No, field injection like water flood.
Posted on 12/12/2014 5:14:05 AM PST by thackney
Boundary dam, a power plant in Estevan, Saskatchewan, is the first commercial coal-fired plant to capture carbon dioxide from its emissions, compress the gas, and bury it underground. The plant demonstrates that so-called carbon capture and storage (CCS) can work at a large scale—a crucial achievement given that CCS could play a significant role worldwide in reducing the greenhouse-gas emissions that contribute to climate change.
Right now only two other CCS power-plant projects are under construction, both of them in the United States. That’s because CCS carries a hefty price tag: SaskPower invested $1 billion to equip one of the four generators at its Boundary Dam site for carbon capture. What’s more, the process reduces the 160-megawatt plant’s electricity output by about 20 percent, meaning it may cost SaskPower more per kilowatt-hour to run CCS than the 12 cents it gets for selling the electricity.
SaskPower makes up for this in large part by selling much of the captured carbon dioxide to the Calgary-based oil producer Cenovus, which uses it to boost output from its maturing oil wells nearby.
CCS should get cheaper over time. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the panel of climate scientists convened by the United Nations, projects that technology upgrades and economies of scale should reduce the price of adding CCS to coal plants to just one-third of what SaskPower spent at Boundary Dam. If so, CCS-equipped coal plants could deliver electricity more cheaply than some other low-carbon sources, including offshore wind power and large solar farms.
SaskPower says that with the lessons it’s learned so far, it could now build a similar CCS project for $200 million less, and that it may soon go forward with CCS at two other aging coal generators at Boundary Dam. It also hopes to help other power companies develop expertise in the technology.
Still, coal plants around the world generally have little incentive to follow suit. In SaskPower’s case, Canadian regulations helped force the company’s hand; that fact, plus the availability of a local buyer for carbon dioxide, makes SaskPower’s effort somewhat unusual. What might be needed elsewhere is a way for utilities to pass along CCS costs to customers, just as many do now to pay for renewable energy sources. Another approach would be to tax carbon dioxide emissions, creating an incentive to bury the gas instead.
The technology must also be proven to work over the long term. SaskPower buries some gas in a saline aquifer on its site. To make sure it stays put, the company has installed above-ground gas sensors plus a seismic sensing array to track subsurface movement.
The United Nations climate panel says similar technology must be installed at all 7,000 existing coal power plants worldwide by 2050 to keep warming below 2 °C, a widely cited threshold for avoiding severe climate change. Meanwhile, new coal plants are still being built, especially in China and India. With coal plants expected to provide one-quarter of the world’s energy supply in 2040, SaskPower could help test the feasibility and safety of burying billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
What an incredibly stupid thing to do. They are wasting valuable heat and CO2 that could be used to supply greenhouses. Image each coal power plant surrounded by rows of greenhouses, each heated by the plants waste heat. The greenhouses and the living plants inside would act as the air filters, taking in the CO2.
One company’s waste is another’s resource. Just like in nature.
BS. The link I quoted was from the US oil industry getting return on their own dollars invested for injecting CO2 to get more oil out of the ground. Long before they talked about Global Warming. All the way back to Global Cooling talk actually.
In Alaska, we called that miscible injectant. Mostly Natural Gas Liquids, like ethane, propane, etc.
Producing more oil is stupid?
Using CO2 for fracking?
No, field injection like water flood.
Ping for later.. Great info
Nice idea, but it would be even cheaper for them to just acknowledge that C02 isn’t a greenhouse gas at all, as 500,000 years of data extracted from the Vostok ice cores proves. This data clearly shows C02 concentrations rise following temperature rise, not the other way around.
Stupid waste of effort and resources.
Producing more oil is waste of effort?
What a colossal waste of money.
Is energy out > energy in?
That’s the question.
I’d also say, as others have, that even acknowledging that CO2 is in any way a “pollutant” is playing into the anti-energy left’s hands.
Producing more oil is a waste of money?
The oil industry was buying CO2 and using it for enhanced oil recovery decades before the public heard about global warming. Actually back to the days of global cooling.
It certainly works for the oil side.
The better question is $$$ in < $$$ out.
Spending cheap coal BTU's to generate far more expensive oil BTU's doesn't require the energy to be greater. A refinery consumes more BTU's going in than it produces going out. TANSTASFL. But the business of a refinery is to make dollars. Most months, they do that.
The $ equation becomes questionable when oil is so cheap these days.
And back in 1972 when they started doing CO2 EOR? And every year since then?
Shouldn’t it be a lot more cost effective to build that technology into new power plants than to retrofit the old ones?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.