한국   대만   중국   일본 
Alstom’s answer to climate change: Bury the carbon - SmartPlanet
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20110106185154/http://www.smartplanet.com/people/blog/pure-genius/alstoms-answer-to-climate-change-bury-the-carbon/5227/

Alstom’s answer to climate change: Bury the carbon

By Melanie D.G. Kaplan | Dec 27, 2010 |

Bob Hilton, AlstomAt a power plant in West Virginia, Alstom ?a Paris-based company that focuses on power, transportation and smart grid–is demonstrating how carbon capture and storage (CCS) can be a viable solution for climate change. CCS involves burying the carbon emissions from a power plant 8,000 feet underground. According to Alstom, this process can capture as much as 90 percent of the CO2 from a plant’s emission stream.

I recently talked to Bob Hilton , Alstom’s vice president of government affairs for Power Technologies, who is based in the company’s U.S. headquarters office in Washington. We talked about how CCS works, the challenges of burying carbon deep in the ground and why we should look at this as an energy solution.

What is carbon capture storage?

CCS is basically the idea that in order to achieve the carbon reduction in the atmosphere and to hopefully reverse global warming, we need to capture the carbon. CCS is the group of technologies that allows us to capture the CO2 from the emissions of a fossil fuel power plant and store it safely in underground reservoirs.

The capture of CO2 can take place before, during or after the fuel is burned. In post-combustion processes, the emissions, or flue gases, from a power plant are diverted into a CCS unit, where the gas is washed with a solvent that binds the CO2 and removes it from the gas stream. It’s like a big shower. The bound CO2 is then diverted from the flue gas and separated from the solvent in a process called regeneration, which allows us to ‘recycle’ the solvent and use it to capture more CO2. At this point, we have created a purified, concentrated stream of CO2.

From here, the CO2 is pressurized and pumped into saline aquifers (porous rock formations) up to 8,000 feet below ground level. It stays there. In the long term, it will react with the water, react with other rocks down there and ultimately form more rocks. That’s why we feel this is a perfectly safe thing to do.

Where is this happening now?

The one plant in the U.S. that’s doing this is Mountaineer Power Plant of American Electric Power in New Haven, West Virginia. At this demonstration project, we have shown that CCS can effectively capture as much as 90 percent of the CO2 from a plant’s emission stream.

What is Alstom’s role there?

We provide some management. We designed and built the plant. They have taken over the operation. It’s the largest of its kind at the moment. It’s designed to collect 100,000 tons of CO2 a year. CCS is a technology that’s in the process of being scaled up to commercial. We have three projects after this that will be 1.5 million tons to 1.8 million tons of CO2. One will be at the same site; the second will be in Alberta, Canada; the third will be in Poland.

Tell me about the role of CCS in the climate change discussion.

Fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas account for as much as 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions [from power generation, which accounts for almost 40 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions]. Wind is great, but you only make power when the wind blows. Fossil fuels will play a dominant role in the global energy mix for several decades to come. So it’s vital that moving forward we need to make coal and gas clean. We have to make what we have more efficient. CCS is what we have to do for the [climate change] goals we’ve set.

CCS is a critically important weapon in the fight against climate change because it is a technology that can be deployed in the short-term to lower carbon emissions from the power generation sector. Alstom is pursuing the development of several CCS technologies, but our primary focus is on processes that can be retrofitted onto existing power plants thereby lowering environmental impacts today even as we continue the expansion of renewable sources.

Why aren’t more companies doing this?

There are a fair number of people doing it. I could rattle off probably 10 companies that are actively involved, but the reality is that it’s very big and very expensive. The one we have now is entirely paid for by Alstom and American Electric Power, but the three larger ones are co-funded by governments.

What challenges do you face in growing this sector?

Other than scaling up and the cost, there are additional things we need to address. We still have issues we have to face in terms of long-term liability for the CO2 in the ground. What we’re doing from a science perspective is completely safe. But geysers are CO2. There’s a lot of this stored, just like there has been oil stored in the earth for millennium. We know it will stay there, but the nature of our society is such that there will always be someone who wants to have an insurance policy. Right now, because we don’t have any guidance, the states are making their own rules. Another issue is who owns the space.

For those who understand how CCS works, what is the public response?

