|
- Bellona CCS web
-
Introduction to CCS
-
Technology
-
Projects
-
Opinions
-
Politics
-
Bellona and CCS
-
Links
-
CCS news &
events
-
FAQ
- Press Centre
- CCS Web Supporters
CCS Blog
| Dangerous climate change is already taking place, and to solve this challenge we must act now. CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) is one of the main new solutions to combat global warming, and this blog is dedicated to providing an indepth analysis of technical and political advances of CCS. By doing so we hope to make our contribution to a successful development of CCS technology and its related political processes. Aage Stangeland Energy Adviser at the Bellona Foundation |
 |
Shell carries expansion of tar sand project on the shoulders of CCS
The second quarter of 2009 Shell had seven test-phase CCS projects underway and was looking to fund future projects through lucrative carbon credits (Reuters May 2009).
Yes – CO2 capture by amines is safe!
Bellona has carried out a comprehensive study to determine if amines planned used for CO2 capture are dangerous or not. The conclusion is that when remaining knowledge gaps are filled it should be possible to capture CO2 with amines without any negative environmental impacts.
The public lack information about CCS – a serious bottleneck
Several planned CCS projects have experienced huge problems the last months due to local opposition in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany. The opposition seems rooted in lack of information and knowledge about CCS, and this show how important it is to establish good campaigns to inform the public about CCS and its challenges and possibilities.
Is it possible to capture 100 percent of CO2 emissions?
In theory, the oxyfuel technology can capture 100 percent of CO2 emissions from fossil fuelled power plants. But can CCS really be that efficient in reducing CO2 emissions. Well, in fact you have to do a life cycle analysis (LCA) to determine how efficient CCS is. In a LCA all emissions related to the process is included; like CO2 emitted when the CO2 capture plant is built; CO2 emitted through building and operating of related infrastructure like pipelines; emissions from processing of the fuel, etc.
State and federal policies advance CCS in the USA
CCS advances in the USA as Illinoise passes a clean coal standard and federal economic stimulus package has $3.5 bn for CCS
"How to go carbon Negative"
By combining technology for CCS with the use of biomass, future energy production can remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The latest observations of climate change tell us that carbon negative is not only an interesting idea, but a necessity if we are to avoid crossing dangerous climatic tipping point.
Amine waste – only a problem, or also a possibility
Amine waste products from CO2 capture plants must be handled as hazardous waste, but they could also represent a possible new business market.
(0 comments)Why Greenpeace is wrong in their critics against the new Australian CCS Institute
Australian PM Kevin Rudd opened a new CCS institute in Australia yesterday, and this institute will play an important role in developing the CCS technology we need to combating global warming. Greenpeace criticize the institute for being a “dangerous climate solution charade”, but the arguments from Greenpeace are not trustworthy.
(0 comments)Why are there so large variations in CCS cost estimates?
McKinsey estimates CCS cost to 30-45 euro per tonne CO2 while StatoilHydro says the cost will be about 200 euro per tonne. This big difference is often questioned, but it can easily be explained.
(0 comments)Bellona is looking for consultants in a number of EU Member States for exciting CCS projects
The Bellona Foundation is looking for consultants in a number of EU Member States for an exciting project in the field of climate change advocacy, focused on the potential of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) as a tool to “decarbonise” large greenhouse gas emission sources, such as coal-fired power plants.
The most fundamental questions are; what is the problem, and what does it take to solve it?
The Economist featured a story on CCS on March 5th, claiming that the world is investing too much cash and hope in carbon capture and storage. Here’s why it got it wrong.
(0 comments)Does CO2 capture represent health danger?
The Norwegian journal ”Teknisk Ukeblad” published an article in their last issue stating that the planned CCS project at Mongstad in Norway could lead to risk for cancer for people living nearby. More studies on environmental impacts from CCS are needed.
(0 comments)Safe CO2 storage is possible
In a briefing from Greenpeace it is said that an accident at the Utsira formation in the North Sea proves that CO2 storage is not safe. This is not true. Greenpeace has misunderstood, because the accident was due to oil drilling activities and had nothing to do with CO2 storage
(0 comments)What is the cost of CCS?
According to McKinsey’s report the CCS cost will be in the range 60 to 90 euros per tonne CO2 avoided. However, the Norwegian company concludes that the cost could be as high as 200 euro per tonne CO2 for their CCS project at Mongstad, Norway. Even if the cost should be as high as 200 euro per tonne CO2 it could be a low cost compared to the alternative of not doing anything but pay the cost of global warming, which could turn out considerably higher.
(0 comments)The EU Climate Package paves way for CCS deployment
The EU Climate Package paves way for CCS deployment in Europe as it allocates billions of euros for building much needed CCS demonstration plants. Bellona celebrated big time when the Package was endorsed by the European Parliamanet December 2008.
(0 comments)
