Royal Dutch Shell is concerned we won’t sequester away enough of that pollutant, carbon dioxide.
Carbon capture and storage [CCS], a way of cutting emissions from industry by burying them underground, needs more state support for the European Union to meet clean-energy goals, a Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) adviser said.
“We’ve got to be clear that the EU’s climate goals in the long run cannot be met without clear policy intervention and that CCS is vital for the delivery of that,” Graeme Sweeney, who advises Shell on carbon-dioxide strategy, said by telephone. — Bloomberg
If Royal Dutch Shell had so much as suggested that the warming threat might be exaggerated, a team of activists from Greenpeace, WWF and the IPCC would issue press releases overnight declaring “Vested Interests Promote Doubt and Denial”. Other lobbyists like, say, The Royal Society, would write a letter to Shell blasting it for “disinformation“.
But when Shell asks for more government handouts to fund its ventures in Carbon Capture and Storage, the vested interest is obvious, but the apoplexy and conspiracist accusations are nowhere to be seen. Shell, of course, sells oil, but it also sells CCS. And things haven’t been going well for Shell’s carbon storage projects. The EU carbon price has crashed, taking all the fun (and profits) out of carbon capture.
“We’ve made limited progress,” Sweeney said. “It’s time for us all to recognize that we really need a reset if we’re going to make all of this work.”
The first phase of a European Commission program to finance as many as 12 demonstration plants failed to fund a single one as member states were unable to supply the required matching funds by the deadline. Nine projects applied for funding under a second round that closes July 3, the commission’s website shows.
Sweeney sees a possible three to five demonstration projects being built in the EU, putting it on course to start commercial CCS plants in the late 2020s or early 2030s. He’s also chairman of the European Technology Platform for Zero-Emission Fossil-Fuel Power Plants, or ZEP.” — Bloomberg
Big Oil has been demonized as the shady-hand influencing governments to get policies that give them profits. But the profits Big-Oil hunts are the green-gravy-train type, not the ones dependent on the oil price (which they will get in any case, because demand for oil is inelastic). In the end, Big Government is bigger than Big Oil, and it bought off most the sector off long ago by offering big-subsidies.
To be fair on Shell, they are just doing what any good corporate does — following the money. The profits that are at risk on the Shell annual return are not the ones from oil, but the ones from carbon capture. The numbers men at Shell know that no matter what anyone says about renewables, they are no threat at all to their oil sales (who wants a solar car?). But if governments stop buying the carbon-capture meme, there goes the one and only customer for the CCS.
Long ago, Exxon’s crime was to suggest there were “gaps in the science”. It was vilified, even though it had been funding climate change research for 25 years, including the work of IPCC authors at major universities. Ponder that The Royal Society is so under the spell of the global warming doctrine that it opposed a corporate which funded scientific research. But when corporations trumpet the profoundly anti-science notion of “consensus” and exploit that to gain profits from taxpayers, that’s OK. There are no scientific observations that suggest the public or the planet would benefit from carbon capture. We know climate models don’t work. Who does the Royal Society serve? Not science, and not citizens.
As Andrew Bolt would say, it’s not about the principle, it’s about the side.
———————————————
And for Anthony A., can I just cryptically say, thank you! I owe you a letter and it’s on the way. I’m thinking of you. :- )
Carbon capture is best done by trees and plants. Their running costs are low and they use solar power, so they’re GREEN.
Best of all, they’ve had millions of years experience.
300
Which funnily enough is a liberal policy
70
Oh and dont forget CCS is something pushed strongly by a labor MP waiting in the wings.
40
A few years ago there was a lot of noise about planting trees to save the environment. Maybe you have noticed that has now gone silent. Here’s why:
“. . .the tendency for dark forest cover to absorb sunlight, thus warming the Earth, has been overlooked.
“The darkening of the surface by new forest canopies in the high-latitude Boreal regions allows absorption of more sunlight that helps to warm the surface, . . .” [12 Dec 2006]
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/forests-can-raise-earths-temperature/
20
Come on now: the Earth is self regulating, using CO2 as the working fluid to keep surface temperature within narrow bands independently of factors such as this.
The only people who want you to believe that we have an open circuit control system based on CO2 are liars, charlatans and the terminally stupid who comprise the 97%.
00
Also they don’t capture oxygen too. Which is the utter madness of CCS.
60
How ironic, as it is being heavily touted by Oxygen thieves.
30
A friend at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has just completed a research project imaging the flow if 1Mn tons of CO2 injected into sandstone at 10,000 ft depth as part of the CCS research program. He admitted to me though that it was odd that whilst injecting CO2 at high pressure into deep rocks was ok with environmentalists & politicians, injecting water & sand to release gas from deep shale (harder than sandstone, I believe) causes apoplexy in them.
220
And if it leaks, how many will die? CO2 is heavier than air…. asphyxiating everything in its path.
40
OK: if carbon dioxide is heavier than air, how does it form that blanket up in the sky that is keeping the heat in?
The blanket thingie . . .you know . . . .
60
Good question Gogs,
Putting on my adapted for AGW Pan Zva i would have to say CO2 is a well mixed gas in that the winds waft it about up high into the atmosphere where it becomes blanketesque.
Being a well mixed gas means that it is found in similar concentrations all over the earth at every altitude hence the word “global” warming and there it stays for approxmately 1000 years.
On the other hand the blanket thingie as you describe it could be complete and utter crap.
