The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy
Updates: Chapter 7 – Hydrogen from Fossil Fuel Sources
Last updated 2024.02.25 (Caveat - most content is pre-2010 when my research had
made it pretty clear that CCS without an EOR component as a climate change solution was
a mega-pack of hogwash. But it has continued to siphon taxpayer money and aid in
producing MORE GHG emissions in the intervening 15 years or so.
“This blows my mind,” David Schlissel, a Massachusetts-based consultant associated with the Institute for
Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), told The Energy Mix yesterday. “It’s hypocritical. These guys
have been hyping 90%, 95% capture, and now it’s, ‘well. we really can’t do it that fast, it’s not tested, it’s
So that's a few billion taxpayer dollars worldwide up in smoke over 20 years of pretending this could actually work.
And that's why funding fossil fuel fibs could be fatal for us, as it prevented us from spending the time and
resources on things that had real potential.
This Energy Tribune article
asks will CCS actually work, and if it does, who's really going to pay for it.
Australia’s largest carbon capture project gets underway 2009.10.27
Australian taxpayers have shelled out $10 million (Australian) so far on this
pilot project, which doesn't even have a sequestration component. The most
interesting aspect of this project is that the
captured carbon dioxide is used to
treat wastewater from the power plant, transforming the greenhouse gas into calcium
carbonate - a stable solid.
Economics prove fatal to carbon capture projects 2009.10.24
The title pretty much covers it. For the detail, Graham Thomson puts it very well in
his article, so
here it is.
The TOTAL Impossibility Of Cost-Effective “Carbon Capture And Storage” 2009.10.21
I don't have the numbers to work out the actual feasibility, but I have a suspicion that
based on the technology currently being funded for CCS, the economics are not going to be
pretty. I don't know if
this fellow has it right either, but someone needs to do the real math and come up with a
credible answer. According to this
2000 EPA report, about 2 pounds of carbon dioxide is produced for each kWh of
electricity generated. When we burn coal in a 30% efficient plant, and we have to use energy
to power the capture, compression, movement and burial of the carbon dioxide, what is
the net benefit? How does that stack up against the consequences of the risks?
Let's not forget that burning coal produces more than just carbon dioxide; there are
also nitrogen-oxides, sulphur-oxides, radioactive particles and a witch's brew of other
nasties that come as part of the package, and that should be taken into account as well.
Clean Coal? Not Here, Thanks 2009.10.20
[dead link: http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDVmZjdlM2VkZGNjN2FlNjc2YWViZTY4MGNkMjE4ODY=]
William Tucker comments at Planet Gore on the Linden, N.J. PurGen CCS farce.
Same article at the National Review
Carbon Capture Is "Essential" for Developing World, And Still a Pipe Dream 2009.10.19
Tree Hugger comments on the International Energy Agency's report that suggests
a massive 'clean-coal' build-out is required to provide energy for the developing world.
As usual, lower-tech, off-the-shelf, ready-for-use options that are more appropriate for
the non-industrialized world are not being considered.
Let’s Call The Bluff On Carbon Capture And Storage 2009.10.18
blog entry came to our attention today. Provides a bit of a summary
of the key points countering the current stampede to shower money on the CCS fantasy.
EU and UK agree to fund £2.4 Billion CCS project 2009.10.17
It appears the winners in the CCS lottery just keep coming.
Experimental CCS Used to Justify New $5 Billion Coal Plant 2009.10.15
If the environment is the justification for this plant, wouldn't it be better to leave
the carbon sequestered in the ground where it already is? Sorry, the environmental
rationalization doesn't work. If environmental coal use weren't an oxymoron to begin
with, wouldn't it still make more sense to build the plant in West Virginia, beside the coal
source and transmit the power instead of transporting the coal? Nope, this is just
plain old-fashioned pork-barrel politics, pandering to some New Jersy voters and
the shareholders of the companies that will collect most of the $5 billion from
What's $1.4 Billion Between Friends? 2009.10.14
Especially when your friends are Transalta, Capital Power Corp. and Alstom.
Seems Canada needed its own pilot test project of the chilled ammonia technology,
so the Alberta and federal governments are ponying up about $700,000,000 of taxpayers
money to get the party started. Imagine what they would have been willing to spend
if we weren't in a recession and both those governments in deficit that is causing
them to cut-back on social program funding commitments.
