• 4 mintues Texas forced to have rolling brown outs. Not from downed power line , but because the wind energy turbines are frozen.
  • 7 minutes Forecasts for oil stocks.
  • 9 minutes Biden's $2 trillion Plan for Insfrastructure and Jobs
  • 13 minutes European gas market to 2040 according to Platts Analitics
  • 5 hours Simple question: What is the expected impact in electricity Demand when EV deployment exceeds 10%
  • 3 hours America's pandemic dead deserve accountability after Birx disclosure
  • 4 hours U.S. Presidential Elections Status - Electoral Votes
  • 2 days Today Biden calls for Summit with Putin. Will Joe apologize to Putin for calling him a "Killer" ?
  • 3 days Fukushima
  • 3 days Biden about to face first real test. Russia building up military on Ukraine border.
  • 2 days CO2 Mitigation on Earth and Magnesium Civilization on Mars – Just Add Water
  • 3 days Joe Biden's Presidency
  • 2 days New Chinese Coal Plants Equal All those in U.S.A
2020 Will Be A Brutal Year For Coal

2020 Will Be A Brutal Year For Coal

After having entered in structural…

Will Asia Actually Fuel A Comeback In Coal?

Will Asia Actually Fuel A Comeback In Coal?

The decline of coal has…

Can South Korea Overcome Its Coal Dependence?

Can South Korea Overcome Its Coal Dependence?

South Korea has historically been…

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

Premium Content

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


Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage





Leave a comment

Leave a comment




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