Cheers
PS. Its not fun anymore without the trolls i suppose the day had to come but now its here……….i miss the old days
150
New business opportunity:
Rent-A-Troll
Available in various models: Snarky, Whiny, Obtuse, Devious, Supercilious, Punctilious, Obnoxious, and Socially Inept.
Rudeness comes as an optional extra for all models except Snarky.
Political activism also comes as an optional extra, but the purchaser is fully responsible for cleaning up afterwards.
All models are guaranteed to be intellect free when they leave the factory, with absolutely no trace of any science knowledge.
Government Warning: The ability of any Troll to spell and punctuate correctly, may be vary (or be or non-existant).
240
I’ve always likened them to dogs – yappers, biters, diggers sh*tters and killers.. But making such comparisons can only be mean on the hairy four-legged variety. Erm.. depending..
60
Great. Last week it was Rereke. Today I learn a new phrase from Crakar.
Pan zva – A hat with long ears, typically used in Buddhist ceremonies, with origins traced to India.
And one day in the distant future when this question arises in a trivia competition I’m sure I won’t remember it.
30
The concentration of any gas decreases with altitude due to the fact that the force of gravity decreases with distance (altitude). Also the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is much less than 1000 years, possible as little as 8 years.
40
The 1000 year furphey has been around a while and is beloved by unthinking proponents of AGW. There is of course no difference between carbon dioxide produced from the combustion of hydrocarbons and that produced by outgassing from seawater, from volcanoes or from the decay of leaf litter in old growth forests (which, by the way, are net producers of carbon dioxide).
Look up the carbon cycle and you will find the average calculation for the retention time of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is around 5 years
20
Craker;co2 is definitely not a well mixed gas[in the atmosphere].
00
Carbon is a very gregarious, free and easy element. Some might say too easy …
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/sleeping-with-the-enemy/
Pointman
40
Sounds just like a hippy to me! Why then, is it so hated by the Green Leftists?
It should be loved and cherished by them and maybe invited by them to go smoke a dube or two…..
Far out, Catherwood. Just roll a couple of bombers and leave them on the side table.
30
Carbon has no morals.
It will go with any other element that can scratch up a couple of spare valencies.
As the English say, “It is so common”.
50
Grog,
I’ve seen documentaries where CO2 slowly leaks out of volcanic vents at night. When the air is still and cool, the CO2 simply flows down the hill killing anything in its path. Some villages have been destroyed this way. But as soon as a breeze starts up in the morning, the CO2 mixes with the air.
30
Quite so,sheer folly to attempt artificial storage.
10
Shell [and BP] are almost entirely responsible for the whole AGW fiasco. They created the CRU in 1969 to build a scary Carbon monster designed to close the British coal industry. No coal meant more gas power stations and a lucrative market for their totally worthless North Sea gas (which was simply burnt at the well head). Unfortunately the Carbon monster grew too big and escaped to terrify the world and gorge on endless subsidies.
81
Can you quote references for that statement? I would be interested in looking at the details – names, places, times, and such?
20
Maggie Thatcher vs.the coal miners.
00
Thank you. That will do it.
10
The CRU are bit more subtle about their sponsors these days. However they are arguably little more than scientific shills for the oil, gas, nuclear and renewables industries.
BP and Shell were the initial sponsors.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/about-cru/history
10
There’s one thing about CCS that makes me absolutely furious.
It’s something that will never be achieved on the scale required for a large scale coal fired power plant.
However, CCS is used as a stick to beat up on any new coal fired power plant that gets proposed.
Yes, hey, no problems. We will give you approval to construct this new coal fired power plant ….. as long as it has CCS, effectively meaning that new plant will never be constructed.
It’s also used as the stick to make coal fired power seem more expensive. The cost of the CCS alone is (a best guess only, and without doubt probably even more expensive) half as much again as the actual plant construction minus CCS, so for a Plant proposed to cost, say $2 Billion, then this totally unachievable CCS will add a further $1 Billion to the plant. On top of that the CCS process itself consumes more than one third of the actual power generated by the plant, so now the power being generated to sell wholesale is decreased by a large amount, again driving up the cost of the generated power.
Because the process is so intensive, it also requires more maintenance, and also shortens the life of the Plant, again meaning less time to recover all those costs, again driving up the cost of the generated power.
All of that used as something they can point to as coal fired power being so expensive.
Note not making renewable power cheaper, but making it seem cheaper because the other guy is more expensive.
And all for something that cannot be done.
When people are actually told the truth about CCS, and only then, will those in power see that it is really just a dream.
The trouble with that is that when that time does come, it’ll be too damned late. Existing coal fired plants will have reached their use by dates and there will be nothing left to replace them, and no time to construct new ones and have them delivering power before the old one shuts down.
CCS is a ghost. Something you will never see.
Tony.
250
It is not only associated with coal fired power stations, but also gas fired plants and new natural gas projects.
The massive Gorgon project in WA will be sequestering CO2, 3-4 Mt of it per year. The Gorgon gas field has a high CO2 content, about 15% and without CCS this would be vented straight into the atmosphere as is the current practice with other gas fields (although some is used for enhanced recovery). Browse Basin gas also has a high CO2 content.
When a comparison is made of CO2 emissions between coal and gas fired power stations, this vented CO2 content is generally not considered in the equation making gas not as “clean” as made out.
100
Now there’s an idea to make population control more palatable.
Sure you can have more than 2 children between you, just so long as you capture all their Carbon Emissions (& not just the solid ones) for reprocessing.
50
What’s even more annoying is that CCS is only required when planning new coal fired plants in some countries. In China, the biggest builder of coal-fired power station not only does not require CCS, they are developing coal-to-liquid’s plants. The process pumps more CO2 into the air than a coal-fired power station, and then pumps more CO2 into the air when you burn the stuff. But liquid is equivalent to a fixed $60 per barrel compared with a fluctuating spot price of $80-$140.
So, whilst the EU pushes up the cost of its energy, and making it less reliable and more prone to currency fluctuations, China is doing the opposite. So if the EU constrains carbon be CCS, it’s “achievements” will be undone many times over.
Details of coal-to-liquids here, with cost here.
20
Tony
One of the great BSs about CCS which you rarely see mentioned is this.
If you pump CO2 into porous sediments underground, these will almost certainly leak. When you pump gas into these sediments under high pressure, you are effectively attempting to frack the rock. Porous rock is quite happy to have you extract gas/water/oil from it, but it normally hates it if you try and go the other way – the pores have closed up, they are under a lot of pressure from the overlying rock and they will not reopen unless you apply a huge amount of pressure. This in turn will open up any fractures or cracks and of, course, this will cause leaks.
CCS is such a stupid and expensive concept that only the ecoloonery would deem it sensible.
Anyhow, you cannot blame Shell for wanting to take advantage of government grants. After all, that’s what sustains the wacky world of alarmist ‘science’.
30
I just had a thought, rather than go through this whole expensive exercise why dont we just build large greenhouses near the power stations and pump the co2 directly into them to stimulate the tomatoes and what not?
The operators could claim carbon credits and actually produce a superior product at the same time its a win/win right?
40
I think that we should pump it into the deep ocean.
Then when the ocean can’t take any more we add some flavour, give it a swirl and we’ll have the World’s biggest fizzy drink!
10
Hey not a bad idea and then in the tropics we could have natural forming Jacuzzi’s
10
At last, a positive side to climate science: a way to create the world’s largest fizzy drink.
We need to ask the oracles like Mann and Lewandowsky what they think; they dream up this kind of stuff all the time – and get paid for it!
10
It is a pity that we can’t direct all that fizz into a Giant Nozzle and move the planet to a different solar system – I am getting bored with this one – there is nothing to do.
10
A mate and I worked out the exact same idea years ago. However there is no way for the banker parasites to make a profit from such a simple idea.
10
Carbon Capture is a accident just waiting to happen. One earth quake later, or someone drills in the wrong place and the invisible odors Carbon Dioxide flows out into the Atmosphere and as its heavier than air it hugs the ground flowing down hill like a title wave. Killing all the people and animals including endangered ones too that’s in it way. If it goes wrong its mass murder. Will the greens and environmentalists that are demanding these Carbon Capture plant go to jail for all those deaths. I don’t think so. I you don’t believe me just have a look at a natural version of what I’m going on about. At Lake Nyos. 1700 people suffocated to death. That’s fact not Censuses it has happened. Its not some computer model that predicts what could happen it has happened. Royal Dutch Shell wants green subsidies to play Russian roulette with how many of its customers lives. No wonder the European union economy is in so much trouble. Wasting good money trying to kill their only citizens to make the environmentalists happy.
91
Oops that was meant to be. If you don’t believe me just have a look at a natural version of what I’m going on about. At “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos”. Sorry about that.
——-
Thanks Fox. Link Fixed. I had not heard of Nyos! – Jo
40
.
Don’t lose any sleep over it. CCS is the 21st Century equivalent of the perpetual motion machine. Within the current, known boundaries of physics, it is a mechanical impossibility as applied to fossil fuel generated power.
Even if it were possible to build a power station which represented a perfect Carnot Cycle (which is impossible), and a CCS capture system which represented the opposite perfect Carnot Cycle (which is equally impossible), the end result would be zero net energy output.
Put simply, in the real world the amount of energy required to capture all the CO2 just at the same volume and temperature as the O2 and coal from which it came (that is, not even substantially compressed), is greater than the energy released in creating it in the first place.
Given that the newest coal-fired power stations are 44% efficient at best, and assuming CCS could be made as efficient, the total energy output of the power station would be consumed capturing a quarter of the CO2 generated.
.
And this is all before compression and transport to the dumping site.
110
MV,
Wouldn’t it have been simpler, to just say that it was the chemical equivalent of a perpetual motion machine?
Jus’ askin’
10
“Put simply, in the real world the amount of energy required to capture all the CO2 just at the same volume and temperature as the O2 and coal from which it came (that is, not even substantially compressed), is greater than the energy released in creating it in the first place.”
Sorry. Not true. The process IS inherently wasteful of energy, but not THAT wasteful. Think about it: Per pV=nRT, at the same temperature, one mole of CO2 will have the same volume as one mole of O2. The volume of the carbon (coal) is relatively negligible.
And compressing the reaction product (CO2) to low volumes does not consume as much energy as you get from combustion.
00
The CO2 explanation for the Lake Nyos deaths is dubious. CO2 can be inhaled in concentrations of >40% without causing death. The symptoms of survivors (breathing difficulties, throat and eye irritation) suggest that the real culprits were H2S and SO2.
00
This Lake Nyos event was the eruption of between 100,000 and 300,000 tonnes of CO2, about the same amount to be sequestered from a large scale coal fired plant, in umm, 1.5 to 3 days.
Got that?
DAYS.
Tony.
