Scientists say cost of capturing CO2 declining

October 9, 2017 by Michael Virtanen
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Technology now in limited use removes about 90 percent of carbon dioxide from the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants, but energy experts say cost remains the chief obstacle to bringing the "clean coal" touted by President Donald Trump into the mainstream.

They cite recent advances in applying the longstanding technology, despite some earlier setbacks, but say the U.S. power sector needs bigger tax credits or other incentives to close the cost gap for using them.

"What we have now is a public policy challenge, or call it a political challenge if you will, in that next phase which is to deploy this technology more widely and bring the cost down, (which) requires a whole new set of policies that go beyond R&D to actual deployment incentives," said Brad Crabtree, vice president for fossil fuels at the Great Plains Institute.

The U.S. has successfully cut other smokestack pollutants, including sulfur, nitrogen and mercury. But is a bigger challenge because there is so much of it. Coal- and gas-fired electrical generators produce about 30 percent of CO2 from human activity. Other industries like cement, steel, and fertilizer manufacturing add another 20 to 25 percent. Farming and vehicles are also major contributors.

John Thompson of the nonprofit Clean Air Task Force said there would be no way to limit the rise in global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels without taming emissions. The world has already warmed about 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) since the Industrial Revolution. Scientists say every fraction of a degree change in average temperatures can lead to noticeable swings in local weather patterns.

"If you don't tackle that you really can't constrain warming on the planet to one-and-a-half to two degrees on anybody's likely scenarios," he said.

In Congress, bills that now have 64 bipartisan sponsors would raise tax credits from $10 or $20 per metric ton depending on use to $35 or $50. Advocates want it added to the current tax overhaul proposal.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican and co-sponsor, said carbon capture would help protect the coal industry and expand oil production as well as reduce emissions. As for chances of passage, she said Thursday that it's "too early in the process to know whether those priorities can advance together or separately."

The Natural Resources Defense Council, like other environmental groups, first advocates efficient energy use and switching to renewable sources, but regards carbon capture as "a potentially useful tool in the climate protection toolbox," said David Hawkins, director of climate programs.

At federal labs in Morgantown and Pittsburgh, researchers cite one recently successful 13-megawatt pilot project in Colorado and say they are on target for a handful of others by 2020 while reducing the cost of carbon capture from $100 per metric ton to $40. "We're definitely close," said Lynn Brickett, the labs' manager.

The labs are also identifying methods to inject more liquefied carbon dioxide back into the Earth. That's where the carbon-based coal, oil and natural gas originally came from before they were burned and produced the CO2 in the atmosphere blamed for global warming.

New energy technologies normally take 15 years to move from the laboratory to the outside world, according to the National Energy Technology Laboratory. Its researchers are developing computer models to accelerate that timeline for carbon, engineer David Miller said.

The lab, a division of the U.S. Energy Department, acknowledges routine use would be at least another decade away and historically such advances have taken 20 to 30 years. Meanwhile, more U.S. are scheduled to close.

In June, Mississippi Power Co. suspended special carbon-capture efforts at its 582-megawatt Mississippi power plant that first turned coal into gas, which cost more than $7 billion to build, more than double the planned cost. Once regarded as a possible model for "," it now burns natural gas.

The Petra Nova project outside Houston used a $190 million federal grant toward installing a $1 billion system to capture CO2 from an existing 600-megawatt coal-fired power plant, piping it to a Texas oil field and pumping it underground to boost oil production. Operating since late December, the system is currently "breaking even," NRG Energy spokesman David Knox said.

"We're very interested in the technology, but until the economics work, we're not committed to a second one," Knox said.

With underground carbon storage, research began 20 years ago and builds on the practices of the petroleum industry, which uses carbon dioxide to drive more oil from the ground, said Traci Rodosta, the lab's carbon storage technology manager. NETL has regional partnerships across 43 states, small-scale projects that began in 2005 and larger-scale field projects in 2008.

There are ongoing efforts in 30 countries. A Norwegian reservoir under the North Sea has injected more than 16 million metric tons of CO2, Rodosta said. Lab scientists say there have been no major incidents with leaking or seismic activity.

