Despite the drubbing some of us are taking this winter there are still the same CO₂-induced global warming predictions being made and so reducing the amount of carbon that's emitted to our skies appears to remain necessary. One of the ways that has been touted as the most promising has been carbon capture and sequestration. While there have been many papers written and plans made for this technology, not a lot has actually been accomplished and so, as with every scheme that takes a substantial period of time between ideation to implementation, skepticism is bound to arise.

And risen it has. The Energy Tribune, a publication that bills itself as, "Leading the debate. Beating the streets," has a particular abundance of articles on the subject including one entitled, "Carbon Capture in the U.S. Faces Hard Realities" that focuses on the American experience with particular attention paid to the de-funding of the FutureGen project which was to be, through carbon capture and sequestration, the world's first zero-CO₂ emissions coal-fired power plant.

And it's not just The Energy Tribune that is cooling to the future prospects of this tech. Germany's Spiegel Online has just published an article that asks, "Is Carbon Capture a False Hope for Coal Power?" It seems people are coming to the realization that making sequestration work is going to be very expensive.

As I read these articles I can't help but ponder the question, why do we have to spend billions and billions of dollars chasing technology that, even when perfected, is not nearly as perfect as the renewable trifecta (wind, solar, geothermal) in creating energy that gives us the added benefit of saving our environment and, indeed, our lives.

[Source: The Energy Tribune]

Do you hate the idea of your car spewing exhaust? There might be a way to stop it without using any expensive batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. According to the New York Times, a pair of scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) are working on a way to trap exhaust fumes (by blowing them over a liquid solution that contains potassium carbonate) and recycle the trapped carbon into either methanol, gasoline or jet fuel. F. Jeffrey Martin and William L. Kubic Jr. have named their process Green Freedom and a press release by the LANL says the recycling could be done on cars or planes. The fuel generation doesn't take place on board - the carbon needs to be brought to a facility where the CO₂ would be turned into the fuel - and the carbon transformation process is itself energy-intensive. Kubic and Martin are working on a way to streamline this step of the dream (possibly using nuclear reactors), but they're not there yet. Oh, and what is the dream? Recycled gasoline that costs $1.40 a gallon to make. Can't hate that.

[Source: New York Times, LANL, h/t to Ideno]

Plans to build a nearly emissions-free coal fired power plant in Illinois have been thrown into chaos now that the Department of Energy has pulled out of the project. Plans for the FutureGen plant began over a decade ago with a cost of about $1 billion. With the cost now over $1.8 billion, DOE as decided to bail out the project. DOE was going to cover 75 percent of the cost of the plant that was to produce electricity and hydrogen and feature carbon capture and sequestration. Instead, the Energy Department will now take the money and spread it among multiple other projects. The money will be used to pay only for the carbon capture and sequestration, while partner companies will have to fund the rest of the plant. The FutureGen Alliance still wants to proceed with the project. However, they haven't been able to raise the necessary funding prior to the DOE pullout. It's not clear how they will replace the government funding. The Energy Department came to the conclusion that the planned facility was not commercially viable. However, it's not clear what part of it they consider not workable. If it's the carbon capture and storage, redirecting it to several other projects may not make it any better.

[Source: Forecast Earth]

As we have explained before, Europe wants to become a green continent and is taking various actions to accomplish this target. One of these efforts is the widespread use of carbon capture technologies. According to EU figures, 40 percent of Europe's carbon emissions come from coal plants that produce electricity. Carbon capturing on-site, therefore, seems a reasonable way to reduce these emission as much as possible those and, consequently, reduce global emissions.

Now there is a new proposed Directive referring to CO₂ storage in geological strati, either inland or in the sea, under continental platforms. It excludes water columns storage, since the risk of the gas leaving water is quite high (just think about carbonated beverages left open).

The EU wants to restrict authorizations for these storage facilities, and the maximum security will be demanded. Each request will have to wait for 6 months until the EU will give its opinion to the affected country.

The norm will also display a very comprehensive set of technical requirements and evaluation methods for the installation to be authorized. Moreover, it will also ask for constant analysis on the CO₂ levels during transport, injection and storage of the gas.

Finally, the directive will also include rules on how to prosecute violators of these rules and what to do if the gas is released accidentally.

Related:

• DECARBit project tries to capture carbon the cheapest way possible: before combustion
• Pioneering European CO2 capture plant coming to Spain in 2009
• A view about carbon capture projects around the world

[Source: Madri+d]

The DECARBit project is an investigation paid for by the European Union to study carbon capture technologies during the precombustion process of coal and gas. Norway is also part of the project, via SINTEF (Norway does not belong to the EU).