90
In defence of geosequestration you cannot compare it with Lake Nyos. There the CO2 is simply trapped below water at shallow depths ~200 m or less above a volcanic vent and not held in rock pores.
For geosequestration CO2 is injected in a super-critical state at depths so that temperature is greater than 31 C and pressure greater than 73.9 bar, this depth is typically greater than 800 m and down to about 3000 m where porosity is likely to decrease. CO2 behaves similar to CH4 and is locked into the rock pores under these conditions. CO2 has been used to enhance oil and gas recovery from reservoirs for years. Yes the right conditions are needed for it to stay put but it does. If natural gas stays put for millions of years then CO2 will also with the right conditions. Yes I know there are natural leaks of natural gas but those are generally associated with faults that reach the surface. And yes again seismic activity could cause issues but you look for sites away from these areas
55
That is as may be.
But natural formations holding natural gas do not have a bore hole until they are mined. At that point you have introduced a point of weakness that must be actively managed until such time as the gas has been fully extracted. A finite lifetime.
With sequestration, you have a bore hole that represents a point of weakness, that must be actively managed, forever. Are you saying that the process of drilling a bore hole, does not represent a risk to the substrates it passes through?
50
No far from it. As with every thing in life there are risks but these can be reduced when things are carried out correctly.
Drilling a well or bore, be it for water, oil/gas, gold or sequestration will have any impact on the stata it passes through, sometimes almost nothing other times significant. Factors such as how it is drilled and how it is completed are all important and the strata may end up being stronger than originally. In the case of CCS the reservoirs need to be large (> 1 Tcf pore space) would have multiple injection wells which on completion would be sealed top to bottom with other wells used to monitor CO2 movement. Movement at depth can also be monitored by 3D/4D seismic. These are all methods currently used in the oil and gas industry and CO2 injection is nothing new, just the proposed purpose is different.
As a general comment, I’m not making a statement on the need for or economics of CCS, just providing a little technical background to help, so I don’t really understand the couple of thumbs down given to my comment above – does make you wonder sometimes.
31
The use of CCS and other mitigation processes such as injecting large amounts of aerosols such as SO2 into the atmosphere is akin to the Lysenkoism that took place in Russia during the middle of the last century. Even if the Earth has warmed a little that shouldn’t be a problem. Some of our major food crops such as maize, sugar cane, soybeans and rice utilize the C4 pathway of photosynthesis. C4 plants love hot weather and can get by on a lot less water than C3 plants.
10
Ummm…. yes you can.
This is misleading. Actual atmospheric pressure at 3000 meters is equivalent to less than 7 meters under water at sea level. Thus this pressure must be the “injection process” and certainly not something that can be relied upon to keep the CO2 there.
The CO2 in Lake Nyos is at great depth under water, thus under tremendous pressure, making Nyos far more stable than the process that you describe. So, let’s all buy weekenders beside Nyos, yes?
30
What ???
Perhaps you should read what you have written
I have dived to 7 m in sea water and it might make your ears pop but I’ll leave it to you to be buried beneath 3000 m of rock + fluid + atmosphere. What do you think there is just blue sky above?
Nope Lake Nyos is only about 200 m deep. See here or here for further info on supercritical CO2 and here for an interesting video
31
No Alan… you need to think about what you are writing.
Do you really think that putting something 3000 meters under the ground means that the weight of rock underground is going to put pressure on it? Have you ever been under ground? There will only be pressure if there is a ground collapse, which is highly unlikely with what you are talking about.
The only pressure will be whatever pressure it is pumped there under.
Right, so you can dive to 200 meters also? Whatever the depth of Nyos, its enough pressure to keep the CO2 in solution…. its like a big fizzy drink before you take the top off the bottle.
00
Actually BS they have already tried it, they thought they could kill two birds with one stone and pump CO2 into a oil/gas reserve to last dregs out which of course worked a treat however over the period of a few months the farmers noticed the under graound water was full of bubbles.
The co2 rose up through the ground and then was released……….where it could float away and become one of those blanket thingies.
20
oh yeah where was that then crakar24?
BS read the info on supercritical CO2, we are not talking about CO2 in solution, check out a little on petroleum engineering and you are very welcome to go diving to 200 m, I’ll give it a miss.
10
Alan,
I read this news report some time ago so i do not have any links for you so you will just have to trust me on it………..would i lie to you 🙂
I can tell you it was in the USA, the reservoir sat over grazing land and i would have been no later than say 2 or 3 years ago, none of this will probably help but thats all i can tell you.
Cheers
30
crakar24 was it this one here and here which contains further links
00
Tony @ 4, care to comment on the idea of capturing the CO2 produced from the burning of coal as the energy source, then splitting the CO2 into C plus O, storing the C and releasing the O? (The assumption being that the energy needed to split CO2 is less than that released from the burning of the coal).
The overriding assumption is that CO2 is a problem. I’m not convinced that the science is saying it is. So it’s still a case of fixing a non-existent problem.
30
Hey!
I never thought of that.
Perhaps they could turn the Carbon into diamonds.
But Seriously Folks, (as Joe Walsh might say) the process to do this is again very energy intensive. The
mainonly purpose for having a large scale coal fired power plant is to generate humungous amounts of electricity for consumption.Start using bookoo amounts of that electricity at the plant on other processes and it sort of defeats the whole purpose.
Tony.
100
But Tony what could they possibly come up with to justify an O2 tax?
