CARBON RECYCLING
Posted by Richard Kryniski at Monday, October 12. 2009 
Categories: Carbon capture
Tags: CARBON RECYCLING:
Categories: Carbon capture
Tags: CARBON RECYCLING:
CARBON RECYCLING:
An alternative to capture and storage
by Rowan Oloman
Company Profile:
Mantra Energy
Mantra Energy
The electro-reduction of CO2 (ERC) bench-scale prototype. ERC technology converts CO2 into materials for a broad use in commercial applications,including fuel for the next generation of fuel cells.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is being hailed by many as the answer to what is arguably the globe’s most pressing question: what to do with the 27 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted yearly from the burning of fossil fuels? Although touted as the most promising interim solution to deal with the greenhouse gas responsible for global warming, CCS remains unproven and costly, and will not be commercially available for another 10 to 20 years. Meanwhile, scientists are exploring alternatives to CCS by capitalizing on CO2 as a commodity instead of treating it as a waste.
Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to reach 43 billion metric tons per year by 2030, an increase of 60 percent. A new report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that growing energy demands from emerging giants like China and India, coupled with a lack of cost-effective alternatives to fossil fuels, means that 77percent of the world’s power will still be derived from fossil fuels by2050. “We will require immediate policy action and a technological transition on an unprecedented scale,” IEA executive director, Nobuo Tanaka, said in Tokyo, after releasing the report. Carbon capture and storage – the process of capturing carbon dioxide and storing it in deep geological formations, in the ocean, or as mineral carbonates – is being promoted by the IEA and others as the most promising technology to deal with fossil-fuel derived emissions. Not negating the role of alternative energies, the IEA is merely being “realistic” about the enduring use of fossil fuels and the urgent need to deal with the resulting CO2.
Conversion versus capture
On May 15th of this year, U.S. Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, announced at the National Coal Council that $2.4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be used to expand and accelerate the commercial deployment of CCS technology. Part of the funds are to be used to train a generation of engineers and geologists to work in the field. Chu said, “To prevent the worst effects of climate change, we must accelerate our efforts to capture and store carbon in a safe and cost-effective way.” Governments in Canada,Europe, Australia and China are also strongly investing in the technology.
Nevertheless, several massive hurdles still stand in the way of full-scale CCS deployment. The UK-based Global Management Consulting Firm, McKinsey & Company, figures that adding CCS to the next generation of European power plants could lift their price as much as $1.3 U.S. billion each. Their thorough analysis (www.mckinsey.com) shows that the typical cost of a demonstration project is likely to be in the range of $80 to $120 U.S. per tonne of CO2 sequestered.
Legally, there are concerns over whether CO2 transport and long-term storage present human- or ecosystem-related risks, and who would ultimately be responsible if a leak occurs. While progress is under way in some countries, no country thus far has developed the comprehensive,detailed legal and regulatory framework that is necessary to effectively govern the use of CCS.
In fact, no full-scale CCS project that captures and sequesters carbon dioxide from a coal-fired power plant as yet exists. The IEA is hopeful that 10 full-scale demonstration plants will be up and running globally by 2015, meaning it may be 10 to 20 years before CCS technology is readily available.
Continue Reading...
Вода, вода, вода автор учись писать информативно, А то много букв мало толку.
Reply to this
С каких источников у вас такая инфа?
Reply to this