Explore further: Construction begins on largest carbon capture project for an existing coal plant to date

Related Stories

Next-gen solvents capture carbon with half the energy

June 20, 2017

U.S. energy production could increase with the help of an improved carbon capture technology that use about half the energy of today's standard technologies. Emissions captured at fossil fuel power plants could in turn be ...

Recommended for you

In China, a link between happiness and air quality

January 21, 2019

For many years, China has been struggling to tackle high pollution levels that are crippling its major cities. Indeed, a recent study by researchers at Chinese Hong Kong University has found that air pollution in the country ...

33 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

thomasct
1 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2017
Capturing CO2? CO2 makes up ONLY 0.03% of the atmosphere. Water vapor up to 10%! One volcanic eruption releases more CO2 than man has made since the start of the Ind. Rev. and..

With reference to the often used '97% of scientists concur', a major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors. They pointed out that the 97% number had appeared in a new and unknown journal. (Suspicious)? The researchers were led by top climatologist Dr David Legates. Their paper was published in the respected Science and Education journal and it clearly demonstrated that number was not 97.1%, as claimed, but only 0.3%!

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers examined by Dr Legates team explicitly stated that 'Man caused most of the warming since 1950'.
howhot3
5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2017
I call BS @thomasct. Since I'm one of the 97.1% you are calling a lier, I challenge your math, logic, and education. Indeed, I challenge you to reveal your political affiliation and to what educational rank you achieved. Trolling is not a degree.

So, 0.03% corresponds to 300 ppm concentration. Current concentrations are at 403ppm. So your off by a factor of 25%, https://www.co2.earth What you fail to see is how much that small 100ppm changes the atmosphere in the physics of this process. CO2 is not evenly distributed either as you can see in
https://earth.nul...3,38.788
Everything is accounted for in science. I doubt you deniers are as accountable.

leetennant
5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2017
Capturing CO2? CO2 makes up ONLY 0.03% of the atmosphere. Water vapor up to 10%! One volcanic eruption releases more CO2 than man has made since the start of the Ind. Rev. and..
.


Oh, for Pete's sake. Volcanos emit 1% of human emissions. This is a very easy fact to verify with the USGS so why do you keep repeating such an obvious lie?

https://volcanoes...ate.html
leetennant
5 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2017

With reference to the often used '97% of scientists concur', a major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors. They pointed out that the 97% number had appeared in a new and unknown journal. (Suspicious)? The researchers were led by top climatologist Dr David Legates. Their paper was published in the respected Science and Education journal and it clearly demonstrated that number was not 97.1%, as claimed, but only 0.3%.


This is what I call the plate tectonics school of consensus. By this argument, there's no consensus on plate tectonics in geology because most geological papers don't take a position on something that's already established and accepted as consensus. So unless you think every physics papers out of CERN should first take a position on the existence of gravity, then this 'study' is flat out stupid. But that's the point, isn't it? To deliberately mislead?
ThomasQuinn
5 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2017
thomasct is a deranged troll who pushes idiotic conspiracy theories about aliens, just read his comments here: https://phys.org/...ife.html

And, unsurprisingly, he's also an Obama-hating Trump-fan. Quelle surprise...

J Doug
1 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2017
This, I hope, will put this into a perspective for demented folks to understand just how insignificant this increase in CO2 is.
A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large kitchen sink.
A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons.
Some other things that are one part per million are…
One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
One inch in 16 miles
About one minute in two years
One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from Cleveland to San Francisco.
One penny in $10,000.

At 400 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

leetennant
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2017
This, I hope, will put this into a perspective for demented folks to understand just how insignificant this increase in CO2 is.
A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large kitchen sink.
A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons.
Some other things that are one part per million are…
One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
One inch in 16 miles
About one minute in two years
One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from Cleveland to San Francisco.
One penny in $10,000.

At 400 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.



I have a glass of water with cyanide in it for you, J Doug. Don't worry. It only has a tablespoon of cyanide in it. That's a very small proportion of the overall water. Can't do anything, right?
J Doug
1 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2017


I have a glass of water with cyanide in it for you, J Doug. Don't worry. It only has a tablespoon of cyanide in it. That's a very small proportion of the overall water. Can't do anything, right?

