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

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…