Carbon capture and storage - Worthy tech or BS?

Introductions, general chit chat and off-topic banter.
Post Reply
User avatar
jonescg
Senior Member
Posts: 2814
Joined: Thu, 21 Jan 2010, 23:05
Real Name: Chris Jones
Location: Perth, WA.

Carbon capture and storage - Worthy tech or BS?

Post by jonescg » Thu, 23 Jul 2015, 16:34

https://www.businessnews.com.au/article ... -288654053

Hardly a surprise that our Industry Minister is endorsing this technology ahead of alternative low-carbon energy systems, but what do you think?

Is carbon dioxide capture and storage underground a worthwhile endeavour or is it just plain hope that it will distract us for long enough to keep burning fossil fuels?

Personally I put it in the same category as fuel cells. A technology that works, but not practical on the scale needed to put a dent in the world's CO2 emissions.

Apologies if you can't read the article - online papers are trying to make a buck wherever they can.
Last edited by jonescg on Thu, 23 Jul 2015, 06:35, edited 1 time in total.
AEVA National Secretary, WA branch vice-chair

rhills
Site Admin
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri, 25 Jul 2008, 01:57
Real Name: Rob Hills
Location: Waikiki, WA

Carbon capture and storage - Worthy tech or BS?

Post by rhills » Thu, 23 Jul 2015, 18:50

It is my belief that more money is being funnelled into this kind of thing than into Alternative Energy solutions, but I don't have hard evidence for that.

If it's true however, I'd have thought that limited public money was better spent on ramping up technologies that are proven ("unsightly" wind, wave, big solar) rather than trying to prove unproven concepts.

But that might result in less Petroleum Industry finance to help one get elected and that would never do, would it?
Rob Hills
AEVA Webmaster
2014 Mitsubishi Outlander Aspire PHEV
Jul 2014 - Mar 2019
Total Petrol: 646.6L
ODO: 47979
Av Consumption: 1.35 L/100km

User avatar
weber
Site Admin
Posts: 2567
Joined: Fri, 23 Jan 2009, 17:27
Real Name: Dave Keenan
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Carbon capture and storage - Worthy tech or BS?

Post by weber » Wed, 19 Aug 2015, 03:20

jonescg wrote:Is carbon dioxide capture and storage underground a worthwhile endeavour or is it just plain hope that it will distract us for long enough to keep burning fossil fuels?


There's no need to spend any more money "researching" Carbon Capture and Storage. They've implemented it on a Canadian power station. So it should now be compulsory for all coal-fired power stations to implement it or stop burning coal. Image

The only reason it might be economically viable for that Canadian power station is that they are selling the liquid CO2 to oil companies for "enhanced oil recovery". This is where they pump the liquid CO2 into otherwise spent oil wells as a solvent, to flush out more oil that, when burnt, releases 3 times as much CO2 into the atmosphere as the CO2 that is sequestered when they finally stop flushing and cap the well.

This, of course, is a crime against humanity, and should be illegal.
Last edited by weber on Tue, 18 Aug 2015, 17:25, edited 1 time in total.
One of the fathers of MeXy the electric MX-5, along with Coulomb and Newton (Jeff Owen).

bladecar
Senior Member
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue, 05 Jul 2011, 16:32
Location: Brisbane

Carbon capture and storage - Worthy tech or BS?

Post by bladecar » Wed, 19 Aug 2015, 05:41

Hi,

I fail to see the "tech" in carbon capture and fail-to-store.

You clean your house by hiding the dirt under the carpets, the furniture, the beds.

Later, where is the dirt. Same place. Where's the tech there?

There's a monster amount of co2 coming out of each coal-fired plant each day.

Where are they technically going to hide it? And under pressure?

Things under pressure are always trying to escape.

What occupies where it's trapped (not stored). Water, or spaces for the pressure to 'relieve' itself.

How long must it be trapped under ground under pressure, always determined to escape, to get out of there, to go where? ? ?

It's the same as getting into debt. You smile and smile and smile and....

Sure, introduce carbon capture and storage. Start by shutting down all the coal and oil-powered power plants and then fit the hardware, one by one, as you re-start each plant. PROBLEM SOLVED. I predict we would see no more than 4 plants ever restart before the coal hit the fan.

You look at the size of the hole of some established coal mines. There were solids taken out of there. Now, imagine the volume of the GAS that that hole would have transformed into. Now, shove it back under there :):):)

They say that solar panels are a problem because it is a consumer-led change. They say that solar panels have made coal and oil-powered (and atomic, if you make 'em pay for build and bust) electricity more expensive. We must apply solar (or any tech truly shown to equal or better it) consistently and persistently to make the dinosaur power truly untenable, but only because it's part of our only planet's survival.

We don't want no adverse effects from co2 no more.

Edit:ed because I never run out of good ideas.

Edit: I edited it.
2nd Edit: I technically edited the punctuation.
Last edited by bladecar on Tue, 18 Aug 2015, 20:21, edited 1 time in total.

Shirker
Groupie
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue, 27 Nov 2012, 06:47
Real Name: Matt Smith
Location: Perth

Carbon capture and storage - Worthy tech or BS?

Post by Shirker » Wed, 19 Aug 2015, 06:24

CCS is absolute genius - at least the version that's been in production for millenia:
Image

bladecar
Senior Member
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue, 05 Jul 2011, 16:32
Location: Brisbane

Carbon capture and storage - Worthy tech or BS?

Post by bladecar » Wed, 19 Aug 2015, 06:27

...and to this human, they are beautiful too.
The birds love them (and need them).
The Koalas love them (and need them).
And trees are because they are, not because we can make them so.
So we must leave them alone as much as we should.

User avatar
weber
Site Admin
Posts: 2567
Joined: Fri, 23 Jan 2009, 17:27
Real Name: Dave Keenan
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Carbon capture and storage - Worthy tech or BS?

Post by weber » Wed, 19 Aug 2015, 06:37

Shirker wrote: CCS is absolute genius - at least the version that's been in production for millenia.

The trouble with that version is that it's way too slow to save us from our coal burning. We've burned the results of about 60 million years of that solar-powered carbon sequestration, in 200 years.

The other version is complete BS.
Last edited by weber on Tue, 18 Aug 2015, 20:38, edited 1 time in total.
One of the fathers of MeXy the electric MX-5, along with Coulomb and Newton (Jeff Owen).

Rusdy
Groupie
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon, 09 Jun 2014, 16:45
Real Name: Rusdy
Location: Australia
Contact:

Carbon capture and storage - Worthy tech or BS?

Post by Rusdy » Wed, 19 Aug 2015, 17:35

Technologically, yes. Financially, BS.

When it comes to energy production, LCOE and EROI are the 2 main variables you need to look for.

CCS increases the price of 'cheap' coal, and loses its competitiveness compared to other renewables. To quote:

"Technologies like hydro, nuclear and geothermal generation also have high rates of capacity utilisation and therefore may also provide better value for money in terms of costs per megawatt-hours (MWh) generated and per tonne of CO2 avoided."

Image
Source: Click Here

Now, there are lots of fights regarding the 'competitiveness' due to baseload power VS renewable intermittent power. It's not a simple explanation unfortunately, as it is a 'yes' and 'no' at the same time. So, for those who interested in reading more, I tried to explain it as plain as possible here: Click Here

----Edited---------
Just found this for NSW pricing estimate:
Image

Source: Click Here

Really, someone is desperate to keep coal going.
Last edited by Rusdy on Wed, 19 Aug 2015, 07:51, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply