Good luck with this Carbon Removal, George, don’t hold your breath, and keep a tight grip on your wallet.
“Gradually the price of carbon emissions would have to be raised to a level where it would pay to remove carbon from coal. This is indispensable for bringing climate change under control because there is no adequate
substitute for coal-fired power plants except clean coal.”
Soros 2/14/2009, HuffingtonPost
Here’s a very simple, analysis of sequestration:
Removing carbon from coal is not economic under any conditions, here’s why:
1. Thermal evaporative and river, lake or ocean cooled power stations convert 31% of the heat to electricity.
2. Thermal non-evaporative “air cooled” power stations convert 24% of the heat to
Let’s discuss the differenced between these. Evaporative power stations consume (evaporate) 1 acre ft of very fresh water for every megawatt of electricity generated per day. Currently water is considered “free”. This is unlikely to continue. Water consumption is one major flaw with condensed solar power plants.
Non evaporative power plants are either air cooled (inefficient), or heat lakes, rivers or the ocean. All the fossil and nuclear fueled power plants emit thermal pollution.
Sequestering carbon requires treating 90-95% of the flue gases from the power plant, and these flue gases contain most of the 69% of the heat not used for generating electricity.
Removing this heat from the flue gases will consume twice the amount of electricity the power station generates (second law of thermodynamics). Now one could cool down the flue gases with cooling towers, which increases the amount of water potentially needed by a factor of three, — this to cool the flue gases from about 300 deg C to room temperature. To liquify, that is, cool down by about another 100 deg C, the flue gas requires about the total electricity produced by the power station.
Sequestration is nonsense.
This post was read 12 times.