The Carbon Capture Con
Carbon-capture-and-storage “(CCS)” tops the list of silly schemes “to reduce man-made global warming”. The idea is to capture carbon dioxide from power stations and cement plants, separate it, compress it, pump it long distances and force it underground, hoping it will never escape.
Smart engineers with unlimited money could do all this. But only green zealots would support the sacrifice of billions of dollars and scads of energy to bury this harmless, invisible, life-supporting gas in the hope of appeasing the global warming gods.
The quantities of gases that CCS would need to handle are enormous and capital and operating costs will be horrendous. For every tonne of coal burnt in a power station, about 11 tonnes of gases are exhausted – 7.5 tonnes of nitrogen from the air used to burn the coal, plus 2.5 tonnes of CO2 and one tonne of water vapour from the coal combustion process.
Normally these beneficial atmospheric gases are released to the atmosphere after filters take out any nasties like soot and noxious fumes.
However, CCS also requires energy to produce and fabricate steel and erect gas storages, pumps and pipelines and to drill disposal wells. This will chew up more coal resources and produce yet more carbon dioxide, for zero benefit.
But the real problems are at the burial site – how to create secure space for the CO2 gas.
There is no vacuum occurring naturally anywhere on earth – every bit of space is occupied by solids, liquids or gases. Underground disposal of CO2 requires it to be pumped AGAINST the pressure of whatever fills the pore space of the rock formation now – either natural gases or liquids. These pressures can be substantial, especially after more gas is pumped in.
The natural gases in rock formations are commonly air, CO2, CH4 (methane) or rarely, H2S (rotten egg gas). The liquids are commonly salty water, sometimes fresh water or very rarely, liquid hydrocarbons.
Pumping out air is costly; pumping natural CO2 out to make room for man-made CO2 is pointless; and releasing rotten egg gas or salty water on the surface would create a real problem, unlike the imaginary threat from CO2.
In some cases CCS may require the removal of fresh water to make space for CO2. Producing fresh water on the surface would be seen as a boon by most locals. Naturally, some carbon dioxide buried under pressure will dissolve in groundwater and aerate it, so that the next water driller in the area could get a real bonus – bubbling Perrier Water on tap, worth more than oil.
Then there is the dangerous risk of a surface outburst or leakage from a pressurised reservoir of CO2. The atmosphere contains 0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} CO2 which is beneficial for all life. But a CCS reservoir would contain +90{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of this heavier-than-air gas – a lethal, suffocating concentration for nearby animal life if it escaped.
Pumping gases underground is only sensible if it brings real benefits such as using waste gases to increase oil recovery from declining oil fields – frack the strata, pump in CO2 and force out oil/gas. To find a place where you could drive out natural hydro-carbons in order to make space to bury CO2 would be like winning the Lottery – a profitable but unlikely event.
Normally however, CCS will be futile as the oceans will largely undo whatever man tries to do with CO2 in the atmosphere. Oceans contain vastly more CO2 than the thin puny atmosphere and oceans maintain equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and CO2 dissolved in the oceans. If man releases CO2 into the atmosphere, the oceans will quickly absorb much of it. And if by some fluke man reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 would bubble out of the oceans to replace much of it. Or just one decent volcanic explosion could negate the whole CCS exercise.
Increased CO2 in the atmosphere encourages all plants to grow better and use more CO2. Unfortunately natural processes are continually sequestering huge tonnages of CO2 into extensive deposits of shale, coal, limestone, dolomite and magnesite – this process has driven atmospheric CO2 to dangerously low concentrations. Burning hydrocarbons and making cement returns a tiny bit of this plant food from the lithosphere to the biosphere.
Regulating atmospheric carbon dioxide is best left to the oceans and plants – they have been doing it successfully for millennia. [PSI Editor: or simply ship the captured CO2 to industrial horticulturalists and have them pump it into their greenhouses as plant fertilizer]
The only certain outcome from CCS is more expensive electricity and a waste of energy resources to do all the separation, compressing and pumping. Coal industry leaders love the idea of selling more coal to produce the same amount of electricity and electricity generators welcome an increased demand for power. Consumers and tax payers are the suckers.
