Display:
that even if it does work well, it'll be more expensive than wind or nuclear. So why even bother? I'll tell you why, it's because then people can pretend something is being done while they build new coal plants which can later be "retrofitted" (hah!) with CCS tech.

It's hydrogen fuel cells all over again, pure stalling tactic. The only question is if it'll work this time too...

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Thu Jul 23rd, 2009 at 03:06:23 PM EST
The European Commission has given cost estimates for CCS with low fuel costs at 7.5 to 9 cents per kilowatt hour in 2020 (this assumes oil at $61), whereas onshore wind is at 5.5 to 9 cents and nuclear at 4.5 to 8 cents. With high prices (oil at $100), nuclear is presumed to go up to the cost of wind; wind is unchanged, and CCS coal will cost 9.5 to 11 cents.

CCS would need some kind of technological breakthrough that makes it a lot cheaper, plus continued low fuel costs.

So, yes, it's basically a pure stalling tactic in order to build large, centralised, inefficient coal power plants now which we'll be stuck with for 50 years.

See the Guardian:

Protests by environmentalists over E.ON's plans to build a coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth have encouraged Ed Miliband, the secretary of state for energy and climate change, to rule that there should be no plants in the UK without some degree of CCS, with the remainder of any plant having CCS fitted within five years of it being judged "technically and economically proven".

A very tough and precise requirement on industry, that.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Jul 23rd, 2009 at 03:53:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Also see Salon discussion about the fight over a plant in Hamburg.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jul 25th, 2009 at 06:13:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series