Sask Power CCS (some details typically not reprinted)

[oneoff]

This is a good starting point to begin researching what is really going on in this field.


http://cornerstonemag.net/overview-of-oxy-fuel-combustion-technology-for-co2-capture/


One significant advantage of the PCC process is that it can produce very high-purity CO2 ready to be compressed and transported, which is not the case for the oxy-fuel process. The main penalties of PCC are due to the requirement for solvent regeneration and solvent loss. Many research activities are currently addressing these issues.7 PCC is sometimes considered a “messy” technology because of its use of large amounts of chemical solvent and the size of the equipment. The use of chemical solvent also gives PCC an edge in retrofitting existing power plants and in building the so-called “CO2 capture ready” power plants. One perceived weakness of PCC technology is that it requires very clean flue gas to minimize solvent loss due to impurity contamination. (This requirement also has ramifications when retrofitting existing power plants with PCC as most of the flue gas cleaning equipment will likely have to be upgraded as well.) Again, this disadvantage can be turned into an advantage because the PCC train can be easily turned off during periods when CO2 capture is not necessary (for example, when the power plant has reached its annual CO2 capture goal) while meeting emissions requirements for other air pollutants. Currently, SaskPower of Canada is retrofitting a 150-MWe unit at its Boundary Dam location resulting in a 110-MWe PCC power plant. Note also that there are several other large-scale PCC-based power plants either under construction or being planned around the world.

[oneoff]

And here's a link to probably about most up to date summary of development of carbon capture throughout the world. Probably not very comforting news for those expecting any significant counter action to the rate we're increasing CO2 production. There's also problem of constructing the transportation system (reword that to pipelines networks) that have lengthy pre construction study times and the final obstacle of those inherently opposed to pipes buried in anyone's back yard (reword that to just fully opposed under any circumstance)


http://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/publications/201158/global-status-ccs-2016-summary-report.pdf

[checking]

A subset of the NIMBY (not in my backyard) group is the closely related BANANA (build anything near anybody not allowed) bunch.

It's strange that they can migrate to a cold prairie environment.

[Hamloc]

Some interesting numbers from the US Energy Information Administration website. In 2012 the world wide production of C02 is estimated at 35.6 billion metric tonnes. This is projected to increase to 43.2 billion metric tonnes by 2040. An increase of 7.6 billion metric tonnes. Canada produced 732 million metric tonnes in 2016. In Canada our politicians are telling us that unless we do something about our C02 production we will see a rise of over 2' Celsius in global average temperatures which will be catastrophic. So they have imposed an escalating carbon tax without any economic assessment and if you look at the numbers absolutely no measurable effect on global emissions. From a practical analysis standpoint if climate change predictions are correct and obviously C02 emissions are to continue to rise wouldn't our money be more intelligently spent on adaptation and productively improving our outcomes in a gradually warming world rather than wasting billions pretending we can stop it. Pollution of our environment is obviously a serious problem as is the necessity to increase our energy use efficiency but does anyone really believe taxing our most efficient heating fuel in our cold Canadian climate will benefit anyone but a few select government employees? Coal is one of the most plentiful energy sources worldwide. If we could perfect and make economically feasible carbon capture technology this offers the greatest chance of providing cleaner less carbon intensive power to the poorest regions of the world. If we are really concerned about our fellow human beings isn't it a greater achievement to improve the lives of our poorest citizens than it is to impoverish some of our better off!!

[grassfarmer]

Hamloc I believe you are drastically wrong on two fronts. First is the fact that Canada's emissions are only a small part of the worlds total hence it is not worth us doing anything. Obviously it will take a global collective effort and claiming that we ourselves can't solve it so it's better to do nothing is a pathetic cop out.
Secondly you seem to underestimate the effect of temperature fluctuation. Research the "year without a summer" (1816) where the average global temperature decreased by 0.4-0.7C and brought catastrophic results to agriculture leading to people starving in several countries/continents. This case should be a real wake up call to how little temperature change it takes to precipitate a catastrophe.

[Hamloc]

First off Grassfarmer what I stated was that with the predicted continued world wide rise in C02 emissions through 2040 it would appear to me that the predicted rise in global temperatures is locked in. Therefore we should be targeting our money at adaptation to this reality. Instead we are loading our resources on to ships sending them to China and then having them send back solar panels and windmills. We are burning fuel both ways, creating the jobs in China and pretending we are saving the world. We are creating a higher tax environment that exports jobs to lower tax lower cost jurisdictions.

At present I pay $5.45 a gigajoule for natural gas through my local co-op to heat my house. The 50$ a tonne carbon tax being imposed by our Prime Minister will add 2.50$ per gigajoule a roughly 46% increase. I am starting to replace my windows with higher quality windows. I have r40 insulation in the ceiling and R20 in the walls. It is not that expensive to heat. I still don't agree with a 46% increase to something I consider essential when it is -40, heat! So Grassfarmer I disagree, I think it is you that is wrong.

