Skip to main content

Carbon Capture Caprice

The value of carbon capture and clean coal as an alternative to nuclear energy proved to be a winning argument for the Dutch, but the Guardian takes a far dimmer view of its use in Britain.

The government says that the [carbon capture] demonstration project will take "at least 15 years" to assess. It will take many more years for the technology to be retro-fitted to existing power stations, by which time it's all over. On this schedule, carbon capture and storage, if it is deployed at all, will come too late to prevent runaway climate change.

The article admits that carbon capture is feasible and most of its component technologies are in use, though not especially effectively.

Frankly, though, author George Monbiot (really, the British government) underestimates industry. If carbon capture technology proves truly effective, then those 15 years will melt away to many fewer - there's a very strong motivation to find solutions to carbon emission issues and a large industry that wants badly to do so. There's also the bread-and-butter issue of the wrenching change many, many workers would face if the coal industry in Britain (and elsewhere, too, of course) started to crater. 

Those on the nuclear side of the fence may feel a bit like pointing and laughing at their coal brethren. While they may well want to turn up the volume on a technology that's available now, technologically proven and ready for expansion, it's unnecessary, especially in most of Europe, to do that. 

So now, it's coal's turn - wish it well. The more clean energy there is in the world, the better.

Comments

Rod Adams said…
Mark:

The difference between technical feasibility and commercial scale implementation is HUGE. By most estimates, CCS systems would consume between 15-30% of the energy output of a coal fired power plant, thus increasing the fuel cost of operation in addition to all of the other costs of the enormous chemical plants that would need to be added to each of thousands of large coal plants.

Even if the CO2 were separated from the exhaust, captured and pressurized, you are then faced with finding a secure place to store it. For many plants there are hundreds or even thousands of miles of transport needed to reach a suitable geologic formation for storing massive (tens of thousands of tons per plant per day) quantities of gaseous waste.

Those pipelines would be carrying an inert gas, so, unlike natural gas pipelines, the necessary compressor stations would not be able to consume some of the product, they would need outside energy supplies.

No - the challenges of CCS are not something that will be overcome anytime in the next few decades. There is really no appetite for actually implementing these systems. The talk about CCS is just that; it is talk designed to obscure the environmental hazard of continuing to burn billions of tons of coal each year.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …