JUN 20

Cicero has released a report touting how a new experimental carbon sequestration and disposition system can drastically lower CO2 levels and significantly improve our climate change prognosis. The report says that if all new coal power stations could be built based on this technology, we’d basically be able to declare “Mission Accomplished.” This is kind of a “Duh” statement in that of course if we got rid of the CO2 issue at one of the biggest sources of the gas, then green house gas levels would plummet. With a little digging, the reality of this statement turns out to be just what it seems at first glance – too good to be true and too simple to be realistic.

Carbon sequestration is on everyone’s minds. But while effective capture methods have been developed, the question remains: what do we do with all that CO2 we’ve got bottled up?

The Ultra Low Emissions technology is, in fact, real. Norwegian clean energy specialist company Sargas has created a system that captures, cleans, and stores carbon emissions from coal plants. And they have the ideas on how to get rid of it, too. They’ve successfully tested the carbon capture technology on a small scale at a coal plant Värtaverket in Stockholm, and proven that the system captures 95% of CO2. In fact, all the major goals of the test were met, including the high level of capture, ease of use, how clean they were able to get the gas and make it “turbine-ready” and the reduction of NH3, SO2 and HCI to below-detection levels.

The experiment proves that the method and technology for capture and cleansing is now here and can easily be scaled up for commercial purposes. But what it also proves is…well, not much. Their technology can only be utilized on new coal plants or retrofitted on existing coal plants that utilize Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion (PFBC) technology, because their system works under pressure. While they note that the major polluters include the US, China and India, retrofitting can occur only at PFBC plants located in Sweden, Japan and Germany. Most plants produce emissions at atmospheric pressure. So the technology doesn’t exactly go far for cleaning up coal.

"Through the project we have obtained scientific proof that our technology works,” says Henrik Fleischer, Chief Executive Officer of Sargas. “It means that we can now offer coal power station solutions with CO2 capture to the market on commercial terms. Our solution is based on standard industrial components – boiler and cleansing plant. We have managed to make them work together in a new way, using a technological solution we have developed and patented worldwide. Because of this we have no scaling problems as the main components are in daily use independently all over the world. Coal is a cheap fuel for power production and will have a central role as an energy carrier for the foreseeable future in large parts of the world. Our technology means that the world can continue to utilize coal in the future as well, but without the climate suffering." While it paints a pretty picture of skipping through green fields, pockets full of gadgets that cost pennies to charge, it also sounds a little broad and idealistic.

The company isn’t a head-in-the-clouds company, though. They’ve worked with some serious partners, including the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Siemens. Additionally, the Institute for Energy Technology (IFE) at Kjeller assisted with the control of methods and results. But while Cicero’s report saying how amazing this technology could be is accurate when using their assumptions, the assumptions are off base. The assumptions include all new coal plants built after 2015 utilize the technology, and that all CO2 can be safely stored in geological formations – a MAJOR issue not yet resolved, and one so big, it makes carbon capture seem a little pointless.

CO2 needs to be stored deep in geological formations – deep, as in several thousand feet deep, in the low-density strata that lies under the impermeable “caprock” strata. Supposedly it can also be injected into abandoned gas and oil wells or deep saline aquifers, but that remains sketchy. And in order to be injected into this nearly impossible to reach depth in a way that it doesn’t leak right back out, the CO2 has to be compressed to about 100 atmospheres before injection.

Okay, say we deal with all that and can get it underground. We still have to deal with the sheer volume of emissions we put out at coal plants. The largest carbon sequestration pilot project so far can only handle about 10,000 tons each day, whereas the average coal power plant spits out 24,000 tons each day. That’s ONE plant. The scaled down version of Sargas’s technology only processed 130 lbs of exhaust gasses and hour, and if assumed it worked round the clock, that’s only just over 1.5 tons a day…and that’s being processed, but not disposed of. Beyond even our ability to inject carbon into geological formations, we may not even have the room inside the earth to hold all the carbon we spit out.

I think the report and the experiment actually prove two things. First, carbon capture and cleansing is possible and can be utilized in the future. But second, either figure out a clean use for all that CO2 – like feeding it to algae or turning it into wallboard – or coal plants need to be phased out.

Via Cicero, Sargas, Reuters UK, Norway Post, WorldChanging

Comments (12)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Still misses the point
written by Craig, June 20, 2008

Figuring out a way to make coal power "clean" is only any good if they also figure out a way to make the extraction process environmentally benign - now if they can figure that out then i would be impressed, if not, then why even bother because even if it does stop global warming, there will be no unpolluted areas and ecosystems left to enjoy! There are too many other advances in real green tech to even give this idea the time of day IMHO.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

UGH
written by Alex, June 20, 2008

So they're just wanting to "inject" this garbage into the ground? Why can't we focus on creating less pollution instead of just hiding our excess.

