<DrumBeat: July 30, 2007The Oil DrumFor all practical purposes the markets are closed right now>
<UK Energy SecurityThe Oil Drum: EuropeSir David King’s View on Peak Oil>

82 comments on CO2 capture and storage: The economic costs

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Boof on July 30, 2007 - 4:26am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Since this is driven by Big Coal and their captive legislators it needs careful monitoring. We’ve recently seen double counting in tree planting offset schemes since the promoters figured people wanted the feelgood factor, not hard numbers. I’ll just make a couple of points now about some conflicting claims. First CCS will speed depletion. If a world coal peak without CCS was expected by 2025 it will come sooner if extra coal has to shovelled into the furnaces to power the scrubbing, compression and pumping process.

However coal peak deniers say in situ gasification will exploit all those hard-to-get seams or maybe left-behind pillars. Huh? Either gas stays below the surface creeping into hidden layers or it rushes up towards the well head. CCS and UCG are therefore opposite so I don’t see we can have both.

My third point for now is that surely a well head steam boiler has to be cheaper than enhanced oil recovery using CO2. I know ‘green’ dry cleaners use liquid CO2 rather than fluorocarbon solvents. Their customers are cashed up yuppies, not labourers. To me the EOR line sounds like another greenwash so I’d like to see some comparative cost figures.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Chris Vernon on July 30, 2007 - 5:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

First CCS will speed depletion. If a world coal peak without CCS was expected by 2025 it will come sooner if extra coal has to shovelled into the furnaces to power the scrubbing, compression and pumping process

This could be mitigated by achieving 20-30% electricity consumption reductions. Say coal burn per kWh increases by 20-30% but electricity consumption reduces by the same amount then coal tonnage burnt remains the same.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Valuethinker on July 30, 2007 - 8:23am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

'peak coal' is tendentious, although perhaps an article of faith amongst some here.

Global Warming is real, and now.

If we've run out of coal in the 22nd century, then we'll find an alternative source of energy.

The problem is going to be getting through the 21st century without cooking the planet.

Only a fool would take the mid point of the IPCC case, and not worry about the right hand tail of the distribution.

What chance do we need of a 6 degree C rise in temperature to panic, now? 1%? 0.5%

Comments can no longer be added to this story.