The Energy Grid Blog is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them Oil, gas and coal are likely to remain key energy sources for decades. For instance, electricity generation in the US continues to rely heavily on coal for reasons of domestic availability and cost. Given its large coal reserves, the US is often referred to as the "Saudi Arabia of coal".
Against this backdrop, much brain power is directed towards ideas how to make fossil fuel-based energy production sustainable. The notion to capture carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels has been increasingly gaining currency. The captured carbon dioxide would be stored under ground in reservoirs to avoid further carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. While some point to the great potential of the technology, others stress the risks involved with it. Should carbon capture and storage be part of a sustainable energy system?
Environment
Politics
Comments
I think "true" CCS has potential, but all of the demonstration projects I'm aware of are CCS-for-EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) in which case the additional oil recovered contains more carbon than is sequestered, so it's actually worse.
Posted by: Dunc | June 18, 2009 5:58 AM
8 freaking gigatons a year. That's about 46 million large (30 meters tall (100 feet), 1 meter diameter) trees every year. Over 10 years time, it would add up to a large tree for every person in the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia. (Assuming CO2 emissions stopped growing today ... which is not likely.) That's the magnitude that carbon capture must cope with.
Posted by: llewelly | June 18, 2009 9:27 AM
A few points should be made. First, we are now on the downslope, or nearly on the downslope, of the world oil production curve. What the depletion side of the curve may look like is anybody's guess, but shortages within a few short years cannot be dismissed. The implications for world economies are significant. Sweeping statements about the United States being the Saudi Arabia of coal should be scrutinized. Several new studies have suggested the supply is far more limited and I suspect these will summarized in Richard Heinberg's forthcoming "Blackout: Coal, Climate, and the Last Energy Crisis." Anthracite already is depleted and bituminous coal seems to have peaked.
I'm unclear what you mean by fossil-fuel energy production being sustainable. What is unsustainable is the current world human population. As William Catton and others have argued persuasively, the growth of the human population from 1 billion to 6.7 billion since 1800 has been possible only by acquiring energy subsidies from the drawdown of ancient photosynthesis. There is nothing sustainable about dependency on non-renewable resources. However, the drawdown also includes metals and other minerals, topsoil, and fresh water. Global warming only makes these other, intractable problems, worse.
Posted by: Eric the Leaf | June 18, 2009 4:23 PM
I'm convinced that we can't afford to throw any ideas overboard. R&D should be heavily funded in any area that has a substantial intellectual constituency. Even if these ideas don't work out, they will provide scientific spin offs and expand the diversity of technical experience. Furthermore, from a social/economic point of view, I think we should be subsidizing the class of people that want to solve these problems because high numbers of appropriately educated people are good for our society.
Carbon capture is something we should learn how to do anyway. We will eventually have to learn how to correct the nasty climate fluctuations that afflicted our ancestors. We need more control. Why not start now.
WRT building coal power plants, China is already in the process of building about one a week. We're in big trouble if we can't make nuclear more appealing as a power source. We also need to try harder to sell conservation concepts to India and the PRC, which means we have to sell it at home. Insulation standards ... reflective roofing ... led lighting ... improved battery technology ... transition to electricity for everything so that we can centralize our carbon reductions. Government could encourage these things.
Posted by: jj mollo | June 18, 2009 11:50 PM
100 years ago we all lived fine with 1/3 of todays power usage. I don't believe it has anything to do with cars, power-stations, cows or turning the lights off. Until we are all forced to pay more for the power/fuel that we use none of us will change our destructive habits towards the environment. With our current technologies our planet can only provide a finite amount of power before the environment suffers and yet as world population increases the average person is using more each and every day. We will only change our work, spending, travel or everyday living habits if they become that out of reach that we are forced to seek a more sustainable future. Unfortunately governments, companies and the general public refuse to let go of the old habits. I for one would be more than happy to see some sort of excise added to energy production to facilitate world economies in moving to more sustainable energy practices and research. Products need to have an energy 'unit' added to their price with respect to their production method, transport method, distance of travel etc. Nothing changes without a great deal of pain!!!
Posted by: Howly | July 9, 2009 7:12 PM