I think the response has been what I would call mostly positive. It varies a little depending on how well the people running the project take care of the project and inform the public. In New Haven, for example, they have gone to great lengths to let [the public] know what they’re doing.

If people understand the concept of climate change and what needs to be done and why it needs to be done, they generally can accept CCS. It’s where the carbon came from and we’re basically putting the carbon back in the earth. Scientifically, it’s fine. But there are a lot of people who are very skeptical. It’s just telling the right story and getting people to understand.

What’s next?

Alstom has 11 demos of different fuels, different technologies. We’re moving, and we’re moving on a good timeline. Our timeline has always been to have this commercial by 2015, because that would allow us to have general deployment by the late teens, early ‘20s, so we could be well on our way to hitting the targets that we need to hit.

 
Reply to Story

SmartPlanet Talkback Share your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via RSS

  •  
    1

    klassman6

    12/27/10 | Report as spam

    RE: Alstom's answer to climate change: Bury the carbon

    Seems like you didn't ask some key economic questions, like:
    1) How expensive is it going to be to inject these huge volumes of CO2 a mile and one half below the surface?
    2) What does that and the ammonia extraction process that Alstom uses do to the price of a kwh to the home?
    3) If it is as expensive as preliminary figures show, why shouldn't solar and wind, along with energy efficiency be pursued instead? After all, these should be at least as cheap if not significantly cheaper, even in the long run.
    4) Geysers of CO2 is a poor image to put out there, considering the concern about how well the CO2 will stay in place.

    Furthermore, I read somewhere that the space in-between rock particles was not as big as they expected, so the porous rock that was supposed to hold all of this injected CO2 wasn't going to hold nearly as much as they once thought. This is an important thing to resolve if these spaces are to really hold the volumes of CO2 that would be required to make a significant dent in the amount of carbon currently being emitted.

  •  
    2

    Hates Idiots

    12/27/10 | Report as spam

    Not a good idea.

    Earth injection sequestration of anything other than pure water always contaminates ground water. There is an extensive history of failed efforts to inject everything from wastewater to chemical weapons residue.

    One project in the 1960s in Colorado to dispose of waste from the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, at more than 11,000 underground, triggered earthquakes when they started injections. Yet they continued for 4 years.

    The project started in 1962 and ended in 1966 after 165 million gallons of toxic waste was injected causing earthquakes in the area. They think they sealed it in 1985.

    Quote from RMA report: In 1985 the Army permanently sealed the disposal well in stages. First, the well casing was tested to evaluate its integrity. Any detected voids behind the casing were cemented to prevent possible contamination of other formations. Next, the injection zone at the bottom 70 feet of the well was closed by plugging with cement. Additional cement barriers were placed inside the casing across zones that could access water-bearing formations (aquifers). The final step was adding Bentonite, a heavy clay mud that later solidified, to close the rest of the hole up to the ground surface.

    If they felt so good about the plug job, why do they still test groundwater near the site?

  •  
    3

    AntjeGebert

    12/28/10 | Report as spam

    RE: Alstom's answer to climate change: Bury the carbon

    My name is Antje, I'm a member of a german citizens initiative agains pumping liquid CO2 into the ground. Here're some of the reasons:
    What is CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage)? As explained in the article, CO2 is captured and liquidized. Mr. Hilton does not say, this technique uses up nearly one third of the power plants energie, means, one has to burn nearly one third more coal and produce nearly 33 % more emissions just to operate the CCS unit. He also didn't mention, that 5 % of the liquidized CO2 is still conterminated with different highly poisonous substances of the plant's emission stream. And the CCS unit captures max. 90 % out of the emission stream. The unit is extremly expensive. The storage of CO2 is by no means safe. Saline aquifiers contain very salty water that reacts with C02. It destroys rocks but does not form new rock. If the pressure of the pumped in CO2 rises, it is well able to press those saline waters into the above lying ground water reservoirs. The extreme pressures of the injected CO2 may also lead to earthquakes and leakage of CO2 through old drilling holes could, depending on amount and location, lead to death through suffocation. CO2 is more heavy than air and will spread at ground level.
    Where is it happening now? Companies in countries with "empty natural gas reservoirs" try to start testing the technology. But as Mr. Hilton says, it is very expensive an most of the companies wait for government money so they must not "revert to their savings".
    Tell me about the role of CCS in climate change diskussion: CCS is the alibi technology for gas and coal companies to cling to their dirty power plants. It does not solve the problem. Wind in combination with solar- , water - , biogas, geothermic energy provided by intelligent nets, protection of the forest, reforestation etc. can reduce CO2 much cheaper, efficient and in a shorter amount of time than CCS ever could.
    What is the public response? I can only speak for Germany and other european coutries. Here, the response is very bad. People all over the country join in citizens initiatives to fight the CCS technology.
    What's next? If we leave it up to those big companies und our politicians to decide for us "what's next", time will become rapidly shorter until we reach the point, where we'll have no more choice.

  •  
    4

    Hates Idiots

    12/29/10 | Report as spam

    Questions..

    I wonder if all of the people opposed to fracking, and the potential pollution it can cause, realize that CCS is just as bad?

    As seen in Colorado the injection disposal of massive amounts of liquids to deep depths can fracture the underlying rock and trigger earthquakes.

    I also wonder if the people who support CCS were against the Yucca Mountain project?

    Again, the bottom line result is comparable. Burying any toxic waste is subject to leakage and contamination.

  •  
    5

    Wilmot McCutchen

    12/29/10 | Report as spam

    RE: Alstom's answer to climate change: Bury the carbon

    So this is the best that Alstom knows about: post-combustion chemical capture and underground dumping ("sequestration"). What level of confidence do they have? Just a hope?. I agree with Prof. Ehlig-Economides et al. that sequestration in deep saline formations is a "profoundly non-feasible option for the management of CO2 emissions." See http://twodoctors.org/manual/economides.pdf Maybe Alsom would care to explain why they disagree.with that expert opinion.

  •  
    6

    klassman6

    01/02/11 | Report as spam

    RE: Alstom's answer to climate change: Bury the carbon

    Here's Austrailia's version, which is not surprisingly the same story as elsewhere (too expensive, not enough room underground):


    http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/blighs-clean-coal-dream-a-nightmare/story-fn6ck620-1225980172602

  •  
    7

    cd3rd

    01/02/11 | Report as spam

    Did someone not tell him......

    ...that CO2 induced global warming was a global tax and securities scam fueled by government research dollars?

    Even the scammers themselves got out before the building fell on them:
    http://www.examiner.com/orange-county-conservative-in-orlando/scandal-obama-gore-goldman-joyce-foundation-ccx-partners-to-fleece-usa

    But why not hang in there a while longer? Clearly the EPA intends to ignore the science, real data, public opinion, national interest, federal courts, the Congress, separation of powers, the rule of law, and the American people, to go ahead and impose regulations anyway.

    Why waste a perfectly good Ponzi scheme?

The following tags are supported in Smartplanet comments:
<b></b> <i></i> <u></u> <pre></pre>

Leave a Reply

  1. Name: You are currently: a Guest |
advertisement
advertisement

Quick Poll

advertisement
Click Here
advertisement

Christina Hernandez

Contributing Editor, People

Christina Hernandez is an award-winning journalist based in the Philadelphia area. Her work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, the website of the Columbia Journalism Review and elsewhere. Christina is a graduate of the University of Delaware and Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

Follow her on Twitter.

Christina Hernandez

Christina Hernandez is an independent journalist whose reporting and observations are not influenced by financial holdings. She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

Melanie D.G. Kaplan

Contributing Editor, People

Melanie D.G. Kaplan is a veteran journalist, traveler and swimmer. She writes regularly for The Washington Post and is a contributing editor at Washington Flyer.

She has also written for The New York Times, National Geographic Traveler, People and USA Weekend. Melanie is a graduate of Syracuse University and Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism. She lives in Washington, D.C. with her beagle Darwin.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

Follow her on Twitter.

Melanie D.G. Kaplan

In addition to working as a journalist, Melanie keeps the dog food fund flush with occasional consulting jobs. In the unusual event that her writing mentions a company or organization for which she has provided editorial services, she will disclose that fact. She will do the same should she cover any companies in which she holds investments.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

Pure Genius examines the innovation that drives the world's most amazing scientific discoveries and the great minds behind them, from university research to military advancements.