New carbon capture plant is a “game changer”, experts say

New carbon capture plant is a “game changer”, experts say

A new carbon capture plant has been labelled as a “game changer”.

The power plant in the US constructed by Net Power is now nearing completion.

It will capture all of the carbon dioxide it emits, without any significantly higher costs, it is claimed.

Jesse Jenkins of the MIT Energy Initiative said: “If it plays out as advertised, it could be an actual game changer.”

The plant is a collaboration between Net Power, Exelon Generation and energy construction firm CB&I.

Julio Friedmann, chief energy technologist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory called the process “amazing”.

The head of the IEA’s Energy Demand Technology Unit, Eric Masanet, said that if the international community’s climate goals are to be reached “we can’t get there without CCS”.

He said: “It’s not that CCS is the only way to get to a net-zero future, but given the current portfolio of technologies that we have and what’s practical and what’s viable, the only way that the energy sector will get there now is CCS.

“We need to ramp up CCS in a really massive way, and time is ticking in order to be able to physically deploy CCS technologies in a way that can meet the requirements by 2030 and more importantly by 2060.”

6 Comments

  1. The ‘climate change’ hysteria is responsible for this kind of pointless over-reaction. I have criticised the anthropogenic warming argument elsewhere (see Antony Milne Disqus). But the technology for ‘capturing’ CO2 from factory emissions is never spelt out. CO2 emissions are infinitesimally small around the globe (400 ppm = 0.04% of the total. Nitrogen and oxygen make up 98% !). Hence emissions from commercial and industrial process in one country, let alone one plant, must also be extremely small, and only calculated quantitively – and largely assumed – from the overall use of energy used in the production process, and any exhaust processes. So CO2 would be around the .04 to .08 percent, or perhaps up to 1,000 ppm (i.e. adding a bit) in just one factory as a rough guess based on global atmospheric concentrations. And what kind of filters would you use to seperate out and identify such a tiny trace ? I’m afraid ‘carbon capture’ can’t be done, and need not be !

    • On spacecraft, carbon is captured via chemical reaction. Perhaps filtering doesn’t come into it.

      • Sure, you can capture carbon dioxide chemically. One simple reaction is: carbon dioxide plus calcium hydroxide = calcium carbonate, easily done in the chemistry lab. Where do you get the calcium hydroxide from? Easy, you mine some calcium carbonate (chalk) and roast it to drive off the carbon dioxide in it. How do you capture the carbon dioxide from this? Well, with some more calcium hydroxide, obviously…

    • It is possible to remove CO2 from air/gas, you’ll see the methods at work in submarines, space craft, closed circuit rebreathers (a system used by divers as an alternative to conventional SCUBA)

      Please have a look at Carbon Dioxide Scrubbers for more info.

  2. CCS is only part of the holistic value chain that will end up in migrating away from fossils. I have detailed the issues in a previous pulse article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/keep-goods-co2-life-cycle-management-jean-louis-roux-dit-buisson

    storing CO2 is a hazard, and a waste as the growing world will need much more carbon chains to feed its industries, which the fossils will have difficulties to provide economically and in quantity ad in respecting the principles of sustainability.

  3. David Robert Dickie

    Athe UK government refused fundingfor our carboncapture scheme at Peterhead bPand others forced to pull out dueto this,shocking but par for the UK course.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*