I would have hoped that leetennant would have been bright enough to recognize the difference between the vastness of the earth's atmosphere where this 400 ppm of CO₂ is and the confines of a glass of water; but, evidently not. I'm sure that leetennant must be unaware that CO₂ also is 1 & 1/2 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere.
Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2017
@J Drug gets pwnt on small proportions and LD50 measurements by @lee. Seems it doesn't really depend on how small the proportion is, what matters is how effective it is. CO2 is pretty effective, which @J Drug would know if it understood physics.

Teh stupid, it burnz.
leetennant
5 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
I have a glass of water with cyanide in it for you, J Doug. Don't worry. It only has a tablespoon of cyanide in it. That's a very small proportion of the overall water. Can't do anything, right?


I would have hoped that leetennant would have been bright enough to recognize the difference between the vastness of the earth's atmosphere where this 400 ppm of CO₂ is and the confines of a glass of water; but, evidently not. I'm sure that leetennant must be unaware that CO₂ also is 1 & 1/2 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere.


Lee Tennant understands that it is the properties of a substance that matter, not some arbitrary discussion of its proportionality. Dosage matters. And calculating dosage involves taking into account a substance's properties. This is literally what 'doing science' means.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2017
it is. CO2 is pretty effective, which @J Drug would know if it understood physics.


Da Schneib; Why don't you take the time to explain just how effective this trace gas is? Don't you realize that at 18,000' there is only 1/2 of the atmosphere that there is at sea level? No, of course you don't know that.
"Carbon dioxide, being about 1.5 times as dense as air, caused the cloud to "hug" the ground and descend down the valleys where various villages were located. The mass was about 50 metres (164 ft) thick and it travelled downward at a rate of 20–50 kilometres (12–31 mi) per hour. For roughly 23 kilometres (14 mi) the cloud remained condensed and dangerous, suffocating many of the people sleeping in Nyos,Kam,Cha,andSubum.
http://en.wikiped...iki/L…
Another site with the same information:
The Strangest Disaster of the 20th Century.
http://www.neator...century/
 
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2017
Lee Tennant understands that it is the properties of a substance that matter,


Since leetennant so well; "understands that it is the properties of a substance that matter", I'm sure that he can tell me exactly how many ppm there are in a tablespoon of cyanide. It would be also important to know the ppm of H₂O in the glass. Then a logical person could compare the confines of a glass of H₂O with a tablespoon of cyanide in it to the .04% or 400 ppm of the total atmosphere that is made up of CO₂.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2017
@J Drug gets pwnt on small proportions and LD50 measurements by @lee.


 It will be interesting to see what kind of a typical stupid comment Da Schneib comes up with to reply to this info below.
This coincides with the above fact about CO2:
ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2
http://greenparty...-practic
(It is strange that I happened on this above at the Green Party of Canada's site)
howhot3
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
@J Doug, I can direct you to 100 different books on the physics of atmospheric chemistry and direct you to study them (as most of the 97.1% have read). You can find the same ones in any college level atmospheric physics book. But for now, let's ignore that and ask WHAT IF questions.
So what if the science is true and your wrong? How does that effect all of the people you know? All of the people (the suckers) that you dupe into believing CO2 is not a cause of current global warming? What is your personal gain out of it?

You quote some BS about CO2 "being about 1.5 times as dense as air, caused the cloud to "hug" the ground'.. But CO2 mixes very well with the atmosphere, have your ever wondered why they make smoke stacks so tall? The physics is known dude. The physics is known about how CO2 traps heat, and the physics is known about how it's heating our planet. J D, instead of arguing about dumb stuff, it's all hand on deck; DAMAGE CONTROL at this stage.
J Doug
1 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2017
Since this is about CO₂ sequestering, Da Schneib, wouldn't have a clue about what the energy companies are doing.
"Meanwhile, the decision also represents a setback since Don Valley was "very explicit" about wanting to use its carbon dioxide for CO2-improved oil recovery.
"That's a company that's trying to build a power plant specifically to supply CO2 just as much as it's trying to supply electricity," added Haszeldine."
http://www.rigzon...ry_in_UK

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2017
Seems it doesn't really depend on how small the proportion is,
DAH! how stupid can you get?