60
Sceptical Sam:
first you have to separate the carbon dioxide from the hot gas stream. Regardless of how you do it, CO2 is a minor component and the extracting medium will absorb a lot of heat. You will need to get rid of that heat before you can compress the CO2 (uses energy); the compression again heats the CO2, so more heat to get rid of, and more energy used.
At this point you can pump it underground as ‘storage’. This idea grew out of the secondary recovery of oil with compressed air since the 1970’s and from the use of compressed air pumped storage in salt domes, most notably in Germany. (Salt domes are hollows left after the underground salt has been mined). Historically the leakage is around 2%.
Turning it back into carbon is very difficult. Turning it into carbon monoxide (and from there into other gases or liquids) is easier, but both routes require MORE energy to go back than came from the burning of the coal (carbon) in the first place.
You are correct in saying that it is a non existent problem caused by hysteria from those who only have a (very) little knowledge of science. The claimed ‘solutions’ are so ridiculous that I wonder how anybody but the ignorant or ill-intentioned could advocate them.
90
Sceptical Sam:
And if you can work with large numbers, work out how much volume would be required to store the CO2 put out by just one large power station. I very much doubt there is that much suitable geology available in Australia.
And there is the almost inevitable claim coming from the ecoloons that gas storage would (somehow) interfere with the water table.
70
Graeme No.3, you say here:
and therein lies the problem. A large scale coal fired plant with an expected life span of 50 years will emit close on one Billion tonnes of CO2. (and no, the word BILLION is not a misprint)
In the U.S. when they introduced the thankfully now failed American Power Act, all 987 pages of it, the proposal for CCS specifically required new fields to be found to umm, bury the CO2, not to use it for further recovery of oil and gas in almost tapped out fields, but for complete new pristine burial sites.
You really wonder if these politicians ask any questions at all, you know, if they see something ridiculous that sort of stands out, and triggers a thought process that this sounds a little difficult, and maybe I should find out first.
But no, they just blindly pushed ahead with it.
That’s just ONE large scale coal fired plant for a BILLION tons of CO2, buried forever, and never to seep back to the surface.
Tony.
60
Yep, the scale of CO2 collection, transport and storage makes the concept of CCS irrelevant. This has been said many, many times but is simply ignored in the public “debate” (actually more akin to a rookery in full throat than an informed debate)
As far as geological formations “suitable” for storage are concerned, Aus does have lots of possibilities, but no one is really looking – again, scale makes such exploration pointless
Politicians use CCS as valium for the masses – ie. don’t scare the horses, just supply them with make-believe hay. They really are that cynical; they rely on the general ignorance and naivety of the population and this never lets them down
Shell, Caltex et al know all this (I did several large-scale projects with both Shell and BP, for example) – their geologists and geophysicists have been analysing the situation for many decades. Their current motives ? Join the dots, as someone said recently
30
Here’s the scale we are looking at for a large scale coal fired plant, one which burns 7,500,00 tons (short tons, 2000 Pounds, U.S. tons) of coal a year, at a typical CF of 80% with 4 units of 660MW output per unit.
Whilst running, each unit is burning coal that will emit 1 ton of CO2 every 5 seconds.
1. Capture the exhaust.
2. Pass that exhaust through a solvent which dissolves only the CO2.
3. Separate the solvent from this process, and then boil the solvent, which then gives off only the CO2.
4. Separate the CO2, cool it, and then convert it to a liquid by extreme compression at an extreme low temperature.
5. Combine liquid CO2 with the liquid CO2 from the 3 other units.
6. Pump that CO2 down perhaps hundreds of miles of pipelines to where the hole in the ground is, making sure it stays pressurised at that extremely cold temperature and in liquid form.
7. At that new pumping site, now pump that liquid into the ground in the knowledge that the further down it is pumped, it heats back up, converting back to its gaseous state, hence increasing by a huge amount its volume.
OK now, does that sound easy enough?
All of this has to be done at the same rate that the coal is being burned in the first place.
So, capture 1 ton of CO2 from the exhaust, converting that to 236 gallons of liquified CO2 …… every 5 seconds.
Combine the liquid from the 4 units and now you have to pump 944 gallons of CO2 every 5 seconds, which is around 190 gallons every second. Pump all that to the site and inject into the ground at ……….
For 50 years.
Oh yeah!
Good luck with that!
Tony.
30
Any processing plant which does this would be equivalent in function to a giant cybernetic tree, removing CO2 and outputting oxygen.
I can imagine the green activists forming a human chain around the perimeter of this factory – not to block its operation, but to all simultaneously hug the giant tree.
A Freudian analysis is not recommended.
50
“The assumption being that the energy needed to split CO2 is less than that released from the burning of the coal.”
Main problem, is that idea never gets as far as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It breaks the 1st Law. (If coal is taken to be carbon, which is close enough for the analysis of most of energy content.)
10
O/T but want to document this here as i have heard many people in recent years say get out of the big banks and put your money into a Co-Op Bank. this “haircut” isn’t for the depositors (as far as i can tell) but it’s worth noting:
17 June: UPDATE 3-UK’s Co-op Bank agrees 1.5 bln stg “bail-in” rescue plan
Using a “bail-in” rescue model, bondholders will have to swap their debt for new bonds and equity in the bank, which will be listed on the London Stock Exchange…
Europe is pushing ahead with plans to implement a “bail-in” regime that would force bondholders and depositors, rather than taxpayers, to bear the cost of failed banks and the Co-op’s approach could become a blueprint for future rescues…
Sutherland said he was confident a “good proportion” of bondholders would support the move, given that coupons on their debt will be canceled making them effectively worthless. If they refused, the bank would face the threat of nationalisation…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/17/coop-capital-idUSL5N0ET0EU20130617
17 June: Financial Times: Q&A: How will investors be affected by Co-op Bank bail-in?
Q Is there anything bondholders can do?
