There are some people who claim that reaching net zero emissions of CO2 will not cost very much, some even think it will make us money! But when you look at what is involved such claims look ridiculous. Take "carbon capture and storage", the UK government has decided to invest £20 billion in it.
The two projects are Viking in the Humber and Acorn in North East Scotland. Both projects will take captured CO2 from industrial processes and transport it via a pipeline to be stored in former oil and gas fields deep under the North Sea.
In the future, both projects aim to ship liquefied captured CO2 from other parts of the country before it is sent via the same pipes to be stored.The CO2 is separated from flue gas or the exhaust stream using a chemical solvent, a membrane or a solid absorbent, which can then be pressurised and turned into a liquid.
Presumably the £20 billion is just to set up the infrastructure, but just think about the running costs of all this, as opposed to just venting it into the atmosphere for nothing. This is bound to make any process using it far more expensive than it is now. And, of course we don't even know if it will work!
What is carbon capture? (telegraph.co.uk) (paywall)
What is carbon capture? (telegraph.co.uk) (paywall)
The cost of AGW world wide is 16 million dollars per hour. Skipping carbon capture and straight to RE and storage is the most economical way out.
ReplyDelete