Here is another one that poor old Da Schneib has never heard about and it is a long list of such things that he is totally ignorant of.
"CASPER — There will soon be 50 million cubic feet of carbon dioxide a day that won't be released to the air above central Wyoming. That is the amount that Denbury Resources will push through their newly completed Greencore pipeline that stretches 232 miles from Lost Cabin in eastern Fremont County to the Bell Creek Field in Montana, where it will be pumped back into the ground to stimulate petroleum wells through CO2 flooding."
http://www.wyomin...id=64329
 
Note that it energy companies dealing with this and not some idiots who think that CO₂ drives the earth's climate.
howhot3
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
We seriously need to have deniers also take an economics class. Solar, Wind, Hydro are sources of energy that will last billions of years... not thousands, hundreds. They do not pollute. They produce immense power. The future of energy is renewables. Oil will be relegated to lubricantes, pesticides and plastics. Coal has no future except as coal tar. Gas, is just a filler for the next 100 years or so. That is where society is going.


J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
The physics is known dude. The physics is known about how CO2 traps heat, and the physics is known about how it's heating our planet.
That is a lie.

What follows is something that it is obvious that you have no knowledge of, the science that has been devoted to determine that the orb in the sky that I guess you have never been warmed by, the SUN, drives the earth's climate, now as it always has and not trace gas that is absolutely essential for ALL live on earth, CO₂, that you expel with each breath.

Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
Abstract: "We conclude that the glacial 1,470-year climate cycles could have been triggered by solar forcing despite the absence of a 1,470-year solar cycle."
http://www.nature...121.html
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
(as most of the 97.1% have read).
This nonsense has been debunked many times, in case you haven't noticed.

"Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr
Abstract: "Times of major transitions identified in pollen records occurred at 600, 1650, 2850, 4030, 6700, 8100, 10 190, 12 900, and 13 800 cal yr B.P., consistent with ice and marine records. We suggest that North Atlantic millennial-scale climate variability is associated with rearrangements of the atmospheric circulation with far-reaching influences on the climate."
http://geology.ge...30/5/455
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
"Solar Cycles causing global warming:
A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
Abstract: "During much of the Quaternary, the Earth's climate has undergone drastic changes most notably successive glacial and interglacial episodes. The past 150 kyr includes such a climatic cycle: the last interglacial, the last glacial and the present holocene interglacial. A new climatic-time series for this period has been obtained using delta18 O data from an Antarctic ice core."
http://www.nature...1a0.html

J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
But CO2 mixes very well with the atmosphere, have your ever wondered why they make smoke stacks so tall? The physics is known dude.


howhot3 seems to think that nothing comes out of smoke stacks but his imagined devil in the sky, CO₂. Could there actually be other things besides the essential for all life on earth, CO₂? "being about 1.5 times as dense as air, caused the cloud to "hug" the ground'. Since this individual, who seems to know not too much about CO₂, says; "But CO2 mixes very well with the atmosphere…." should, for an experiment, fill a balloon with CO₂ and just blow into another to fill it & then just let go of them & see what happens. Even though howhot3 will have put some CO₂ in the balloon he will struggle to blow up, it will not drop like the one filled with CO₂.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
We seriously need to have deniers also take an economics class.


howhot3 needs to explain that if wind & solar are so great, why are they not used more?
Solar Power Passes 1% Global Threshold
https://cleantech...reshold/
"How much electricity do solar and wind make on a global scale? Answer: "Not much"
The answer is that 80% of our electricity comes from the fossil fuels and nuclear that the Greens despise. Hydroelectricity, with all its pluses and minuses, produces a serious 16% of the total.
Wind power is a major global industry but it's only making in the order of 1.4% of total electricity. And solar is so pathetically low that it needs to be bundled with "tidal and wave" power to even rate 0.1% (after rounding up)."
http://joannenova...ot-much/



leetennant
5 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
We seriously need to have deniers also take an economics class.


howhot3 needs to explain that if wind & solar are so great, why are they not used more?
Solar Power Passes 1% Global Threshold
https://cleantech...reshold/


Fossil fuel lobbyists mount campaign to delay uptake of renewable energy.
Fossil fuel lobbyists then use delayed uptake to suggest something inadequate about renewable energy
Number of people fooled: 0
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2017

Number of people fooled: 0 You are for sure fooled and very stupid and dishonest if you do not know the facts I present to you below.

leetennant needs to substantiate his claims about Fossil fuel. I'm reasonably sure that is something that he cannot do. Here below are some verifiable things that people like leetennant have never considered using, FACTS.

