The is no sense in CCS technology
Carbon Sense | 10.02.2009 03:36 | COP15 Climate Summit 2009 | Analysis | Climate Chaos | Energy Crisis | World
The Carbon Sense Coalition today accused coal companies, power companies and governments of gross negligence for wasting resources from shareholders, electricity consumers and taxpayers on quixotic dreams to capture and bury carbon dioxide from power stations. The Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, Mr Viv Forbes, said that there were five main objections to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS):
Firstly, there are no possible climate benefits because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not control climate and the tiny effect of man’s emissions is wholly beneficial. There has been no open scientific enquiry into the justification for demonising carbon dioxide, and a large and growing scientific opposition to the whole global warming hysteria.
Secondly, there is no public health justification for CCS because carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colourless, non-toxic gas and in fact a valuable plant food. A warm climate with abundant carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be beneficial for all life.
Thirdly, CCS can never be “economic” because there are huge costs and zero benefits.
Fourthly, CCS will divert a vast amount of community savings into stupid investments which will be abandoned in a more enlightened future time.
And finally, neither taxpayers nor shareholders have seen a full cost benefit analysis of the CCS proposals by independent experts. They have no idea of the guaranteed huge cost and the illusory benefits.
More:
“Every day we hear people sounding off about “dirty coal”. Coal is a natural substance and every element in coal reflects the composition of living plants and plays a part in sustaining healthy life. Coal is as natural as the forests from which it came, with the same fuel components as natural gas, more natural than distilled ethanol, and as clean the healthiest soil in a good garden. Like any substance you can name, coal can be dangerous if misused – people in a sealed room can suffocate from the open fire burning wood, or from their own breathing, but sensible people make sure a window is open to allow their combustion products to diffuse into the vast atmosphere.
The same problem arises if there are too many open fires in cities, where poor combustion and lack of modern pollution scrubbers produces a toxic concentration of soot, ash and polluting gases (as in Asia now). Poor combustion with insufficient oxygen can also produce the poisonous gas carbon monoxide, but nowhere is carbon dioxide a problem in the open atmosphere.
“Clean electricity from modern coal-fired power stations is what has cleaned up the smogs of London and Pittsburgh, and can do the same for the Asian smog.
“Once diffused into the atmosphere, carbon dioxide (and all other products from burning coal) become plant food and mineral nutrients for the whole plant kingdom. Plants extract carbon dioxide from the air, consume the carbon and return the oxygen to the atmosphere. It is the key link in the cycle of life.
“The earth is already burying valuable carbon resources in vast deposits of limestone, dolomite, magnesite and gypsum in oceans and lakes and in organic matter being buried at sea by flooding rivers.
“Despite all the hysteria by Al Gore and others, the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are lower now than at many times in earth’s history. So low in fact that if we were successful in capturing and burying all of man’s emissions of carbon dioxide, many people may starve as plant growth would be so reduced that food production would not support today’s population. Burning fossil fuels has had the serendipitous effect of aiding the world production of food and supporting our large populations.
“We hear proponents bleating wistfully about the possibilities of proving that CCS is “economic”. It can NEVER be economic, because there are no benefits – nothing to offset the huge capital costs, nothing to repay the large increase in power generating costs. It can only ever be a mammoth waste of energy, resources and money.
“Building large high pressure pipelines that end up in carbon cemeteries can only be made to look economic by heavy taxes on emissions of harmless carbon dioxide. But even with this artificial subsidy, so-called clean coal plants are being abandoned because of the escalating costs.
“The engineering obstacles to carbon capture and storage guarantee that the capital and operating costs will be very large.
“For every tonne of coal burnt, and after all the polluting gases and soot are removed, over 3 tonnes of carbon dioxide remains. This huge quantity of hot gas has to be captured, cooled, separated from the other “greenhouse gas” (water vapour), compressed and pumped in huge high-pressure pipelines to some distant spot where deep wells have been drilled to allow this valuable gas to be pumped underground, where it is hoped it will stay.
If CCS is installed, electricity costs must rise dramatically. Even the research, planning and design costs will be huge, decades before any CCS plant will operate. Queensland alone has already committed over one billion dollars to this foolish dream.
(In a few favourable locations this gas could be used to drive more oil or gas out of depleted oil fields and this proven technique is already being used where it makes economic sense – it should not be force fed by carbon taxes.)
“All of this separation, compressing and pumping requires . . . more energy from more coal burning. So we burn more coal, each tonne of which produces over three tonnes of CO2, in order to reduce emissions of CO2?? Who is fooling whom? The main game is to reduce consumption of our valuable fossil fuels, so why would anyone support this wanton destruction of resources, energy and capital? And why stop at power stations? There are also hundreds of cement plants, natural gas projects, steel works, coke plants and smelters of all kinds that release carbon dioxide. Are they all destined to be strangled by CCS?
