Carbon Capture: Possible Solutions, Pt. II

Carbon capture and sequestration have been about research and very little about actually putting the technology to real use. In this four-part series, we'll examine some of the issues and possible solutions.

How do you combat a necessary evil on a budget? That's the dilemma with carbon capture. Scientists, policy makers and energy companies all agree that carbon dioxide from coal burning plants needs to be kept out of the atmosphere. The problem is how to do it without running up expenses that will make China, India, the United States and even Europe retreat behind years of prototype trials.

Thus far, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) has been concerned with research and very little about actually putting the technology to real use. In Part I: Carbon Storage, the Money and the Market, we examined the history of carbon capture. Below we'll look at some of the forces driving the carbon market.

Part II: Carbon Economics

The Market
Carbon capture and sequestration has the potential to account for 220 to 2,200 gigatons of CO2 over the next century, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Change (IPCC). It's a nice vague number. In a single year, Europe generates about 4 gigatons. About half of the CO2 generated worldwide comes from stationary sources like power plants that could potentially be equipped with CCS.

The total cost for CCS depends on when it is built and the volumes and technological breakthroughs of the future. Experimental CCS plants will be able to sequester and store CO2 at a cost of $80 to $120 per ton (€60 to €9), according to a McKinsey report on CCS. That includes capture, transport and storage. Capture accounts for about two-thirds of the cost.

Early commercial-scale projects – those that might be built in the 2015 to 2025 time frame – might do the whole job for $67 to $47 per ton, which could drop to $40 to $60 per ton by 2030, which is comparable with expected carbon cap fees at the time. Thus, CCS could pay for itself. Further reductions of $7 to $10 per ton are possible at that time.

The least expensive storage would be in onshore, shallow and highly permeable reservoirs. Places with an existing infrastructure like Germany's Ruhr Valley are a key example. McKinsey, in fact, estimates that only around 3.5 gigatons a year could be abated through CCS. At $45 a ton, that's $157 billion of CCS a year.

The Business Case
The investments needed to make CCS become a commercially competitive alternative are obviously massive. But who's going to foot the bill? And why? Big oil companies are already familiar with much of the technology used for CCS. But the utility companies are also players in the game since they are choosing where to buy the power used in the grid. Until now the utility industry has been focused on reliability and low cost. But that might need to change if the initially much more expensive power from CCS power plants will get a chance to get on the grid.

  1. Page
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Next ›

Comments [5]

  • Jeff Berlin 06/23/09 1:51 PM

    question remains though what about the surplus of carbon already emitted?

    Reply
  • russ 06/24/09 6:20 AM

    Jeff - do you mean nothing should be done until the whole package can be started together?

    Reply
  • Kelvin Koo 06/25/09 12:47 AM

    Anybody has figure out how much CO2 is emitted from the energy used to compress and liquify the CO2?

    Reply
  • James Everett 06/28/09 12:57 AM

    Jeff is right - capturing carbon to reduce emissions is important, but we already have too much CO2 in the atmosphere.  Tools are needed to pull carbon out of the atmosphere.  Two of the biggies:  higher productivity tree stock for forest plantations, and ways of fixing carbon in useful solid forms - eg converting CO2 to plastics or specialty chemicals.  Many greens hate forest plantations, and therefore shun the former.  I believe that’s silly.  Forest plantations exist.  Why not have them be as productive as possible?  CellFor is doing important work on this.  Besides, durable wood products = long-term carbon sequestration.  As to the latter, it seems to be all about more energy-efficient catalysts.  Novomer is working on that. Check em out.  Skyonic also interesting, but finding a workable business model is tough.  Would love to know of other good companies, if people have suggestions.

    Reply
  • douglas puckett 08/11/09 3:51 PM

    the other design i built is a center fuge in or on top the stacks in the centerfuge ther is a 3 part seperation useing water as a mix then 3 valves to do there objecttive   one valve takes the coatint of tree sap in the center fuge to extract dioxide and water for sulfur the exhaust from stacks spins the centerfuge the 3 valves will have enought force to make the extractions this way the plant stays open while the center fuge is installed the inside of the center fuge looks like a jet fan motor for capture and thurst for rotation a generator devise for extra electric.

    Reply
.