"How Gore & billionaires profiteer on taxpayer subsidies for solar energy
How Government Is Making Solar Billionaires
SolarCity has never recorded a profit, but powered by subsidies, its stock price is $57 a share.
A thick layer of state and local incentives also supports SolarCity.
http://hockeyscht...-on.html
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2017
Elon Musk Losing Billions as SolarCity and Tesla Motors Falter
Elon Musk has lost nearly half the value in his two public companies in 2016 alone. SLOWER THAN EXPECTED INSTALLATIONS OF SOLAR PANELS HAS HURT ELON MUSK'S NET WORTH IN 2016. IMAGE: SOLARCITY. 2016 hasn't been a great year for Elon Musk and his public companies. Shares of SolarCity(NASDAQ:SCTY) and Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) have fallen sharply as both have disappointed on growth and investors started to question his ability to meet his own plans to change the world.
http://www.fool.c...a-m.aspx
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2017
California Energy Policy: Southeastern States Beware
"Two recently approved solar power plants in California ranged from $100 to $200 per megawatt hour, compared to the $16 consumers will pay for natural gas generation. That's six to twelve times the cost of gas–and for an intermittent supply that must be backed by natural gas to even be usable." 
https://www.maste...-states/
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2017
SOLAR POWER: Desert plant has pollution problem
The Ivanpah solar plant burns substantial amounts of natural gas, making it a greenhouse emitter under state law.
]…]The Ivanpah plant in the Mojave Desert uses natural gas as a supplementary fuel. Data from the California Energy Commission show that the plant burned enough natural gas in 2014 – its first year of operation – to emit more than 46,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide.[…]The plant, which was developed by Oakland-based BrightSource Energy, was approved in 2010 amid questions about its cost to taxpayers and the facility's effect on the desert environment.
http://www.pe.com...rgy.html

The only company that is making solar work is this one:
"Chevron Uses Solar-Thermal Steam to Extract Oil in California"
http://www.bloomb...plant.ht
dnatwork
5 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2017
Stop feeding the troll.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2017
Stop feeding the troll.

Thanks for supplying all of the information on this subject that you possess, you ignorant dud.
howhot3
5 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2017
@J Doug, you don't know jack. Everything you've said is just troll BS, mostly diversionary factoids. So where are your real areas of concern for people? People like Tesla deserve praise because they promises a future that is hip, cool, and free of fossils. What's wrong with that?

In the appalachian areas where mountain top removal has devastated not only the land, but the economy, resourceful companies are building wind and solar farms in the left overs of mountain top removal. Sadly coal companies just abandoned the land instead of "restoring it". So irregardless of the all the fossil fuel spin, solar has a huge future, so does wind, large scale battery tech, smart grid, and all of the cool stuff.
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2017
What's wrong with that?


Here is "What's wrong with that?" 
"Don't Believe Elon Musk: Renewables Get Much More in Federal Subsidies than Fossil Fuels
The federal government pays him lavishly to produce boutique renewable-energy products. Tesla, SpaceX, and Solar City head Elon Musk lashed out at the Los Angeles Times following an article that totaled up all the government support that his three-headed corporate-welfare monster receives. The number the Times reported was nearly $5 billion in combined support for his companies, including subsidies for those who purchase Musk's products, such as the high-priced solar panels of Solar City and the supercars of Tesla."
http://www.nation...els-sean
J Doug
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2017
Everything you've said is just troll BS, mostly diversionary factoids.


Please verify what you are trying to maintain that "Everything you've said is just troll BS". Present links and not just your meaningless conjecture.
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2017
@gay Doug..
Present links and not just your meaningless conjecture.
Your not worthy.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.