The current technologies of carbon capture and it's pros/cons.
By 2030 the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by new coal power plants is estimated to be approximately 7.6 billion metric tons. If companies can capture carbon dioxide before it escapes into the atmosphere this number will greatly reduce. Current carbon capture technologies due exist but are not yet making a big enough impact. These technologies allow for the capture of CO2 which is sent deep underground where it won't surface for thousands of years. This process aids in the recovery of oil in oil fields as well. Experts beleive this same idea can be applied to saline aquifers and other geological formations as well. CCS, carbon capture and storage facilities, exist but currently have performance and cost drawbacks with most of the costs being pushed upon the companies. The newest technology available, IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) allows for the removal of CO2 before combustion. The problem is that companies are frowning upon implementing this technology. The reasons for this are due to reliability and efficiency drawbacks. The only way to have companies jumping on the bandwagon would be to offer grants and aid to theses companies for implementing a environmentally friendly technology.
Link to site
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/05/coal_report.html
Picture of Current CO/CO2 levels around the Globe
http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2001/08/082001t_smog.jhtml#
Comments
Currently carbon capture technology is very expensive. It cost $150 -$250 per ton of carbon sequestered. In terms of increase to the consumer this represents a 2.5 cent increase on 4 cent per kWh power. Driving this price is the expensive capture and separation of CO2 from other flue gases (mostly Nitrogen). It is estimated that the initial step of capture and separation represents ¾ of the total cost of capture storage transportation and sequestration. It is not feasible to consider capturing all flue gases as they only contain 10-12% CO2 by volume. This is a major hold up for any plant to implement this technology out of good will. It will certainly take some sort of legislation to promote carbon capture.
Posted by: John Kallemeyn | March 6, 2008 10:01 AM
John - I agree, few companies will willingly do this on their own. A clear set of national standards would set a level playing field and allow companies to compete using better technology, rather than allowing them to compete by who does the least (and hence has lower costs).
Just like all other environmental controls - the cost only gets lower as you sic the engineers onto it. That is another way of saying that no one knows the real cost, since no one has actually tried to find it. It is very safe to assume that it will not be as expensive as the first estimates suggest.
Posted by: Steve Sternberg | March 7, 2008 12:35 PM
What about an algae alternative?
GreenFuel Technologies Corporation (GreenFuel) has been developing this system. The flue gases are sent through polycarbonate tubes which contain high concentrations of algae. “[The algae] reduces the NOx by up to 86% and the CO2 by 40% of the smokestack emissions.� [1] The biomass obtained can be used to produce a number of products including bioplastics, biodiesel, or some pharmaceutical molecules. Preliminary studies have capture rates 1 ton of CO per 2 tons of algae. For more information, visit the links below.
[1]
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/06/university_of_n.html
http://www.greenfuelonline.com/gf_files/GreenFuelWhitePapers.pdf
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/05/greenfuel_updat.html
Posted by: Simon Larson | March 9, 2008 1:17 PM