I have seen carbon capture and sequestration up close, visiting one year ago a Vattenfall experiment in the technique on the German-Polish frontier.
I am a skeptic about the effort. The Schwartze Pumpe facility on small scale demonstrates the carbon can be captured. And other tests are showing that here in the US. But what to do with all that gas? There is only so much carbonated beverage that the world's consumers can tap.What has nagged me is images of a hose and pump handle coming out of the storage tank at the German coal generating unit ready to inject the C02 into tank trucks for transport to an underground storage facility. Asked when those storage caverns would be ready, the Vattenfall folks responded with sidelong glances and mumbled something about political and technical complications.
Now the Kerry Lieberman energy proposal revealed mid-week offers up $2 billion on the platter of CCS research and development - on top of $2.4 billion in the stimulus spending package. [By the way, no one knows if or when our premiere research effort - FutureGen - will ever resume.]
Robert Bryce, a researcher, in an op-ed in yesterday's NY Times offered some fascinating stats about the volume of carbon dioxide to be handled. Last year, the US generated 5.4 billion tons. Hard to visualize? Half that volume, compressed for storage WOULD EQUAL 'THE VOLUME OF DAILY GLOBAL OIL PRODUCTION," he writes. He cites a study that says it would require 23,000 miles of new pipeline.
Put that in your pipe for a moment.
The world generates a certain volume of oil each day and every bit of it is used. Would our leaders - and us consumers - be willing to foot the bill to deal with an equivalent volume of gas - which would have no useful purpose other than to be out of the atmosphere? I think not.
So if you are worried about global warming - what to do?
I am working on an interview with one of the world's leading solar business execs who truly believes that solar could very well provide half of our energy by mid-century. He is putting millions of dollars and hiring hundreds of workers in Oregon based on that belief.
If so - game over - for coal. The half of our power pulled from the black monster mineral could be instead wrested from sunbeams. No need to pump compressed, useless gas through 23,000 miles of new pipeline around the American landscape.
Homeostasis of green vegetation might be the best way of solar energy absorption.
Is it right or wrong?
Plant and grow 100 trees per family per year. The output of that green power may assure fresh air, fresh water, fresh food and fresh energy per family for over life time.
Is it right or wrong?
Let wind to blow, sun to shine and water to flow.
Is it right or wrong?
Has anyone calculated the overall global-warming effects caused by the adverse impact of CCS on power plant efficiency versus the reduction of GHG effect by taking that quantity of CO2 out of the environment?
Has any of the environmental scientists investigated the impact of permanently removing oxygen from the atmosphere due to CCS versus leaving CO2 aboveground where green plants can photosynthesize it?
Who is going to pay for all the solar panels required to replace coal-fueled generation? I checked on solar panels for my house. After crediting the subsidies available in my location, a $13,000 expenditure was going to get me about 4700KWH per year so it would take me about 18 years to pay that out.
What about the reliability of the power? A lot of manufacturing runs round-the-clock. Even for a day only operation, do you tell your workers to go home on a cloudy or rainy day? Where does the money come from for their paychecks?