A Not really. Preference share and subordinated debt holders fall outside the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, so investors cannot call on this if they face losses. Investors can of course sell their junior bonds but will crystallise recent price falls if they do so.
The Co-op has suggested that it will help retail investors to get financial advice – at its expense – on the debt-for-equity swap but so far nothing is certain. At the moment, the bank says it is still looking into proposals for retail investors.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9faf834e-d732-11e2-8279-00144feab7de.html#axzz2We9ls1R8
20
That “bail-in” is much the same model as the Cyprus scandal, which greedy Labor wants to legislate right here. Keep your money under the mattress until Glass-Steagall banking separation is legislated instead. From the article:
50
FYI.
22 March 2013
Greg Hunt, opposition climate minister:
“Hunt was squarely with environmentalists who doubt the technical and financial feasibility of carbon capture and storage, or its long-term ability to contain sequestered carbon.”
40
.
Mr Hunt is also a great believer in wind power, as well as the whole CAGW
scamtheory. That means no relief in sight from the hoops, bells and whistles attached to construction of coal-fired power generation.So it’s not hard to work out how much investment there will be in in real baseload power (coal) over the next three years.
.
But we’ll have lots of windmills.
50
Here’s an interesting bill.
Citizen Initiated Referendum Bill 2013
It’s like a back door to a proper Bill of Rights.
😯
10
Good Morning Jo
DAVID HONE
Good to see that you’ve finally outed Shell as the main protagonists for CCS.
However I don’t see any mention of your fellow countryman who is responsible for this.
David Hone is not only SHELL’S ‘Senior Climate Change Adviser’ but also ‘Chairman of the Emissions Trading Association’.
He has published over 300 blogs pushing for CCS along with a a World-wide Carbon Trading system.
http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange/
Those interested should also google ‘James Smith – Carbon Trust’ to see Hone’s former boss, Ex-SHELL Chairman James Smith who is now Chair of the ‘Carbon Trust’.
This totally pointless quango receives £44 miliion of UK taxpayer money every year, for the sole purpose of lobbying the UK Government for more offshore wind.
You couldn’t make it up !
140
Top comment toad, it’s bare faced corruption. Carbon trading would fund more green madness and control of our lives, CCS will never work.
60
The UK’s energy policy is known for its lunacy, this is yet another little known fact which helps confirm it.
30
A bit off topic:
My local Mitsubishi dealer has the electric MiEV car advertised for $28,880. That is a $20,000 reduction on the price! I guess they aren’t selling too well.
50
It’s probably a $20,000 subsidy.
40
There is something very primitive about digging a hole and burying something undesirable in it, isn’t there? The nuclear industry has faced this since its inception. Now the demented Greens think it plausible?
But wait, it’s ‘carbon capture’? A mindless sexy term denoting capturing and imprisoning the baddies. And much easier for the microcephaloid MSM to understand. Carbon dioxide sequestration is far to elitist a concept to grasp. Far too many syllables.
It has been, is and will always be one of the single most vacant ideas ever considered. It is defeated by sheer scales and it is defeated by science. It is unfortunately promoted by outright greed. And then of course, there is the inconvenient question, WHAT IS THE POINT?
From Dan Pangburn at 01:09 AM on 13 September, 2008
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
60
Did anyone else see the story on TV a few days ago about the NT cattle station that has been turned in to a conservation area? Seems it now employs 4 , yes 4, aboriginal conservation rangers and the former cattle station is now earning carbon credits by burning off the grass growth early in the season instead of later when the grass has grown more and produces more CO2 when burned. Caltex have been shaken down for more than $500,000 to purchase these credits.
Now I’m wondering where the biomass of the later grass growth comes from? CO2 from the air by any chance? So instead of being locked up in the grass for a while the CO2 stays in the air as the grass is killed off early. This is called earning carbon credits? You just can’t make this stuff up.
I should add that, in the segment on TV, the rangers were using what looked to be hydrocarbon fueled burners to start the grass fires……..while driving their 4WDs.
60
A few weeks ago we heard of a few rangers killing off feral animals in the NT for similar credit-bucks, because the ferals exhale CO2, regardless them driving and flying around in jeeps and choppers – including breathing themselves, all making CO2..
70
Seriously, why the heck would anyone want to sequester CO2 anyway.
The gas of life, that has been trapped in coal seams for millennia, is finally being released by human efforts. The biosphere finally is getting a chance to LIVE, BREATHE and PROSPER !!!
Toward 700ppm !!!
121
Good work by Shell!
It’s not that they believe in CCS, but if the EU is hell-bent on achieving its idiotic targets, they’re going to have to hand out sweeteners, and Shell owes it to its shareholders to grab whatever free money is going.
51
“Here’s the thing, guys – we can’t be seen as a vested Interest promoting disinformation and denial of this huge global religion, now can we? Hey – we can look good by burying some of this shit and they’ll even pay us to do it. How’s that for a deal! Get moving on those CCS media releases.”
