Skip to main content

View Diary: Climate change isn't AN issue, it's THE issue (214 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Of course, EOR works. In fact, where EOR... (3+ / 0-)

    ...has been used, it has sequestered about 25% more CO2 than is emitted when the oil it pressures out of the ground is burned.

    But even if every relevant oil formation in the U.S. used EOR, it would, experts like Kinder Morgan estimate, only absorb 4 percent of CO2 being released.

    With coal there is far more CO2 released per ton by burning it and no evidence that there are enough geologically useful formations to store it. Plus, leakage, plus the energy penalty (takes about 25%-40% more energy to store CO2 than when you don't. Sources vary widely on the cost of energy to the consumer of electricity where carbon storage is applied:  At the low end, the EIA projects 2018 levelized cost for a CCS-operated coal plant at about 60 percent more than for on-shore wind. And that is assuming all the issues can be worked out.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun May 19, 2013 at 01:19:27 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't price compare CCS to wind but to nuclear (0+ / 0-)

      As I remember the US government optimistically projected only 20% wind  electricity in 2030, 7 years before we exceed 450 ppm?

      A lot of nuclear plants are reaching the ends of their life spans(decommissioning cost?), should those be replaced with more nukes?

      Also according to DOE sequestration storage atlas there is storage for 248 billion tons of CO2 in oil and gas fields alone while the US produces 3.3 billion tons of CO2 from stationary sources. That doesn't include storage in unmineable coal seams, saline aquifers and even shales.

      If things are really as bad as predicted, I don't see how you can rule out CCS.

      •  No problem. (3+ / 0-)

        Coal is under 40% of US energy production and falling
        In the future 20% will be wind. Get solar to 15%. Another 5%-10% through reducing consumption and coal is done. No CCS required.

        What CCS proponents often ignore is the astronomical cost of building a pipeline network criss-crossing the country from hundreds of coal plants to only a few reliable locations to store carbon. You could build far more wind and solar (or even nuclear) for far less than the billions it would take to build the pipeline network alone. You might as well flush $10 billion down the toilet.

        •  New CCS power plants could be located closer (0+ / 0-)

          to sequestration sites as well as CO2 pipelines, one existing CO2 pipeline extends from Colorado to West Texas another from North Dakota to Saskatchewan, Canada. The railroad carrying coal tracks could move.

          How much solar energy is available at midnight, how much
          wind is produced during the summer doldrums, how much can you cut your AC during a heat wave?
          Overall yes, you can trim your average usage electricity
          but it is more complicated then you are suggesting.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (143)
  • Community (70)
  • Memorial Day (28)
  • Elections (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (25)
  • Media (25)
  • Law (24)
  • Science (23)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Labor (21)
  • Economy (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Marriage Equality (18)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Climate Change (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site