Reuters story: "Canada governments to fund second carbon project"
Get Ready for the Carbon Capture Boom: 100 Projects, $56B In A Decade 2009.10.13
$56 Billion Dollars! Is this really our best bang for the buck when it comes to
mitigating climate change? Why is there so little interest in low-tech, but proven,
means of reducing carbon emissions and capturing those already in the atmosphere,
and so much being spent on research of pilot-scale plants of unproven approaches?
Are we really trying to solve the problem, or just paper over it for PR purposes?
[dead link: http://earth2tech.com/2009/10/13/get-ready-for-the-carbon-capture-boom-100-projects-56b-in-a-decade/]
Here's another take on it:
the IEA's 2009 Carbon Capture and Storage Technology Roadmap.
And as of 2024, still not a financially or environmentally viable path to reducing GHG emissions.
Carbon Capture and Storage Still a Pipe Dream? 2009.10.13
[dead link: http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091013/carbon-capture-and-storage-still-pipe-dream]
Solve Climate article
Found same article published at Inside Climate News for historical reference
Carbon Capture and Storage Still a Pipe Dream?">
Costs for First-Generation Carbon Capture Plants Will Soar 2009.10.09
[dead link: http://powerservices.lakho.com/2009/10/09/costs-for-first-generation-carbon-capture-plants-will-soar/]
This article reports on a
study by Harvard University that suggests CCS will double the price of electricity
at plants that implement it. The report acknowledges a key function of carbon capture will be for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).
Pulling CO2 from the Air: Promising Idea, Big Price Tag 2009.10.08
Artificial 'trees' are one approach proposed for pulling carbon dioxide from the air
as a greenhouse gas solution.
This article by David Biello examines the potential and issues for the proposed technology.
UNEP to Release Report on how the ocean's carbon capture and storage systems are being undermined by human activity 2009.10.07
The United Nations Environmental Program assembled a Blue Ribbon panel to study
the natural carbon capture mechanisms of the world's oceans, and how they are being
impacted by human activity. That report is due to be released a week from today.
The UNEP Press Release
Science Magazine CCS Issue 2009.10.05
Science Magazine devoted their issue to the scientific problems
surrounding carbon capture and sequestration. That's correct - a whole edition
filled with articles about the technical and science issues about what still has
to be fixed, developed and solved before CCS is even remotely to be considered as
technically feasible, let alone financially viable. Taxpayers, consumers, politicians and
energy industry executives take note - it's not a done deal.
Right now, the price tag associated with CCS for greenhouse gas reduction is $300/tonne.
The price of carbon credits on the open market: $0.10/tonne. Factor of 3,000 disconnect.
Anyone else think we should be spending our billions on options that cost $0.10/tonne of
effectiveness rather than dreams of $300/tonne?
Burying CO2: Fix or folly? 2009.10.04
[dead link: http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/sundayreader/story.html?id=df6561d1-9f71-42a9-8016-71fe1aab0b52]
Graham Thomson in the Edmonton Sunday Reader
Found a copy at Paperzz of
"Burying Carbon Dioxide in Underground Saline Aquifers: Political Folly or Climate Change Fix?"/A>
More Cash for CCS 2009.10.02
But no worries, it's only taxpayers' money. Corporate America is still managing
to avoid spending their own money or accept liability for the CCS pipedream.
Secretary Chu Announces First Awards from $1.4 Billion for Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage Projects
Of course, all this money is for research and evaluation, not actual long-term sequestration activity.
Cash Sequestration 2009.10.01
[dead link: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/09/28/cash-sequestration.aspx]
article from the Financial Post that brings a bottom-line viewpoint to the subject. (It does refer
to the Lake Nyos issue that I mention in my book.)
Ohio carbon dioxide underground project abandoned 2009.09.29
The Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership announced cancellation of
their carbon capture and sequestration project. The partnership said the project
was abandoned for economic reasons, but there were also concerns by local residents
about potential seismic activity related to the pumping high pressure gas underground.
