• 5 minutes Desperate Call or... Erdogan Says Turkey Will Boycott U.S. Electronics
  • 11 minutes Don't Expect Too Much: Despite a Soaring Economy, America's Annual Pay Increase Isn't Budging
  • 15 minutes WTI @ 67.50, charts show $62.50 next
  • 2 hours Mike Shellman's musings on "Cartoon of the Week"
  • 13 hours Starvation, horror in Venezuela
  • 21 hours The EU Loses The Principles On Which It Was Built
  • 14 hours Again Google: Brazil May Probe Google Over Its Cell Phone System
  • 14 hours Tesla Faces 3 Lawsuits Over “Funding Secured” Tweet
  • 41 mins Batteries Could Be a Small Dotcom-Style Bubble
  • 17 hours Why hydrogen economics does not work
  • 7 hours Saudi Fund Wants to Take Tesla Private?
  • 1 day WSJ *still* refuses to acknowledge U.S. Shale Oil industry's horrible economics and debts
  • 9 hours California Solar Mandate Based on False Facts
  • 1 day Crude Price going to $62.50
  • 9 hours Oil prices---Tug of War: Sanctions vs. Trade War
  • 1 day Saudi Arabia Cuts Diplomatic Ties with Canada
Darrell Delamaide

Darrell Delamaide

Darrell Delamaide is a writer, editor and journalist with more than 30 years' experience. He is the author of three books and has written for…

More Info

Trending Discussions

Flaw in CCS Theory May Puncture Clean Coal Dream, Study Says

Clean coal is likely to remain a chimera rather than a real solution to carbon emissions, a new study suggests, because the much-touted process of carbon capture and sequestration simply won’t prove to be feasible.

Proponents of coal have held out CCS as the key to a future use of coal in keeping with efforts to combat global warming, but the technology remains unproven and has long faced skepticism.

In theory, carbon dioxide given off during combustion would be captured and injected in either liquid or “supercritical” state into an underground rock formation so that it would not disperse into the atmosphere.

The new study on CCS by Michael Economides of the University of Houston and Christine Ehlig-Economides of Texas A&M University says that proponents of CCS have underestimated the amount of reservoir space that will be required because the volume of carbon dioxide to be stored cannot exceed more than 1% of pore space, and perhaps much less, rather than the 1-4% in most calculations.

“This will require from 5 to 20 times more underground reservoir volume than has been envisioned by many,” the authors write, “and it renders geologic sequestration of CO2 a profoundly non-feasible option for the management of CO2 emissions.”

Michael Economides himself is a self-declared skeptic of global warming and long has argued that traditional fossil fuels must continue to provide the bulk of our energy needs.

The mistaken calculations are due to the assumption that the CO2 can be injected into a reservoir formation at a constant pressure, the authors say. But in fact, pressure will vary, affecting the rate of injection. Excessive pressure could fracture the formation, says the study, published in the Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering.

“In applying this to a commercial power plant, the findings suggest that for a small number of wells the areal extent of the reservoir would be enormous, the size of a small U.S. state,” the authors say.

Several government-sponsored experiments in CCS are under way in various countries, including the U.S.  The New York Times reported last week on a project in Germany that has been injecting carbon into a sandstone reservoir for the past 22 months and is attempting to monitor any leakage.

By. Darrell Delamaide




Back to homepage

Trending Discussions


Leave a comment

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News