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]

A new provisional policy has been announced by the progressive Canadian state of British Columbia to clean up coal-fired power stations; the same state that the GLOBE Foundation believes could be energy self-sufficient by 2025. The new policy requires that new coal-fired power plants must emit no carbon dioxide, but instead capture and sequester their carbon dioxide emissions using technology that is currently available today according to local politicians. The cost to build such a plant are estimated to be at least 10 to 15 percent higher than a regular pulverized-coal plant however.

Some experts feel the result of the policy will be to effectively mandate Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) coal gasification technology which produces a purer waste stream to extract the CO2 from. IGCC is commonly seen as one of the few realistic approaches to effectively capture carbon dioxide. It also has the advantage of reducing NOx and sulfur dioxide emissions to be more in line with those from a natural gas-fired power plant. The best way to actually sequester the captured carbon dioxide is proving to be far more contentious.

Analysis: Reduced emissions and easier carbon dioxide capture make IGCC attractive (as far as coal-fired power stations go). The technology to sequester this captured carbon dioxide in deep geologic formations is still far from being proven in the long-term though. I don't think pumping carbon dioxide into the ground is really the answer in the same way that pumping crude oil out of the ground isn't either. A better solution is to pursue growing algae for biodiesel with all that carbon dioxide.

Related:

• British Columbia sees biofuels as part of 2025 energy self-sufficiency plan
• Think coal gasification and coal-to-liquid is the same? Not even close
• Fewer coal plants in Texas as a result of environmental groups and a buyout offer

[Source: Technology Review]