“Even if some naive countries, corporations or governments do spend community savings on these white elephants, they will soon be abandoned. They will be as useful to us as the pyramids were to the Pharaohs, and future generations will marvel at the abandoned compressors, the derelict pump stations and the pipelines going nowhere.
“Green extremists know that CCS is a fantasy but see it as a great weapon to cripple coal and make their fairyland windmills and solar panels look sensible.
“Their green plans aim to put anyone who relies on coal deep into the red.”
To read more on the stupidities of “Burn and Bury” see: http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20081016.html
Secondly, there is no public health justification for CCS because carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colourless, non-toxic gas and in fact a valuable plant food. A warm climate with abundant carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be beneficial for all life.
Thirdly, CCS can never be “economic” because there are huge costs and zero benefits.
Fourthly, CCS will divert a vast amount of community savings into stupid investments which will be abandoned in a more enlightened future time.
And finally, neither taxpayers nor shareholders have seen a full cost benefit analysis of the CCS proposals by independent experts. They have no idea of the guaranteed huge cost and the illusory benefits.
More:
“Every day we hear people sounding off about “dirty coal”. Coal is a natural substance and every element in coal reflects the composition of living plants and plays a part in sustaining healthy life. Coal is as natural as the forests from which it came, with the same fuel components as natural gas, more natural than distilled ethanol, and as clean the healthiest soil in a good garden. Like any substance you can name, coal can be dangerous if misused – people in a sealed room can suffocate from the open fire burning wood, or from their own breathing, but sensible people make sure a window is open to allow their combustion products to diffuse into the vast atmosphere.
The same problem arises if there are too many open fires in cities, where poor combustion and lack of modern pollution scrubbers produces a toxic concentration of soot, ash and polluting gases (as in Asia now). Poor combustion with insufficient oxygen can also produce the poisonous gas carbon monoxide, but nowhere is carbon dioxide a problem in the open atmosphere.
“Clean electricity from modern coal-fired power stations is what has cleaned up the smogs of London and Pittsburgh, and can do the same for the Asian smog.
“Once diffused into the atmosphere, carbon dioxide (and all other products from burning coal) become plant food and mineral nutrients for the whole plant kingdom. Plants extract carbon dioxide from the air, consume the carbon and return the oxygen to the atmosphere. It is the key link in the cycle of life.
“The earth is already burying valuable carbon resources in vast deposits of limestone, dolomite, magnesite and gypsum in oceans and lakes and in organic matter being buried at sea by flooding rivers.
“Despite all the hysteria by Al Gore and others, the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are lower now than at many times in earth’s history. So low in fact that if we were successful in capturing and burying all of man’s emissions of carbon dioxide, many people may starve as plant growth would be so reduced that food production would not support today’s population. Burning fossil fuels has had the serendipitous effect of aiding the world production of food and supporting our large populations.
“We hear proponents bleating wistfully about the possibilities of proving that CCS is “economic”. It can NEVER be economic, because there are no benefits – nothing to offset the huge capital costs, nothing to repay the large increase in power generating costs. It can only ever be a mammoth waste of energy, resources and money.
“Building large high pressure pipelines that end up in carbon cemeteries can only be made to look economic by heavy taxes on emissions of harmless carbon dioxide. But even with this artificial subsidy, so-called clean coal plants are being abandoned because of the escalating costs.
“The engineering obstacles to carbon capture and storage guarantee that the capital and operating costs will be very large.
“For every tonne of coal burnt, and after all the polluting gases and soot are removed, over 3 tonnes of carbon dioxide remains. This huge quantity of hot gas has to be captured, cooled, separated from the other “greenhouse gas” (water vapour), compressed and pumped in huge high-pressure pipelines to some distant spot where deep wells have been drilled to allow this valuable gas to be pumped underground, where it is hoped it will stay.
If CCS is installed, electricity costs must rise dramatically. Even the research, planning and design costs will be huge, decades before any CCS plant will operate. Queensland alone has already committed over one billion dollars to this foolish dream.
(In a few favourable locations this gas could be used to drive more oil or gas out of depleted oil fields and this proven technique is already being used where it makes economic sense – it should not be force fed by carbon taxes.)
“All of this separation, compressing and pumping requires . . . more energy from more coal burning. So we burn more coal, each tonne of which produces over three tonnes of CO2, in order to reduce emissions of CO2?? Who is fooling whom? The main game is to reduce consumption of our valuable fossil fuels, so why would anyone support this wanton destruction of resources, energy and capital? And why stop at power stations? There are also hundreds of cement plants, natural gas projects, steel works, coke plants and smelters of all kinds that release carbon dioxide. Are they all destined to be strangled by CCS?
