backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 166 comment(s) - last by piroroadkill.. on Sep 16 at 4:31 PM


The world's first industrial scale carbon sequestration plant pumps carbon dioxide up to 800 m underground. Unfortunately it is not very popular with climate change skeptics and environmentalists alike.  (Source: Der Spiegel)

The new plant receives CO2 shipments by truck from a special 45 MW coal plant 217 miles away.  (Source: Der Spiegel)
New plant pumps carbon safely into the ground, but is it really helping?

Carbon sequestration technology aims to store carbon, regardless of its source, whether it is from a new high-efficiency coal plant or an ancient relic of a plant.  In the past, researchers looked at many ways of doing this.  Some argued to put it in the sea while others argued to sink it in artificial wetlands.

However, the most popular idea is to pump it underground.  The U.S. Department of Energy already launched an expensive initiative to test out such a system.  Now Swedish power supplier Vattenfall has beat everyone to the punch, building and bringing online the world's first industrial-ready carbon sequestration plant, located in Brandenburg, Germany.

Construction on the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) plant began two years ago.  The plant cost $97.4M USD to construct.  Many view it and other CCS plants as essential for coal to stay competitive against greener energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear power.  The plant officially opened with a ceremony this Tuesday.

The power plant used by the facility is a specially built 45 MW plant 350 kilometers (217 miles) away.  CO2 is delivered by the truckload to the waiting plant, where it is pumped underground into a natural gas reservoir.  Vattenfall's main competitor, RWE, is looking to build a 450-megawatt CCS power plant in Hürth, nine kilometers southwest of Cologne.

The technology is thought to be viable at current carbon credit costs when it can be coupled with a plant with about 1,000 MW of capacity.  Thus the current new plant is an experimental proposition, which is losing money in the short term.

At the new plant, gas is pumped into 800-meter-deep bore holes into the depleted reservoir.  Estimates vary, but it is expected to be trapped there anywhere from 1,000 and 10,000 years.

While some power companies are promoting the technology as a green dream, interestingly many environmental groups are vocally opposing it.  Over 99 organizations in a group called the "Climate Alliance" invited protesters to the opening of the plant.  They say the technology is too unproven and CO2 separation also lowers plant efficiency to as little as 34 percent, from a typical efficiency of 44 percent.  Further, they say it will slow the adoption of alternative energy sources, lulling people into a false sense of security.

While some, particularly in the green community are particularly opposed to the technology, it doesn't seem likely to go away anytime soon.  SPD (Germany's top political party) head Kurt Beck acknowledged the criticism, but cautiously plugged the effort, stating, "One sees clearly that it is far more than just a theoretical beginning.  It is one of a number of solutions to the climate problem."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

crazy kids
By ViroMan on 9/12/2008 8:39:37 AM , Rating: 4
Eco Freak: Ohh.. its horrible... the coal plants are polluting!

Engineer: I have the solution! Ill take the CO2 out of the bad air and pump it back into the ground!

Eco Freak: HEY! Stop that! We need to have something to yell at!

Engineer: I can solve that too! <Puts a pump to the eco freak's mouth and starts pumping out the CO2 from the polluting eco freak>




RE: crazy kids
By 306maxi on 9/12/2008 8:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah it's pretty poor on the part of the enviro-tards.

I consider renewables to be a big part of the solution in the future just as nuclear power should be as well. But we should also look at whether CO2 can be stored like this as this can also be part of the solution.


RE: crazy kids
By wvh on 9/12/2008 10:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's not solution as such. It's delaying a problem, much like hiding a dead body under the floorboards.

:)


RE: crazy kids
By epobirs on 9/13/2008 1:04:58 PM , Rating: 1
Apparently you don't understand where coal comes from.

This is returning the carbon, released from burning the coal, back underground where the coal was first obtained. If the goal is to keep carbon out of the atmosphere, then this is entirely sensible.

The real question is whether CO2 is the threat it has been made out to be. So far the evidence says it has vastly less effect than the alarmist claims. On that basis the skeptics at least have a rational point for criticism. If CO2 isn't a problem then this sequestration operation is adding needless expense to energy production.

The environmentalist complaint that this is reducing the pace of development for alternative energy production is just plain whining. No amount of money and personnel is likely to deliver any time soon a replacement that will be both clean and so cheap we can immediately do away with our current power sources. So mitigation of those power sources' undesirable outputs is necessary.


RE: crazy kids
By jtemplin on 9/14/2008 6:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well reducing the pace of innovation is mentioned in the article but you forget to mention that in the preceding sentence the author cites the
quote:
group called the "Climate Alliance" invited protesters to the opening of the plant. They say the technology is too unproven and CO2 separation also lowers plant efficiency to as little as 34 percent, from a typical efficiency of 44 percent.


