Comments on: Carbon Capture and Storage – Solution or Fantasy?

By: Energy Tough Love Blog » CCS Carbon Capture And Storage - Treating the sysmptoms not the disease

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:58:13 +0000

[...] http://blog.mapawatt.com/2009/03/13/carbon-capture-and-storage/ [...]

By: Ed Browning

Ed Browning — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:57:39 +0000

Did you understand that the system the ASES proposed was not to plant trees? They know that adding charcoal, made by solar heating farm waste, into the soil of the tropics captures carbon which would otherwise be released as CO2 and at the same time allows poor farmers to produce more with less fertilizer. I was not advocating planting trees in the tropics as much as I was for adding the charcoal to the soil to maintain its nutrient level in that harsh climate which washes the nutrients out. In my view this helps the poor farmers of the third world and is a viable option for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

By: Powell

Powell — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:52:09 +0000

Methanol is a wonderful energy carrier and an efficient way to store power generated from sources of clean energy. Take a look at Nobel laureate chemist, George Olah’s book, Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy. There’s a good summary here: http://notpetroleum.com/?p=61.

By: Randy

Randy — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 10:27:43 +0000

The wind farm is used as an example. Although the numbers may be estimates, I certainly agree and support the concept that CCS does not produce any power, and is thus counter-productive. Any form of clean energy production is better than CCS. I love the hybrid concept, as it can produce a predictable amount of energy as needed. When available, wind and solar are beautiful. However, we either need efficient storage systems or supplemental energy sources to meet demand. There are many individuals who provide all their home power needs with wind, solar, and battery technology (usually in very remote locations). If we could manage that for everyone, we could save the enormous transmission line losses and dramatically reduce the communal grid demand.

In order for us to switch from fossil fuels, the relative costs of fossil fuels has to be high (painfully high). Either their costs go up, or the costs of alternatives go down. Government policy would be better suited leading the way towards less expensive alternatives (grants, tax-incentives, funded research, etc), rather that raising taxes on oil companies or pushing CCS.

By: admin

admin — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 23:04:47 +0000

Mike,
Is CCS not reliant on government bailouts?

The 27% capacity factor was the value given by the Energy Information Administration.

Again, I am not proposing that a wind farm replace the IGCC plant! I am proposing that the wind farm replace a hypothetical old, inefficient coal plant.

To counter your argument against not producing power when demand is high, I would say CCS not only DOES NOT produce any power, it detracts from the IGCC plant!

I’m only suggesting a Wind Farm as a REPLACEMENT of the CCS, not a replacement for the IGCC. If you dont like wind, you can supplement a biomass plant, solar plant, or geothermal plant. Any renewable energy that does actual work and reduces CO2 emissions.

By: Mike Keller

Mike Keller — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:15:55 +0000

Dear admin. A capacity factor of 27% (which is charitable for wind) is exceptionally poor for a power plant (with the exception of peaker plants that provide power when the electrical demand is high).

Comparing something that works when needed with something that may or may not be available when needed is not a proper analysis.

Wind is simply not available when the demand is high, as borne out by wind production in Texas, where the wind resource is at it’s highest when electrical demand is at it’s lowest — late at night.

Wind can displace some of the power provided by some coal plants in limited locations and at limited times. However, expecting wind to replace coal power plants is terribly unrealistic.

Absent government bailouts, investments in wind power are financial disasters — as history easily demonstrates — and only burden the consumer with much higher costs.

By: admin

admin — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:32:28 +0000

Ed,
I’m not against Carbon Capture if it can be proven that the money spent on Carbon Capture could not be spent on a technology that is better for the environment! I think your ideas on planting trees in the tropics is a great one. Or you dont even have to plant them, but buy up enough rain forest to protect it from logging. Can you imagine how much rain forest 572.5 million could buy!

By: admin

admin — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:30:12 +0000

Mike,
Unfortunately, it looks like you are wrong. When I took into account the Wind Farm, I took into account its capacity factor, which I stated was .269. This is why a 572 MW wind farm equals a 209 MW Coal plant. The beauty of using a wind farm as opposed to the CCS, is that while CCS has to be located near the IGCC plant, a wind farm can be anywhere the wind is strong enough! Review the concept of capacity factor and let me know if you still think I am wrong.
I’ll check out your link though!

By: Ed Browning

Ed Browning — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:36:18 +0000

At the current time we have cold burning utility plants, natural gas furnaces, hydrocarbon burning cars, trucks, buses, trains, ships, and airplanes. Until we decrease this consumption dramatically or eliminate it carbon capture is a concept that should be embraced in a way that helps mankind.
According to an essay by the American Solar Energy Society (ASES), we should entice people of the tropics to do carbon capture. We do this now by planting and saving rainforests. However what is suggested is the use of plat waste to produce charcoal by solar means, using the gas produced to run vehicles, and burying the charcoal which greatly improves the soil. Not only does it improve the soil, but it dramatically reduces the need for expensive fertilizer made from natural gas. I do not know if actual payments would be necessary, but the idea certainly seems to have more merit than some of the ideas I read elsewhere.
So lets work all sides to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, reduce emissions by more efficient burning, reduce demand to reduce need, plant trees in tropics to address heating of the globe directly and put charcoal in the ground reducing our needs for fertilizer as we sequester vast amounts of carbon.

By: Mike Keller

Mike Keller — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:19:48 +0000

Unfortunately your analysis is flawed. Wind is erratic, low capacity and generally not available when needed. The exact opposite characteristics of coal power plants. Thus, comparing the two is not a proper analysis nor is it remotely realistic.

A more accurate analysis would include replacement of wind energy when it is not available (most of the time, actually) with say a highly efficient combustion turbine (combined-cycle plant). Such an analysis properly contrasts the options and yields a realistic forecast of the CO2 emissions. Best guess is the wind turbine/combustion turbine combination might reduce greenhouse gas emissions maybe roughly 5% to 10% relative to the combined-cycle plant. Not so good.

You might, however, take a look at http://www.hybridpwr.com for an alternative ideally suited for joint operations with wind and that yields massive CO2 reductions (maybe +50%) when both technologies work in tandem.