30
Many years ago, in Alberta, Oil companies captured CO2 and re-ejected into the hole. Since CO2 acts as a solvent this would allow for “Enhance Oil Recovery” due to the thick nature of the oil out here. This was an expensive process and would cut into the bottom line. The Greevils gave these Oil companies the opportunity to have someone else pay for the technology and also make money from it.
Funny world we live in. Who is working for who.
30
Update: Warmest Year Eva!
The Southern Oscillation Index–
There are believed to be two main atmospheric circulations responsible for causing droughts and floods in Australia.
These are El Niño events and La Nina. (not co2)
A strongly and consistently positive SOI pattern (e.g. consistently above about +6 over a two month period) is related to a high probability of above the long-term average (median) rainfall for many areas of Australia, especially areas of eastern Australia (including northern Tasmania) – La Niña.
.
A cloudy, wet summer 2013/14 of floods is coming for East/SE Australia.
Are we “progressively” prepared?
* carbon (sic) tax. Check ✔
* Desalination water plants. Check ✔
* Direct Action Plan. Check ✔
* Windfarms. Check ✔
* Home Solar Panels. Check ✔
* Renewable Energy Targets. Check ✔
* UN-IPCC/Climate Commission report. Check ✔
Yep. The climate scientists will save us.
50
Is anyone else seeing the symbolism of burying CO2 and the burying of CAGW which has demonized CO2?
And like earths atmosphere what goes around comes around. 🙂
20
Surely a great money-maker is to be had.
Build a small coal generator and use all it’s output to do CCS as long as there is a subsidy to do so. As this small coal generator doesn’t make enough CO2 pull more from the atmosphere at additional subsidized cost.
As soon as the it becomes profitable (from subsidy) build more and sell carbon credits.
A perfect model of leftie thinking so it must work.
🙂
10
Sad for climate change when it is relegated to lifestyle opinion bloggers like Sam de Brito at the SMH:
http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/culture/blogs/all-men-are-liars/climate-wars-20130612-2o3fg.html
My 2 cents worth (which is what the Aussie dollar fell overnight BTW):
I can’t believe how much is wasted based on the fixation with “”climate change”” (double scary quotes seemed in order).
40
BD,
Thanks for the link i found it fascinating that the only thing of note to be passed on by the generations ahead will be AGW.
No mention of the endless wars, the global war declared on a tactic, the millions dead as a result but fear not we can fix it all by preparing our military to conduct war based on another new excuse.
However the only thing of note remembered will be AGW, what a delusional world we live in.
20
Hey is this NASA’s backup plan for funding?
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/nasa-aims-to-reduce-asteroid-threat-20130619-2oisc.html
At least we know an asteroid killed out most of the life on the planet a few years ago (OK, 65 million years ago… been a while, I guess), so perhaps this is a contingency plan for NASA Fed funding? They will need to run a few scare campaigns to get even a fraction of the CAGW funding. Maybe if they tie asteroid impacts to CAGW somehow… can’t be any weirder than climate wars.
20
I can prove climate science is wrong in their claims about how to add radiative fluxes and use the result to calculate temperatures !
This casts serious doubt on all of the simple explanations of the greenhouse effect. It also casts serious doubt on Trenberth et al Global Mean Energy Budget.
If they are wrong at this basic level what value is there in all of their science.
Jo is often claiming they have never shown any proof of their claims in a definitive paper.
I say that as well – they show no proof.
But I can prove them wrong !!
Not only that you can too for less than $30.
Why can’t I get anyone in the media to accept my challenge that I will donate $1000 to the charity of choice of the first person who can demonstrate it is valid to sum radiative fluxes and calculate a valid temperature ???
I claim I can prove that the way climate scientists claim it works is wrong by a simple experiment anyone can do.
As Richard Feynman damously said – It doesn’t matter how beausriful your theory is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment it is wrong !
I’m claiming what they say does not agree with experiment – why isn’t this at least discussed ??
70
Well, go on then.
30
Drive-by commentator. I hope nobody was hit?
10
This is so perverse … well read away… Greens & Holocaust Deniers:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/greens-courted-holocaust-denier-fredrick-toben/story-fn59nm2j-1226666556923
(Use Google search workaround to get through paywall as necessary).
30
Dont forget BD the Greens support BDS, personally i have an issue with the “government” of Israel however i have no problem with buying a coffee from a Jewish owned/run coffee shop in Melbourne that the Greens want us to boycott, divest and sanction these places and why? Because they are Jewish this is racism pure and simple but yet the Dullard cuddles up to them to hold power.
Another reason to kick them out of office.
20
Great business plan by shell; create the ‘problem’ and then demand money to solve the ‘problem’.
Clean coal or CCS works; it only has 2 problems; it uses more energy than is produced by the burning of the coal; and the storage space required is many times bigger than the hole created by the digging of the coal; see here.
30
EU carbon falls 7.2 percent as traders take profits
LONDON, June 19 (Reuters Point Carbon) – EU carbon prices fell 7.2 percent after lawmakers sitting in a key committee in Europe’s parliament passed a watered down version of a bill that would allow the Commission to cut supply of permits and traders took profits following a two-month bull run…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2425712
ANALYSIS: Doubt lingers over CO2 mkt fix as EPP rift overshadows vote
LONDON/BRUSSELS, June 19 (Reuters Point Carbon) – A rift between MEPs in Europe’s biggest political party will weigh heavy on the so-called ‘carbon backloading’ debate over the next two weeks, with the future of the divisive proposal still mired in doubt despite winning support from lawmakers on Wednesday…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2425757?&ref=searchlist
Analysts cut price forecasts as MEPs back CO2 mkt fix
LONDON, June 19 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The EU Parliament’s environment committee passed a weakened bill to prop up prices in Europe’s carbon market on Wednesday, sending the divisive measure for a second showdown in the bloc’s plenary next month and causing analysts to slash forecasts…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2425574?&ref=searchlist
10
we should all shut up, says the World Bank!
