet.
1. you can certainly ship CO2 by pipeline over hundreds of miles it is already done. And you can move it by tanker.
2. you can certainly put CO2 back underground -- Weyburn in Saskatoon does so, as does Sleipnir in Norway (under the North Sea)
3. 'geologic' sequestration really means post 2200. After 2200, we don't have any more fossil fuels to burn (in significant quantities)-- just some biomass
4. building power plants at the mouths of coal plants, and moving the power very long distances is something we already do. Happens all the time in the UK. And we don't even us DC transmission to do it, which we could do.
So the questions of where to generate the power are not insuperable.
5. a bigger problem is safety, and more specifically, local concerns about safety. That disaster in Cameroon looms large.
Oddly, 5 is exactly the issue of the nuclear industry (fear of long term geologic waste).
My problem with nuclear is that, as a technology, it has never met its cost forecasts. Not by a country mile: 300-400% more expensive than forecast. Nor is its safety record entirely clean. It is a complex technology, and all the moving parts have to work, potentially for centuries, to keep it safe.
A lot of people have looked at CSS in great detail. There is real potential there, and the costs are not out of line with electricity provided by wind or nuclear (roughly a range of 5-10 cents/ kwhr for all of these technologies). And since coal is the cheapest energy we have, we are going to keep using coal.
There's no way, for example, that China could replace all its electricity demand with nuclear. So the challenge is to clean up the fuel it is using, coal.