No, this is not about the current US Government spending sequestration program (which is explained HERE).
It is about capturing CO2 and storing it away somewhere, for a VERY long period of time. Coal fired power plants are the first obvious targets. Their flue gas is primarily nitrogen, water vapor, and large amounts of CO2. So the CO2 is far more concentrated than after the flue gas mixes with the atmosphere. Thermodynamics defines the energy required to "capture" CO2, either from flue gas or from the atmosphere. As you might expect, the theoretical energy (read cost) required is less for capturing CO2 from flue gas, where it is concentrated, compared to capturing it from the atmosphere, where it is very dilute.
Want to investigate further? Read Cory Simon's blog post on Scientific American. From that post we find that: "Capture technologies at present are estimated to cost 25-30% of a plant’s power output, driving up the price of electricity by around 80%........ the minimum theoretical energy....... turns out to be ~5% of the output of the coal power plant, suggesting that there is room for improvement in current carbon capture technologies."
In Canada, how are things going to keep the politics of shale oil on a better environmental footing? Not so good relative to Canada's CCS plans, which have been very aggressive up to recently.
There are still many high level research programs going on, so maybe a breakthrough is possible to get us much nearer to the %5 of output theoretical limit. For instance, some novel organic-inorganic CO2 sponges.
It is about capturing CO2 and storing it away somewhere, for a VERY long period of time. Coal fired power plants are the first obvious targets. Their flue gas is primarily nitrogen, water vapor, and large amounts of CO2. So the CO2 is far more concentrated than after the flue gas mixes with the atmosphere. Thermodynamics defines the energy required to "capture" CO2, either from flue gas or from the atmosphere. As you might expect, the theoretical energy (read cost) required is less for capturing CO2 from flue gas, where it is concentrated, compared to capturing it from the atmosphere, where it is very dilute.
Want to investigate further? Read Cory Simon's blog post on Scientific American. From that post we find that: "Capture technologies at present are estimated to cost 25-30% of a plant’s power output, driving up the price of electricity by around 80%........ the minimum theoretical energy....... turns out to be ~5% of the output of the coal power plant, suggesting that there is room for improvement in current carbon capture technologies."
In Canada, how are things going to keep the politics of shale oil on a better environmental footing? Not so good relative to Canada's CCS plans, which have been very aggressive up to recently.
There are still many high level research programs going on, so maybe a breakthrough is possible to get us much nearer to the %5 of output theoretical limit. For instance, some novel organic-inorganic CO2 sponges.
No comments:
Post a Comment