Time to stop arguing about climate change: World Bank
LONDON, June 19 (Reuters) – The world should stop arguing about whether humans are causing climate change and start taking action to stop dangerous temperature rises, the president of the World Bank said on Wednesday…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2425075?&ref=searchlist
10
Oh dear!
This from the same World Bank that funded large scale coal fired power plants.
World Bank Spends Billions on Coal-Fired Power Stations Despite Own Warnings
While this story is from 4 years ago, it is still indicative.
Tony.
30
In addition even though they are not a trading bank they would love a “carbon” trading scheme to cream their share
30
I heard the Chairman of the World Bank recently interviewed on the BBC World Service. Not an ideal start to the day. It was a harmony of mutual climate hand wringing.
In a recent World Bank ‘report’ entitled: “Warmer World Will Keep Millions of People Trapped in Poverty” (June 19th 2013), they appear to outline their intent:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/06/19/warmer-world-will-keep-millions-of-people-trapped-in-poverty-says-new-report
The report goes on to state:
The report finishes with the telling statement:
In other words, the poor will stay poor courtesy of climate policies that involve ‘mitigation, adaptation, and disaster risk management work’ and the wealthy will be re-distributing largesse in their direction to keep them, well, calm.
30
19 June: Bloomberg: Alessandro Vitelli: EU Carbon Market Needs Immediate Changes, Policy Exchange Says
Europe’s carbon emissions trading system risks failing unless significant changes are made, including an end to the bloc’s renewable energy target, according to a paper published today by a U.K. research group.
The European Union’s emissions trading system, or ETS, is on target to fall short of the region’s goal of cutting greenhouse-gas discharges by 80 to 95 percent from 1990 levels by 2050 unless the number of permits being handed out is immediately reduced or steeper cuts are imposed after 2020, according to the Policy Exchange, a London-based research group.
Permit prices on the world’s largest carbon market have plunged as much as 92 percent as an oversupply swelled to 1.8 billion metric tons, or 87 percent of the cap in 2012, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Prices are too low to encourage new investment in low-carbon power plants, according to Guy Newey, one of the report’s authors.
“There’s no way you’d invest in carbon capture and storage or renewable energy plant at the current price,” Newey said yesterday in a telephone interview. “I’m not certain whether the price is even strong enough to encourage switching from coal to natural gas, which is the first thing you’d do.”
The paper recommended that the European Commission, the market’s regulator, set a series of caps that reduce emissions by 55 percent from 1990 levels by 2035, to give market participants a longer-term indication of the bloc’s climate ambition. The current target is a 21 percent cut by 2020…
***An independent advisory institution could be established to review the system every two to three years and recommend changes to the market, Newey said.
The specific circumstances in which the market could be adjusted would include “when macroeconomic conditions change significantly from what they were when the cap was set, if the climate science changes, or if there is progress on an international climate deal that would require the EU to take on more ambition, or less,” Newey said.
***Policy Exchange was founded by Michael Gove, Francis Maude and Nicholas Boles, who are all now ministers in the U.K.’s coalition government…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-18/eu-carbon-market-needs-immediate-changes-policy-exchange-says.html
00
Big oil already does benefit from wind subsidies–many oil companies have a wind division. Where I live, there is a wind project they are trying to get through that would put turbines on a ranch owned by an oil company–this is not uncommon. THere is a widely held belief that big oil opposes wind. They do not. They profit from it and they are smart enough to know that the turbines will never replace oil and gas. So they lap up subsidies any way they can. Look up any major oil company and you will find a “green” division profiting from the AGW crowd’s ideas.
10
I need to point out that in many cases these oil companies have/had “green” energy divisions well before the current craze (pun intended). It makes sense to research alternate sources of energy. It also makes sense that they drop this research when it’s proven to be uneconomic.
Yes, I work for a large multi-national oil company with “green” energy divisions….note that these divisions have been recently or are currently being downsized.
10
Chevron, Shell and Exxon all have wind plants in the US and elsewhere (Chevron has one less than 10 miles from my home). BP is apparently selling off the wind sector and going back to oil and gas. I agree that this was business decision and it does make sense to research other types of energy. I fully expect all oil companies to drop wind and solar as the profit margin becomes smaller and smaller. For now, it makes for great public relations. When it is not cost-efficient, the idea is dropped. Which is what should have happened with wind and solar, but the government was insistent that these things work and the taxpayers would support them. Business generally have far more sense than government–after all, business answers to shareholders and investors. Government apparently answers to few if any.
10
absolutely right Sheri!
10
Follow the money
00
Sweeney sees a possible three to five demonstration projects being built in the EU, putting it on course to start commercial CCS plants in the late 2020s or early 2030s.
By July 3rd we’ll find out if even the remaining 9 projects get a start. If not, there are none – but since the plan is to have things going in the “early” 2030s, that means the gravy-train has to be kept powered up at the station until at least the 2020s.
Nice work, if you can’t get it. Or should I say, “Nice non-work if you can get it.”
10
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-big-oil-is-begging-for-big-green-subsidies/ […]
00