82 comments on CO2 capture and storage: The economic costs
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- 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
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Since this is driven by Big Coal and their captive legislators it needs careful monitoring. We’ve recently seen double counting in tree planting offset schemes since the promoters figured people wanted the feelgood factor, not hard numbers. I’ll just make a couple of points now about some conflicting claims. First CCS will speed depletion. If a world coal peak without CCS was expected by 2025 it will come sooner if extra coal has to shovelled into the furnaces to power the scrubbing, compression and pumping process.
However coal peak deniers say in situ gasification will exploit all those hard-to-get seams or maybe left-behind pillars. Huh? Either gas stays below the surface creeping into hidden layers or it rushes up towards the well head. CCS and UCG are therefore opposite so I don’t see we can have both.
My third point for now is that surely a well head steam boiler has to be cheaper than enhanced oil recovery using CO2. I know ‘green’ dry cleaners use liquid CO2 rather than fluorocarbon solvents. Their customers are cashed up yuppies, not labourers. To me the EOR line sounds like another greenwash so I’d like to see some comparative cost figures.
This could be mitigated by achieving 20-30% electricity consumption reductions. Say coal burn per kWh increases by 20-30% but electricity consumption reduces by the same amount then coal tonnage burnt remains the same.
'peak coal' is tendentious, although perhaps an article of faith amongst some here.
Global Warming is real, and now.
If we've run out of coal in the 22nd century, then we'll find an alternative source of energy.
The problem is going to be getting through the 21st century without cooking the planet.
Only a fool would take the mid point of the IPCC case, and not worry about the right hand tail of the distribution.
What chance do we need of a 6 degree C rise in temperature to panic, now? 1%? 0.5%