Quote:
Originally Posted by akari_mizunashi
Do they really have the technology to do that? I didn't know that. That's cool. But coal is dirty even without carbon dioxide - it gives off filthy, health-hazardous coal dust.
|
I went to an Institution of Mechanical Engineers lecture delivered by someone from an oil company who talked about a carbon capture and sequestration project they completed in north Africa. When I went on a guided tour around a local power station, one of the engineers said that they already knew how to build carbon capture and sequestration, but to implement it would make their energy uncompetitive. Carbon capture and sequestration is not 100% efficient at removing all carbon dioxide emissions. I think it only about 85% efficient depending on the technology. Also, it reduces the efficiency of the power station by quite a lot. It's not a long term solution because there's a limit to the amount of CO2 that can be sequestered. In the UK it is reckoned we could store forty years worth of our emissions. There is research going on into what the leakage rates are like. I can't believe it could be bad, as natural gas has been trapped in these locations for millions of years. CCS is interesting because while it will take time to develop some of the renewable and nuclear technologies and then more time to install them, CCS is something that could be implemented much faster. We are not going to suddenly stop burning coal because we rely on it too much.