I see nothing good coming from burying high pressure CO2 beneath our feet

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Carbon sequestration is a con
written by Kelly, June 20, 2008

Carbon sequestration is nothing more than an elaborate scam being run by the coal lobby (and governments) to buy more time in order to conduct business as usual.

There are not enough places to store the stuff planet wide. The technology is unproven and it would take many many years to replace all the world's coal fired power stations (assuming it did work).

• 
• +0
• 
• 

re: scam
written by Hank, June 20, 2008

@kelly - saying that sequestration is a scam as is closed minded as saying solar power will never be profitable. It certainly may not be useful in every place in the world. It might not be possible today. But we at ecogeek believe that every example should be explored.

Several studies done by indpendent companies and governments (even governments that aren't in the pocket of coal companies) show that sequestration could be a significantly cheaper way to deal with our carbon problem than renewables...at least in the short term.

And while I honestly hope that we're off coal in the next 50 years...there's no hope that we'll be able to wean ourselves before then. We can't turn the coal power plants off right now without eliminating 50% of our power, and the plants that are operating today will be around for another 30 years.

Sequestration needs to be explored. Whether it's pumping it into the ground ormaking useful things out of the CO2, the cleaning and scrubbing process is an important part of that.

- Hank Green
Chief Editor

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Robbert, June 20, 2008

You can actually pump the CO2 into hothouses.
Many hot-house farmers burn fuel to produce extra CO2 to use in hot-houses, as it will help plants grow faster.
As a result you can actually up the food production this way.

This won't be a solution for all the sequesterred gas, but it will help.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Proud Human Supremacist, June 20, 2008

We have a perfectly benign way to take coal out of the ground. It involves people with pick axes who push the carts. The only problem is it causes people to die a lot. 2004 coal mine deaths in USA: 28 China: 6,027.

Saying we shouldn't sequester the emissions because extraction is bad is the same as someone trying to lose weight not cutting calories on desert because they haven't cut calories on dinner. If you want to have your cake and eat it to it'll take some time.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Says who?
written by David Ahlport, June 20, 2008

==Several studies done by independent companies and governments (even governments that aren't in the pocket of coal companies) show that sequestration could be a significantly cheaper way to deal with our carbon problem than renewables...at least in the short term.==

Care to post some of those studies.

Last I checked, FutureGen got canceled because the project was too costly.

And the premise of devising a cryogenic/pressurized liquid fuels distribution system many times larger than our current oil pipeline infrastructure doesn't seem too realistic to me.

Or atleast certainly not realistic from a "Cheaper and Quicker" perspective.

_

I'm gonna make a wild guess and assume you're talking about that McKinsey report huh?

You know, the one that says that Cellulosic Ethanol infrastructure costs $0 dollars to create.

_

I also find that comparison a bit suspect since if you consider this NanoSolar and RE

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by David Ahlport, June 21, 2008

I also find that comparison a bit suspect since if you consider this NanoSolar and Google's REC campaign are targeting $1000-2000/kW range. (i.e. Grandfathered Coal)

New Coal that followed 2005 Clean Air Act regs? $3500-$4500 range

Futurgen on the other hand was in the $6500/kW range.

_

But then again, considering this plant is supposed to be the first of it's kind. And the DOE admits they don't even have enough pilot project capacity to do even a pilot study.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Don, June 21, 2008

Lets give it a name
I say Global Carbon March
Inter our exhaust


I don’t see any mention on your web site of Pyrolysis or Agrichar . Do you have projects in the planning stage on the carbon sequestration front?

The more you learn about this ancient technique of soil restoration the more you'll see how elegant this solution can be for carbon sequestration, for us all.
Imagine putting the carbon tax funds into the hands of millions of peasant farmers all around the world, building their soil and their net worth at the same time they sequester our carbon. Please search "AGRICHAR" “BIOCHAR” or
“TERRA PRETA”

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Hey Don
written by David Ahlport, June 21, 2008

Hate to burst your bubble Don. But the benefits of Biochar may be vastly overstated.

Or at best severely limited in scope.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/2/211036/2352

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Clinch, June 21, 2008

They're going to have coal power stations anyway, so better ones that produce a small amount of pollution, than sticking with the ones that produce a lot.
Well, at least until the technology for renewable energy makes it an economically viable alternative.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Cage, June 23, 2008

We need to keep replacing coal with renewables, but its still going to take a long time. I hope they'll use this co2 to create fuel and grow algae. A phev powered by dirty coal is still cleaner than an oil powered car.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment