Why Carbon Capture and Storage?

I’ve been hearing from both pro- and anti-nuclear power people, NO!! to coal or natural gas with carbon capture and storage. They see a fossil fuel free world.

So why are all major policy analysts including CCS as important means of reducing greenhouse gases? Here are some answers, in no particular order:

• retrofit all the fossil fuel plants in the world (I’ve read the goal is to close all that can’t be retrofitted, by 2030?)
• capture and store industry-produced CO2 not related to electricity, it’s a lot
• fossil fuel plants, even coal, can be ramped up and down faster than nuclear for wind and solar backup. Yes, some utilities use coal to backup wind.
• nuclear buildup will necessarily be slow because it requires ability and i dotting and t crossing. Once sufficient testing of CCS has been done, anyone can make and lay pipes
• CCS with biopower is GHG negative. Today, more or less, whatever CO2 plants take out of the atmosphere while growing is returned when plants are burned (well, except for overhead for farming and transporting the fuel). With CCS, much of the CO2 absorbed during growing can go into long term storage. It is clear we need to rid the atmosphere of significant amounts of GHG.

Testing has to be done, laws made (eg, what liability does a company have?) Someone asked that question in a lecture, and we were told that originally people were thinking of a Price-Anderson type act, because that makes industry responsible, but that act is SOOO misinterpreted among members of the public that people are trying to find another solution. Translation: environmentalists have been pushing the idea that Price-Anderson is a nuclear subsidy, even though government has never shelled out a cent.


Comments are closed.