Naturally the Greens love the idea of making coal-fired electricity less competitive. They conveniently ignore the fact that CCS is anti-life – it steals plant food from the biosphere.
Global Warming has never been a threat to life on Earth – Ice is the killer. Politicians supporting CCS stupidity should be condemned for destructive ignorance.
Viv Forbes BScApp, FAusImm, FSIA
Executive Director of the Saltbush Club and Founder of the Carbon Sense Coalition.
He has no investments in or contracts with coal or cement companies but has extensive experience at assessing the feasibility of capital expenditure proposals.
Further Reading:
Nature controls the level of CO2 in the atmosphere:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU4jf5XDgkc&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1_r84vgxfNDuqk0klxWW0hqMbwECYB9wm5vo-j8hYJscczRrboOkzYfkc
Ocean Temperature Controls CO2:
https://carbon-sense.com/2010/12/29/forbes-co2-and-oceans/
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/endersbee-co2-and-oceans.pdf
The Insane Plan of the UK Government to Decarbonise the Economy:
https://principia-scientific.com/uk-governments-insane-plan-to-decarbonize-the-economy/
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Andy Rowlands
| #
This is an excellent article which highlights the utter stupidity and very real danger of trying to rid the atmosphere of a trace gas without which there would be no life on Earth.
Reply
Sabin Colton
| #
There is one huge fly in the ointment here. It is easy to assume there is some sort of equilibrium going on between CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans. However, there are mineral processes going on that tend to lock away CO2 as calcium carbonate and decrease atmospheric CO2. The massive cliffs of Dover and the large coral reefs under Coralville, Iowa are evidence of processes that decrease available CO2.
It is likely that the only thing that actually keeps life alive on Earth is the constant yet sporadic introduction of CO2 by volcanic activity and natural seeps in the sea floor or land (CO2 from under Yellowstone caldera has killed the roots of trees in seepage areas).
Coral reefs are constantly concreting together because of the saturated CaCO3 status of warm seawater. Volcanoes balance this natural sequestration. Plant and animal life are thriving, albeit tenuously in my opinion, in the middle.
One should contemplate why there has been a long-term decreasing CO2 trend for the last 500+ million years, largely in a straight line from 7000 ppm to 200+ ppm. We received a large reprieve 250 million years ago when the Siberian Traps eruptions injected huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and aided by subsequent eruptions until about 170 million years ago when the linear trend toward death resumed.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Yes Sabin, the Siberian Traps lasted about two million years, and we can see in the ice core records large amounts of CO2 were added to the atmosphere, from around our current level to around 2000ppm. There was another big injection just before 200 million years ago which pushed it up to approaching 3000ppm.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
“Oceans contain vastly more CO2 than the thin puny atmosphere and oceans maintain equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and CO2 dissolved in the oceans. If man releases CO2 into the atmosphere, the oceans will quickly absorb much of it. And if by some fluke man reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 would bubble out of the oceans to replace much of it.”
Exactly! We would NOT be ‘decarbonizing’ the atmosphere we will be attempting to remove CO2 from the oceans. And note that man’s overall input to the atmospheric CO2 budget is only about 5% of the atmosphere. Only complete idiots would attempt such foolhardy schemes wasting $billions in the process.
So probably in these hysterical days it will get the go ahead.
Reply
Graeme Mochrie
| #
About five years ago I started a project that was aimed at decarbonising the atmosphere (sucking the CO2 from it). I completed laboratory studies and was looking to scale up when I had a terrible thought. What if everything about CO2 and global warming is correct? What happens if there is decarbonising? Will this precipitate global cooling? I would hate to be responsible for precipitating an ice age. I put my project on hold and started reading and reading and reading. After more than three year I will hadn’t found a mechanism that explains warming and decided that I would just have to take the risk. If nothing else, it will be an interesting experiment and if cooling commences then we can debate the perfect level for planetary CO2 and use the technology to control the atmosphere.
