Magazine article The Futurist

Is Clean Coal Feasible? the World Looks to Carbon Capture and Storage for a Cleaner Energy Future

Magazine article The Futurist

Is Clean Coal Feasible? the World Looks to Carbon Capture and Storage for a Cleaner Energy Future

Article excerpt

The promising technology of carbon capture and storage (CCS) is seen by a growing body of scientists, government officials, and even environmentalists as the best way to reduce the carbon emissions from power plants, including highly polluting coal-fired power plants, possibly by as much as 90%.

"Carbon capture and storage has massive potential to allow us to meet our energy needs at the same time as cutting carbon emissions," says United Kingdom Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling, adding, "It opens up huge possibility, not just for Britain but also for the world." The United Kingdom is sponsoring a competition to attract engineers and scientists to build the world's first full-scale CCS demonstration plant.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

According to Darling, the U.K.'s foray into carbon capture makes sense not just environmentally, but also economically, as it positions private U.K. firms to provide CCS technologies to a global client base. "Rapid deployment of CCS technology in growth economies such as China and India will be vital," he says.

The United States is also investing in the development of a functional CCS power plant. The $1.5 billion FutureGen initiative, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), seeks to create a coal-powered plant that emits a fraction of the carbon expelled by a conventional coal plant and produces both electricity and hydrogen, which can be stored for a limited time to produce energy later.

However, several obstacles stand in the way of wider implementation of CCS, such as where to put sequestered carbon. U.K. researchers are looking at pumped-out oil and gas fields in the shallow oceans surrounding the Kingdom as a potential depository. Other researchers point out that sequestering carbon in sea beds could increase ocean acidification.

"The risks of sequestering C[O.sub.2] in the oceans are not well understood, and ocean sequestration is most certainly not in the mainstream of CCS," says George Peridas, a science fellow at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The best candidates for sequestration are geological reservoirs and in particular oil/gas fields and deep saline formations. These are typically thousands of meters underground and trap C[O.sub.2] in the rock. Many have trapped hydrocarbons and C[O.sub.2] for millions to hundreds of millions of years."

DOE is focusing its efforts on storing carbon in geological formations, such as saline formations, coal seams, and oil and gas bearing seams, in addition to storage options on dry land. DOE has recently released a Carbon Sequestration Atlas that discusses the carbon storage capacity of the United States and Canada.

An arguably greater challenge is reducing the high costs of capturing and storing C[O.sub.2]. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that the price of running a CCS plant can range from 10% to 40% higher than for a conventional coal-burning plant.

"Once you add the cost of CCS, coal is no longer particularly cheap. Indeed, it's expensive," argues David Roberts, a writer with the online environmental magazine Grist. "Why would China choose expensive CCS over cheap dirty coal? It wouldn't, unless we [the United States] pay it to do so. It will cost China a lot of money to choose green development over dirty coal, and [the United States] has both a moral and a practical obligation to pick up part of the bill. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.