CCS++ , A promising development?

[jonthed]

The many current (overly optimistic and unambitious) pathways to decarbonise and prevent catastrophic warming all really heavily on the adoption of carbon capture technologies on quite a massive scale.

The problem with that is CCS projects generally involve spending a lot of money on the CCS part of the process, even if the overall process provides something useful, it can probably be provided more cheaply with a non CCS method. So I  haven't been very optimistic with expectations of CCS being implemented on a large scale, as it generally means spending extra money *just* to fix the climate.

However, in the past week I have seen two separate developments in CCS tech that have given me a bit of hope.

https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/01/uic-solar-co2-fuel/

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/232244-new-form-of-carbon-capture-actually-creates-power-rather-than-consuming-it

If CCS tech can actually make money, then the chances of it being adopted increase massively. Governments can help incentivise projects, a whole profitable industry could spring up. If such CCS technologies could produce power or fuel at the same time as drawing down carbon then they should be the go to choice for all green energy projects. Better than solar, better than wind, as it actually removes carbon from the atmosphere.

It might be early days but if they can be profitable then I think there's hope in CCS yet. Especially if governments see how important carbon negative power generation can be and get behind it.

[Iain]

This one has been on-and-off for years, finally getting the go ahead.

It's a 1 GW Gas fired CCGT power station

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57064161

[NevB]

I skimmed but didn't see anything there that could make CCS economically viable

"but the competition was cancelled in 2015 after £100m had been spent on it"

I do remember every other CCS project I've seen in the last two or three decades.
Without exception this has been government money spent on one project after another with exactly the same result.

Was there something new I missed ?

[gerontocrat]

Presumably to take CO2 gas, turn it uinto liquid and then pump it under pressure into the empty oil and gas field needs a lot of energy.

It also helps to have a suitable nearby empty oil and gas reservoir handily close.

That can only add to the unit costs of electricity generated. Anybody know how much? as a percentage? No mention anywhere I can find on the capital cost. Only clue is the abandoned Shell scheme estimated at 500 million quid (US$ 700 million).

All sounds to me like the UK and Scottish Governments trying to keep the N Sea oil and gas industry going.

If they allowed onshore wind 500 million smackers would make a lot of power, and fund a big battery or three.

Off to the foul language thread to express a more robust opimion?

[Iain]

The CC process is in addition to power generation and there is no planned use for the CO2, so it's an additional expense.

I see it as a stop gap measure while more renewables and storage come online, extracting the most use from an existing plant.

[sidd]

Re: can only add to the unit costs of electricity generated. Anybody know how much? as a percentage?

I saw an estimate of 30-35% for price increase of electric energy (not power) in an early project (now cancelled ...) but i have not the time to immediately locate the reference. There are no largescale CCS projects in operation, so all estimates are projections. The confinement time is also another big question.

sidd

[interstitial]

PR campaign designed to flood the news whenever attempts at serious progress are made nothing more. Chatter about hydrogen also increases whenever attempts are made to restrict gas though green hydrogen may have some value.

[Iain]

Not a good idea to decommission an existing plant with remaining useful life (nor to recycle an old piece of equipment when it still does what you need it to)

There is a carbon cost associated with spending money in addition to the carbon cost of the in the thing you buy – meat, veg, petrol, coal, steel, cement, saplings etc.

By spending some money buying e.g. a steel toaster, you create paid work for ore miners, steel workers, assembly shop workers, retail. The workers use the wages you gave them to buy meat, veg, petrol coal, steel, cement, saplings etc

From average footprint and spending, it’s 1.5 kg CO2 per £1 spent in the UK

So decommissioning a 1GW station needs 3GW of offshore wind which costs c. £6.7E9 hence 10E9 kg CO2

At intensity of 0.3kg/kWh it would take 3.6 years to pay back. That’s just for the “induced” – spending- portion.

Add the steel, concrete, fuel for installation vessels carbon cost to get the total

[sidd]

ADM, UIUC collaborate on carbon sequestration:

"ADM used wells to pump carbon dioxide 6,500 feet underground. The site was able to accept and store 1 million metric tons over three years."

"ADM has another well set to operate until 2022 that could store 5.5 million metric tons of the gas. Together, the two projects have already stored 3.4 million tons."

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/adm-buries-corn-plant-emissions-equal-to-1-2-million-cars-1.1605988

sidd