![]() ![]() Note: CCUS refers to carbon capture, utilisation and storage. Note: Sequestration means removing, separating, or seizing anything from the possession of its owner. The plan: To capture CO in the flue gas coming out of the steam boiler is about the same amount that's coming out of my mouth as I speak, 3.Carbon capture and storage ("CCS") (also sometimes called carbon capture and sequestration, or carbon capture, utilisation and storage "CCUS") is a sector with an enormous need given the world is still a long way away from closing all coal powered power plants. Saskatchewan has offered its own support, and Ottawa has promised $1-billion for clean energy technology, much of which will go to CCS. If CCS is going to contribute to the Harper government's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent from 2006 levels by 2020, the oil and power industries need to begin building demonstration plants now, industry executives say.Ĭompanies are vying for huge pots of public money that would help underwrite the first projects, though even taxpayers' support may not be sufficient to spur the development, given the large capital costs involved in the proposed projects.Īlberta is set to announce several winners of a competition for some $2-billion in provincial funding to build demonstration plants. But it is an energy-intensive process that drives up both costs and the emissions of carbon dioxide for oil sands producers.Ĭapturing their emissions could dramatically reduce the "carbon footprint" of oil sand projects, though critics doubt it could ever remove the environmental stigma from the controversial projects. Upgraders are critical components of the oil sands industry, transforming heavy bitumen into synthetic crude oil for further refining. But industry and government remain confident the technology can be widely used on the upgraders and refineries that process the bitumen, as well as for coal-fired power plants. Most of CCS's proponents acknowledge it won't contribute to reducing emissions from the oil sands projects themselves, where diesel-powered trucks and natural-gas-powered steam generators produce greenhouse gases that are difficult to capture. Dyer, and some within the energy industry, argue that government money is better spent on technologies that reduce the very creation of greenhouse gases - including new oil sands extractions techniques currently under development - and on cleaner forms of electricity generation. "We shouldn't see this as a silver bullet and be putting our eggs in this basket - particularly with public dollars - and ignore some of the cheaper and more effective options," said Simon Dyer, the oil sands program director at the Pembina Institute, an environmental think tank.Įven federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice conceded recently that the technology will have limited application in northeastern Alberta, where companies produce bitumen either in open-pit mines or by injecting steam into underground formations.Ĭritics such as Mr. And the technology remains unproven at a commercial scale. Even there, the economics simply don't add up. The technology likely won't work where the oil is actually pulled out of the ground, but rather at the processing end. ![]() Later this month, the Alberta government is set to announce the winners of $2-billion in funding for carbon capture.Īll this promise runs smack into the overarching uncertainty about carbon capture. Few other technologies hold the same promise, and indeed, few are being tested or funded to the same degree. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |