Carbon Capture and Storage (is a bad idea)

For a few years now I have been hearing about Carbon Capture and Storage.  I always thought I should read up on it to see what its all about.  I figured (incorrectly) that it was about planting lots of trees.

Carbon capture is about fitting a device to a power station and extracting the carbon and then pumping that carbon into the empty spaces left by mining the gas and oil.

As illistrated.  Now clearly there are a few issues there:

Firstly its not the trees I was expecting,
Secondly it only on power stations that have been converted,
Thirdly the medium term cost (when the station is decommissioned the equipment is useless),

My MP asked what I would consider to be a stupid question:

"What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the overall job creation potential of CCS over the next five to 10 years? What will he do to ensure that such jobs are created right across the regions, and not just in the areas local to the plants?"

How can a scheme to fit a filter to a power station create jobs across a county?  There are no power stations in his area so in part he is fishing for some more jobs for his voters.  However if jobs were created for CCS in a region where a power station did not exist surely that would lead to more carbon from travelling to the power station?

This form of carbon capture is like the tobacco companies putting filters on cigarettes, it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling that its not all that bad.  However cars, planes or domestic heating is not covered by this form of capture.

Of course a utility bill will go up because a percent of the energy produced then has to go to power the filter and then pump it out to sea and back underground.  Then there is the capital cost of building the equipment and the off sure platform to pump it.  Oh an in case you were wondering about the existing platforms, they only have a short life and need constant maintenance.

All in lets say 300million could be spent on converting a power station, probably either through taxes or higher bills, then spread that over 10-15 years.

For that same money you could get 6,000 homes completely off grid and producing no carbon for heating or electric.  That would also have a net effect of:

1, Making solar equipment cheaper,
2, Producing no toxins during use (ignore initial manufacture at the moment as that is covered by other laws)
3, Flexible power (cars, heating and devices can use it)
4, Local, as in less dependent on a national grid
5, Protection from foreign price rises

Carbon capture via trees I think would also be great, however it would need to be a global scheme as we could plant load and the USA none and the trees would soak up their CO2.


Popular posts from this blog

Windows Server and the Task Scheduler Error Code 0x3

IPv6 Ready!

The living wage failure