Carbon capture project in California abandoned 2009.09.27 News article
Carbon capture project in California abandoned 2009.09.27
[dead link: http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_12393417]
After project cost estimates had doubled, and a local public campaign gathered
widespread support, BP and Occidental Petroleum abandoned their planned carbon capture
operation in Carson, California three years after announcing the project. The U.S. DOE
had put $90 million toward the project.
Carbon capture called 'sheer folly' 2009.09.23
The Munk Centre in Toronto released a paper today by Graham Thomson titled
Burying Carbon Dioxide in Underground Saline Aquifers: Political Folly or Climate Change Fix?.
Mr. Thomson says carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is a political solution, not
an actual solution. He posits that we cannot handle the volume required on an economic
basis, even if the technology is eventually developed that works on a scale beyond
pilot projects, which is in doubt.
Given that the government of Alberta has already decided to proceed on the
assumption that CCS does work, and workable CCS is the linch-pin for the Canadian
government's strategy to move ahead full speed in the tar sands, this sounds like
one more piece of evidence that CCS needs to be put on hold as a political
solution until the scientific evidence is in and shown to support CCS as viable,
on a long-term, cost-effective, technically viable basis.
Mr. Thomson also raises my major concern - what if the CO2 gets out? However,
he does not explicitly treat the issue of the likely outcome of that event,
just that it is a probable consequence of CCS.
CBC Radio As It Happens story (first 6 minutes 50 seconds)
[dead link: http://hosting.epresence.tv/MUNK/1/watch/131.aspx] Webcast of the presentation (includes slides from presentaton)
If Carbon Capture and Sequestration Works, Why Won't Big Oil Accept Responsibility? 2009.09.17
Big energy companies are lobbying hard for CCS as a climate change mitigation strategy that allows them
to continue with business as usual, so long as taxpayers pick up the tab for the research, development,
implementation, and now apparently all liability for failures. That means the last motivation for Big Energy
to do CCS right (assuming that's even a physical possibility) has now been thrown to the winds - perhaps literally.
Chevron, Exxon, Shell Sidestep Long-Term CO2 Storage Liability in Gorgon Deal
Carbon Capture and Sequestration - More smoke than reality 2008.07.09
Lot's of announcements of projects, but the cancellations don't make the front page.
BP pulls out of carbon capture plans 2007.05.24 Chemistry World
[dead link: http://climate.alston.com/blog.aspx?entry=162] SaskPower cancels CCS project
Due to ballooning costs, 2003 FutureGen project delayed again for "restructuring"
Greenpeace synopsis on CCS projects that get announced but never built 2008.02.13
Natural Gas 2008.02.18
An update on natural gas availability for North America.
Oil Sands Technology Roadmap offers some interesting tidbits.
"Oil sands projects are heavily dependent on natural gas
use for energy and power (co-generation) and hydrogen production
for upgrading. In-situ energy demand with today’s technology
requires 1000 cubic feet of natural gas per barrel recovered. ...
"In this scenario, natural gas usage would rise from 10%
of combined WCSB, Coal Bed Methane (CBM) and Mackenzie supply by
2012, to an unthinkable 60% or more by 2030. Such a demand level,
combined with competition from other markets in the face of
dwindling reserves, will only drive price increases. LNG imports
into North America may begin to set price levels. The 'business as
usual' case is clearly unsustainable and uneconomical."
The brown section represents only the demand by the tar sands extraction, not total demand in North America.
For a more complete picture of the story, see J. David Hughes on the subject, e.g.,
this ASPO presentation.
Another perspective on falling production at [dead link: http://www.energybulletin.net/3361.html]
the Energy Bulletin
(This site explains what happened to the Energy Bulletin.)
In short, North American natural gas production peaked about 2002, and is falling (since changed to the the devil's bargain of fracking,
trading quality ground water for natural gas). Demand continues to rise in a number of sectors (oil sands, residential, industrial,
commercial and institutional space heating, electrical generation, oil refinery upgrading, hydrogen production), and prices will
continue to rise. If you heat with natural gas, you may want to start looking at other options, such as more insulation, solar,
ground-source heat pumps, or pellet stoves.
This website is powered by renewable energy.
Return to Econogics EV Index Page | Return to
Econogics Home Page
All material on this Web site is copyrighted by Econogics, Inc. (unless otherwise noted).
This Web site created, maintained and sponsored by Econogics, Inc.
Comments to: Webmaster