That doesn't sound like whining to me. Sounds like something everyone can agree on. Reducing the efficiency of power generation to enable this re-capturing which may not have any effect on or relationship to climage change seems backward to me.

I mean, you said it yourself:
quote:
If CO2 isn't a problem then this sequestration operation is adding needless expense to energy production.

So you agree with the "environmentalist complaint"...does that make you a whiner too?


RE: crazy kids
By Storkme on 9/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: crazy kids
By porkpie on 9/12/2008 10:27:20 AM , Rating: 5
How is it a "stunt"? The plant doesn't release any carbon. Isn't that what the problem was supposed to be all along?

Honestly, this just reveals the enviros true agenda. They don't really believe in global warming (who does?), they're just using it as an excuse to reverse industrialization and take us all "back to nature".


RE: crazy kids
By BansheeX on 9/12/2008 12:38:44 PM , Rating: 5
The most hilarious and crazy thing about it is that, in light of the impossibility of this task, what they're inadvertently doing is slowing down cleaner successors. Because old technology, old types of fuel, invariably contributes to the development of its cleaner, more efficient successor. In other words, we would have never entered the nuclear and battery age if it weren't for fossil fuel combustion and horse crap all over the streets. Now we have the capacity to create vast amounts of power under any conditions 24/7 with a resource that is 10,000 years in supply, capturing the voluminously small waste before it enters the environment, storing it in impenetrable steel and concrete containers until our technology is so amazing that we can easily jettison it and other garbage into the sun. But... that's not good enough for them. Nothing is. Short of pie in the sky nonsense like windmills and solar for EVERYTHING, which is mathematically impossible for future needs and costs way more per energy unit. They have no answer, all they know how to do is fearmonger, lobby, and picket. The answer has been with us for thirty years and they've blocked it.

My contempt boils over for these people. They have no understanding of cost/benefit ratios, they think that millions dead, dying, and impoverished from oil resource wars and subsidized food-based bio-fuels is preferable to a chance of radiation contamination equivalent to being struck by lightning twice on the same day. There's more risk crossing the damn street, but they've turned nuclear into some kind of boogeyman. Vote me in as president and I will charge them all with crimes against humanity.


RE: crazy kids
By Jaybus on 9/12/2008 1:55:52 PM , Rating: 4
I hope that includes Jerry Brown, Ronald Reagan's successor as Governor of California from 1975-1983, and one leaders of the 70,000 person anti-nuclear march on Washington in 1979 that essentially halted the building of nuclear power stations in the US for 28 years. Some of us still remember the hysteria.

Here's a tidbit. Every time there's a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, gasoline prices soar due to the shutdown of refineries along the Gulf Coast. We are right now expecting $1/gal hike in Tennessee to be caused by Ike. Yet Andrew hit the Turkey Point station in south Florida in 1992 and it was a non-issue. What does that say about the safety of nuclear power?


RE: crazy kids
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 4:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you got me, what does this say about the safety of nuclear power? It has had pretty much 0% failure rate since inception.


RE: crazy kids
By Gary Right On on 9/13/2008 2:36:45 AM , Rating: 2
With a 0% failure rate makes you wonder why eco-freaks are opposed to nuclear power doesn't it? Maybe they really just hate people.


RE: crazy kids
By Myg on 9/12/2008 4:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
I bet your one of those people who wants to live forever.


RE: crazy kids
By Shining Arcanine on 9/12/2008 6:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
The carbon never was a problem. The radioactive uranium and thorium, among other radioactive elements, that coal burning power plants, as well as their high cost per unit of energy, is the problem.


RE: crazy kids
By PhoenixKnight on 9/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: crazy kids
By masher2 (blog) on 9/13/2008 1:31:17 AM , Rating: 3
Why are you invoking some mythical conspiracy? Radical environmentalism isn't a conspiracy. It's simply a group of people that share a set of commmon beliefs. Unfortunately, those beliefs are anti-technology, anti-progress, and anti-humanity.

From Greenpeace activists destroying GM crops to Sierra Club lawsuits preventing new power plants to PETA activists vandalizing medical facilities to Earth First! members torching factories and car dealerships -- the goals are the same.

It's no more an organized conspiracy than a mob is. But it's just as destructive.


RE: crazy kids
By Polynikes on 9/12/2008 11:05:18 AM , Rating: 5
Considering we're not even sure that man-made C02 is really causing any warming, this is a complete waste of money.


RE: crazy kids
By walk2k on 9/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: crazy kids
By bhieb on 9/12/2008 1:11:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If it helps clean up the air


Sums up your attitude right there. There is absolutely nothing "dirty" about C02. Now I agree it isn't a good thing to be dumping into the air, but calling it unclean clearly highlights your eco-ignorance.


RE: crazy kids
By quiksilvr on 9/12/08, Rating: -1