“Even if some naive countries, corporations or governments do spend community savings on these white elephants, they will soon be abandoned. They will be as useful to us as the pyramids were to the Pharaohs, and future generations will marvel at the abandoned compressors, the derelict pump stations and the pipelines going nowhere.
“Green extremists know that CCS is a fantasy but see it as a great weapon to cripple coal and make their fairyland windmills and solar panels look sensible.
“Their green plans aim to put anyone who relies on coal deep into the red.”
To read more on the stupidities of “Burn and Bury” see: http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20081016.html
Carbon Sense
e-mail:
info@carbon-sense.com
Homepage:
http://www.carbon-sense.com.
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
Stop denying this.
10.02.2009 10:12
Carbon Dioxide is the main greenhouse gas. Where as in previous hot eras global temperature rises have led CO2 rises, at the moment CO2 rises are leading global temperature rises. Pretty conclusive evidence for which is cause and which is effect this time.
All non-externalising operations cost more than externalising operations. Don't understand? If I run a factory and dump mercury into the river you fish in, you pay for my lazyness/irresponsibility in less or poisonous fish, and therefore I can sell my product cheaper since I'm 'externalising' the cost by not paying to clean up my mess. Virtually all companies do this on some level whether its underpaying staff, preventing unions from protecting workers rights or not taking responsibility for costs to society. Any clean electricity generation costs more because you don't get away with making someone else pay for pollution cleanup or climate change adaptation.
Asbestos is a natural product of the earth. Are you going to tell me its safe?
Clean electricity doesn't clean up smog, it simply doesn't add to it. Clearly the author is struggling with cause and effect here.
Plants do use CO2 to make sugars when photosynthesizing. An imaginative company now takes CO2 from a factory and pipes it round its gargantuan Tomato growing greenhouse. It makes for huge fast growing tomatos. However, we're producing CO2 at a ridiculously higher rate than plants can absorb it: those tomatoes I mentioned only use a fraction of the CO2 from one smokestack. It took life and geology millions of years to make our deposits of coal. We've burnt them in about 200 years. It'll take millions of years more for the CO2 to be absorbed back into the ground naturally.
'Hysteria', 'Bleating wistfully'. Farely emotional language so I guess this is opinion not science. 'Green extremists'? You're as bad as the UK for badmouthing and criminalising scientists and activists.
P.S. I work in the power industry. I should know.
McQn
off the mark
10.02.2009 13:08
Yeah, not the best article in the world. Al the rubbish about plant life is a bit rubbish.
But there are some points of interest. When compared to natural CO2 emissions, global CO2 from burning fossil fuels is very small indeed. I think last figures i read were that all greenhouse gases (manmade + natural) accounted to about 3% of greenhouse gases. But manmade is such a small proportion of that 3%, so we are talking very tiny amounts. And it is already known that astronomical changes are a much larger contributing factor to climate change than greenhouse gases or indeed solar reflection.
So it is very annoying to hear than vast amounts of money is spent on reducing CO2 emissions to meet political quotas, thus just increasing prices, when it could have to spent on real environmental / energy issues instead.
mike
replies
10.02.2009 13:33
>> Carbon Dioxide is the main greenhouse gas. Where as in previous hot eras global temperature rises have led CO2 rises, at the moment CO2 rises are leading global temperature rises. Pretty conclusive evidence for which is cause and which is effect this time.
Wrong. Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas (~95%) and only about 0.001% of that is manmade. CO2 is about 70% of the remaining 5%..... which is 3.62% overall. It if was conclusive then all scientists would agree. Thats how science works. Even the explanation for gravity is only a theory, so even that isn't conclusive.
>> Asbestos is a natural product of the earth. Are you going to tell me its safe?
No, but I think this has nothing to do with climate science.
>> Clean electricity doesn't clean up smog, it simply doesn't add to it. Clearly the author is struggling with cause and effect here.
What?!? Its quite simple: Smog dissipates naturally. So, the effect of having more clean forms of electricity is that other 'dirty' stations are closed causing smog to reduce. The cause (more forms of cleaner electricity) will make the effect (reduced smog). Otherwise what is the point of building wind turbines?
>> Plants do use CO2 to make sugars when photos......It'll take millions of years more for the CO2 to be absorbed back into the ground naturally.
Last data i read estimated that manmade CO2 was about 3.5% of the total CO2 produce (manmade+natural). So a tiny reduction in manmade CO2 is going to have very little effect.
>> 'Hysteria', 'Bleating wistfully'. Farely emotional language....
Yes agreed, not useful at all.
>> P.S. I work in the power industry. I should know.
I work in environmental science
mike