The Obama administration is moving ahead with the development of the “clean coal” technology of carbon capture and storage, even though experts say that the technology’s high costs will prevent it from being widely adopted for decades. Carbon capture and storage requires that carbon dioxide emissions be captured in the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants and factories, and then converted into a liquid and pumped into reservoirs deep in the earth. “I won’t be surprised if we have some of these [systems] in place in the 2020 to 2030 decade, but … it’s going to be on the margins, just because it costs so much” [Reuters], says energy consultant Bill Durbin.
In 2008 the Bush administration canceled the flagship clean coal project, called FutureGen, which called for the construction of a near zero-emissions coal power plant that would test carbon capture and storage technology. The project’s costs had escalated to $1.8 billion by the time it was canceled, but new Energy Secretary Steven Chu has indicated that he may revive at least parts of the project, saying, “We are taking, certainly, a fresh look at FutureGen, how it would fit into this expanded portfolio” [Greenwire].
In a recent Congressional hearing on energy policy, Chu stressed that clean coal is on the administration’s agenda, despite his statement when he was a private citizen that “coal is my worst nightmare.” Republicans – and a significant number of Democrats – want assurances that the Obama administration will keep using coal, which is abundant and cheap but scientists say is a major source of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions…. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., led the charge, complaining that forecasts that solar power will only account for a small share of the U.S. power consumption by 2015 “means that clean coal and nuclear power it seems to me, then, are far more important than maybe some people appreciate today.” Chu replied that “I agree with that” [Dow Jones].
Much of the technology that would be used in carbon capture and storage systems is already proven. Oil firms, for example, have long experience of pumping carbon dioxide into reservoirs to increase their pressure and thus squeeze out more fuel [The Economist]. Researchers also have variety of ways to scrub carbon dioxide from exhaust gases passing through a smokestack. But the expense of building commercial-scale power plants with these systems is still prohibitive. That leads environmental groups like Greenpeace to argue that clean coal technologies will never be competitive, since other low-carbon technologies, such as wind power, are already cheaper and becoming more so as time passes [The Economist].
Related Content:
80beats: World’s First Really Clean Coal Plant Gets a Try-Out in Germany
80beats: Georgia Judge Blocks a Coal-Fired, Globe-Warming Power Plant
DISCOVER: Can Clean Coal Actually Work? Time to Find Out.
DISCOVER: Can Coal Come Clean?
DISCOVER: The Key to Safe and Effective Carbon Sequestration
Image: flickr / dsearls
March 9th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
global warming is HOAX!!!!!!
March 9th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
As stated, average global temperatures have been in decline for the past three years. Power plant carbon sequestration consumes 30-50% of prior output. /_\ P/_\V=enery, 101.325 joulesl/liter-atm. So here’s what ya do, Bunkie…
Dump coal by the megatonne into extinction recycle hydrocrackers, plus all the hydrogen from the H*Y*D*R*O*G*E*N economy. Nitrogen, sulfur, and other inorganics dump out. Clean liquid hydrocarbon gushes out the bottom pipe. Dealing with dicoronylene byproduct is left as an exercise for the alert reader.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:34 am
As stated, average global temperatures have been in decline for the past three years. Power plant carbon sequestration consumes 30-50% of prior output. /_\ P/_\V=enery, 101.325 joulesl/liter-atm. So here’s what ya do, Bunkie…
Dump coal by the megatonne into extinction recycle hydrocrackers, plus all the hydrogen from the H*Y*D*R*O*G*E*N economy. Nitrogen, sulfur, and other inorganics dump out. Clean liquid hydrocarbon gushes out the bottom pipe. Dealing with dicoronylene byproduct is left as an exercise for the alert reader.
Sorry, forgot to add great post! Can’t wait to see your next post!
March 14th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Nice post, I made a recent post regarding all of the problems regarding the notion of clean coal.
http://madrad2002.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/clean-coal-was-never-being-developed-by-bush-admin/
April 25th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Why not use captured Carbon to manufacture Diamonds by compression
As scientist have already begun making Diamonds from compressed Carbon why not use the captured Carbon from industry etc to make diamonds, instead of storing it underground which could escape as the tectonic plates are always moving.
China is sitting on a ‘Gold Mine’ of Co2 for such use as described.
See Carbon and Diamond link: http://www.answers.com/topic/carbon
Signed Carl Barron Chairman agpcuk
July 6th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Captured Carbon is the bet way forard in my view
June 15th, 2011 at 12:11 am
sex toys sandwell adult shop eugene best men’s masturbation machine sex toys men adult toys in bangkok automatic male masturbation device best no hand male masturbators sex shop salt lake stroking male toy male sex products store sex toys shop madrid rated male masturbators blow men toy masturbator buy sex shop cedar rapids adult toys hollywood masturbation toy for male adult toys pomona sex toys for men self pleasuring cheap sex shops ankara masturbators testimonies automatic jerkoff sex toy masturbator machine best masturbator adult shop chandler