nuclear-news

Carbon capture doesn’t make sense economically or practically

Why Nuclear Energy May Not Be Our Best Alternative Option To Fossil Fuel, Forbes, 9 Sept 17 , Michael Barnard, low-carbon innovation analyst, on Quora: “… From a carbon capture and sequestration perspective, there’s exactly one sequestration project associated with a coal generation plant which is actually sequestering any reasonable amount of carbon. It’s in Saskatchewan, Canada. It was operating at 40% of targets for months and nobody noticed. It’s very expensive.

I did an assessment of all sequestration efforts in Australia over the past 19 years recently and found that they had spent $4,300 AUD per ton to sequester a vanishingly tiny fraction of Australia’s emissions.

The US CCS projects have gone vastly over forecasts and are abandoned and no new ones are projected. The UK government has stopped funding them………

Are environmentalists saying that CCS doesn’t make sense? Yes, because 20 years of work has shown that CCS related to fossil fuel generation has failed to progress, deliver to milestones or show that it is capable of providing any useful contribution. It’s just not economically or practically possible. …….https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/09/09/why-nuclear-energy-may-not-be-our-best-alternative-option-to-fossil-fuel/#25ec6e8375d0

September 11, 2017 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, climate change