Current carbon capture techniques, mostly post-combustion, use chemicals applied directly to the resulting fumes of combustion. This is an expensive and complex process. DECARBit tries a different approach: instead of capturing CO₂, the idea is to capture as much carbon as possible before the combustion, which leaves a hydrogen-rich fuel. The idea is making carbon atoms form CO (carbon monoxyde) molecules which become CO₂ with water (more or less like this: CO + H₂O CO₂ + H₂). This leaves a much cleaner fuel, rich in hydrogen and it's actually a current process of obtaining H₂.

This is not the only carbon capture project SINTEF is working in: up to five concurrent projects are being coordinated by this Norwegian entity, together with the EU. Norway is a country pioneer in carbon capturing: back in 1996 Statoil used an empty natural gas reservoir to store CO₂.

[Source: Sintef via Econoticias]

As we should always do with "breakthrough technologies," let's take this with a pinch of salt. A Spanish company named Movigi Spain Air Filter claims that they have developed a sort of artificial tree that is able to capture CO₂ from the atmosphere by means of synthetic photosynthesis. We should say that the company, which worked with scientists from the Universitat Jaume I in Castelló in Spain, claims to have developed the large device that looks like a tree. They have not yet provided images to prove it (so if you saw the picture and though, hey, that looks pretty real. Well...).

The system is supposed to work regardless of solar light and the device is so unobtrusive that it can be placed in public spaces. Movigi Spain Air Filter already makes air purifiers that remove CO₂ from closed spaces, so they have a little bit of history with the idea. However, I still prefer to use a natural device to suck CO₂ out of the air: trees.

Related:

• In Japan, hybrid larch trees can capture 30 percent more carbon

[Source: Movigi]

Carbon capture is a dream for oil companies and other polluting industries. It goes like this: power plants that are able to capture more than 80 percent of CO₂, carbon pipes that take liquified CO₂ down to old oil wells, and also mass producing hydrogen. Something that will allow the world to lick the last drops of oil, coal and gas guilt-free. Spanish newspaper El País has published a very interesting article on the possibilities of this technology, which we'll summarize here.

As our readers know, the EU really thinks that carbon capturing is a suitable solution. After signing the Kyoto protocol, Europe should have reduced CO₂ emissions by 18 percent in 2012 over the 1990 value. However, the EU is expecting higher reductions according to United Nation's Climate Change Panel: 50 percent less in 2050. And there's nothing as goos as capturing that CO₂ to reach that goal: By 2020 there should be commercially viable carbon capture projects side-by-side with power plants. For starters, 12 projects should be ready in 2015.

Let's have a look at some projects around the world:

• Exxon: Once one of the leaders in denying climate change, now uses an old technique: CO₂ is injected in oil wells to help extract oil. The technique is ready, so the company is using it to actually store CO₂.
• Statoil: The Norwegian oil company takes away the CO₂ which comes mixed with natural gas and stores it a salty aquifer more than 3000 ft. below the sea bed. They're also preparing three more projects to be installed alongside powerplants.
  
• BP: With three projects in Australia, California and Scotland, BP expects to use carbon capture projects to create hydrogen and store CO₂ before 2012. Anglo-dutch Shell and French Total have similar projects.

Continue reading after the jump

[Source: El País]

Carbon capture is here and the EU is trying hard to push it forward. In an article published by economy newspaper Cinco Días, it's explained that the big problem is overcoming the high costs associated with the process. It's estimated that reducing 80 to 90 percent of the CO2 emissions from a power plant increases the price of energy 35 to 85 percent. Experts mentioned by the newspaper state that a reasonable target for 2020 is making carbon capture affordable at 20 to 30 EUR per ton.

According to this article, the message is clear. Without carbon capturing, the EU can't meet its ambitious emissions targets: cutting CO2 emissions in half by 2050. There are about a dozen of projects which might show positive progress using technologies such as precombustion, oxicombustion and postcombustion, but these results won't be ready at least until 2015.

Nevertheless the European Commission has decided to take a step forward in this direction and is planning legislation in early 2008 to back up these technologies legally, technically and financially. However, don't expect this to be mandatory legislation, which is something environmental groups would like it to be. The bill will ban these technologies from being used outside the boundaries of the EU and under 3,000 meters (9,000 ft) from the surface of the sea. Carbon capture won't be considered either for carbon trading schemes.

In a few words: expect CO2 capturing to arrive soon in Europe, but only at power plants and/or big industries. This CO2 will be somehow extracted from the combustion processes and will be transported like natural gas and stored in old gas or oil wells, salty aquifers or coal mines.

Related:

• Pioneering European CO2 capture plant coming to Spain in 2009
• Austrailian lawmakers argue global warming and sequestration
• First carbon capture facility in Florida

[Source: Cinco Días via Econoticias (link is in Spanish)]