The Scottish Government has declared a climate emergency and wants to reach net zero CO2 by 2030. I attended a conference on this about a month ago. There is certainly a great deal of political push in this direction. One project is going to sequester CO2 in disused oil wells in the North Sea. This is achievable, but an intermediate solution that will give grace for other technologies such as mine to develop.
I assume that the Scottish Government believes that CO2 is a huge problem and that is why there are so many grants being awarded to stimulate the business. On the other hand CO2 may be a green herring that is bringing about change before something else happens e.g. oil shocks. Certainly oil stocks in Scotland are running out and the time when the industry is no longer viable is approaching in Scotland and, I am informed, globally. Is a lot of the green narrative about stimulating alternatives? Is the emergency a smoke screen to prevent panic and find a soft road to cushion the shock that will come about when oil ends?
For my part, I am happy to continue my developments, since there are many other benefits that will accrue to society from them. It doesn’t matter whether CO2 is a hoax.
Reply
Dan Paulson
| #
Graeme,
I took what you wrote at face value, until this “Is the emergency a smoke screen to prevent panic and find a soft road to cushion the shock that will come about when oil ends?”
Trying to softpeddle the fraud and manipulation that defines the “climate emergency” makes me question both your motives and/or IQ level.
Reply
Graeme Mochrie
| #
Dan Paulson,
Thanks for your comment. Who knows about my intelligence, it is something which I regularly question, since I fail to see the mechanism by which CO2 is warming the planet. Half the planet seems to be hysterical about this and yet I fail to see something that is patently obvious to most folk. I have however also read a lot of twaddle on the deniers side too, with both sides indulging in childish rhetoric that only serves to cloud the issue and make unpicking the science more difficult. I try to remain healthily skeptical and that is why I am happy to jump into bed with anyone who will help fund my global experiment. Suck the CO2 out and see if we cool!
My calculations show that it is possible to do this without decarbonising and that it should be possible to do this with a handsome profit, since we are looking at a market of £1.5 trillion per annum. Done effectively and enthusiastically there should also be additional social and environmental gains well beyond anything that alarmists currently conceive. I look for solutions to problems rather than moaning. The carbon capture is merely a by product of solutions to feeding an ever expanding population.
Reply
chris
| #
How can decarbonizing the atmosphere feed the populace? CO2 in the atmosphere is needed in order to grow plants. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere causes the reverse, it starves the populace. To illustrate this, large scale greenhouses and small ones with people in the know use CO2 pumps to put in more CO2. They raise the level to around 1200 ppm. They do this to cause the plants to grow better and faster. If you want a sweet spot for atmospheric CO2 concentration, that would be it.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Once upon a time medical doctors bled patients to cure them of various diseases….never mind that some died because they actually needed a transfusion. First, do no harm….do not intervene with CO2….I don’t believe any harm would result from 2 or 3 times today’s level…don’t try to bleed CO2 from the atmosphere….do not waste resources trying to cure a non disease.
Reply
Graeme Mochrie
| #
I try not to be a religious person. I don’t like faith, I like proof. I believe that until the weight of evidence is overwhelming that doubts remain. I spend a lot of time sitting on the fence and playing devils advocate. My intended course should do no harm, but potentially it could do some quite remarkable things. We will not go from our present situation to a future with lower CO2 in the atmosphere overnight. It will take a couple of decades to bring about change, particularly if we continue to burn fossils. A slow rate of change will show whether heating stops, or even reverses. This will allow proper, empirical, evidence based science to assess the role of atmospheric CO2 in climate warming and also allow wise decisions to be made about the Goldilocks point for earth’s climate.
I remain a firm believer in validation by experiment, rather than relying on models, particularly in complex, dynamic situations.
Reply