[biglentil]

A carbon tax is like squeazing a water balloon. Like the water in the balloon the consumption and industry just move to more favorable jurisdictions. Grass has a new shed full of diesel powered equipment and produces one of the highest carbon contributing foods there is beef. He is established and comfortable what about the next generation of farmers they wont be so lucky under the carbon tax regime. Just another barrier to entry .

[rockpile]

First off Grassfarmer what I stated was that with the predicted continued world wide rise in C02 emissions through 2040 it would appear to me that the predicted rise in global temperatures is locked in. Therefore we should be targeting our money at adaptation to this reality. Instead we are loading our resources on to ships sending them to China and then having them send back solar panels and windmills. We are burning fuel both ways, creating the jobs in China and pretending we are saving the world. We are creating a higher tax environment that exports jobs to lower tax lower cost jurisdictions.

At present I pay $5.45 a gigajoule for natural gas through my local co-op to heat my house. The 50$ a tonne carbon tax being imposed by our Prime Minister will add 2.50$ per gigajoule a roughly 46% increase. I am starting to replace my windows with higher quality windows. I have r40 insulation in the ceiling and R20 in the walls. It is not that expensive to heat. I still don't agree with a 46% increase to something I consider essential when it is -40, heat! So Grassfarmer I disagree, I think it is you that is wrong.

Hamloc, is that actually 5.45 a gj for raw gas or does it include delivery, admin, fixed costs, etc. because I know for a fact that the brokerage supplying the gas is buying it for under 2.50 a gj with very little mark-up (they are not for profit). If it is 5.45/gj for just the gas then you're getting hosed. Could you share the name of the Co-op because I know them all and could give you some insight on its history and operations and who to call to get things in order. I have very intimate knowledge of all of the co-ops which I could pass on to you.

[Hamloc]

Innisfail gas co-op. Gas 2.95 a gigajoule, 2.25 a gigajoule for delivery and system maintanence, .25 GJ cost recovery and reserve. Actually if you look at it that way the price of gas is almost doubled.

[Hamloc]

Sorry Rockpile that is Crossroads Gas co-op brain fart lol.

[grassfarmer]

First off Grassfarmer what I stated was that with the predicted continued world wide rise in C02 emissions through 2040 it would appear to me that the predicted rise in global temperatures is locked in. Therefore we should be targeting our money at adaptation to this reality. Instead we are loading our resources on to ships sending them to China and then having them send back solar panels and windmills. We are burning fuel both ways, creating the jobs in China and pretending we are saving the world. We are creating a higher tax environment that exports jobs to lower tax lower cost jurisdictions.

At present I pay $5.45 a gigajoule for natural gas through my local co-op to heat my house. The 50$ a tonne carbon tax being imposed by our Prime Minister will add 2.50$ per gigajoule a roughly 46% increase. I am starting to replace my windows with higher quality windows. I have r40 insulation in the ceiling and R20 in the walls. It is not that expensive to heat. I still don't agree with a 46% increase to something I consider essential when it is -40, heat! So Grassfarmer I disagree, I think it is you that is wrong.

Of course it isn't "locked in" why do you think people are furiously looking for ways to mitigate the rise in global temperature and being impeded by people who don't believe/think warmer would be better/think other countries should shoulder the burden?

I'm not sure how you reckon the Prime Minister is going to increase your gas bill 46%. It will be a provincial tax first of all. What is the source of your $2.50 per gigajoule figure?

I hope you do take the time to research the "year without a summer". Frost and snow all summer in New England. Failed crops across Europe and as far as Chine with less than 1C global average temperature deviation. It makes you realize how perilous our food security and agriculture are around the world. All the more reason that we as farmers should be proactive in the climate change discussion not taking a neanderthal stance.

[rockpile]

Sorry Rockpile that is Crossroads Gas co-op brain fart lol.

Thanks Hamloc but I knew right away it was Reg and the boys. They always were the problem child beating to their own drum. Get together with some of your neighbours and attend the AGM and raise a bit of shit, question why their charges are so high. You'll likely get some bs story but it will catch their attention. I would never classify them as one of the best managed or governed gas co-ops. It's always been that way.

[stonepicker]

Hamloc I believe you are drastically wrong on two fronts. First is the fact that Canada's emissions are only a small part of the worlds total hence it is not worth us doing anything. Obviously it will take a global collective effort and claiming that we ourselves can't solve it so it's better to do nothing is a pathetic cop out.
Secondly you seem to underestimate the effect of temperature fluctuation. Research the "year without a summer" (1816) where the average global temperature decreased by 0.4-0.7C and brought catastrophic results to agriculture leading to people starving in several countries/continents. This case should be a real wake up call to how little temperature change it takes to precipitate a catastrophe.

Your out to lunch grass farmer. You can average all you want, but you leave out the lows ( a lot of frosts ) and half a degree wouldn't have caused that. The big problem was a huge volcanic explosion which cooled everything off far more than half a degree avg. ( remember mount pinatubo and its effects? ) The world was in a long term cooling trend for a few hundred years, are you telling me that over 300 years that the avg world temp. only dropped less than half a degree? Because if it was more then by your theory there shouldn't have been crops for a couple hundred years. Out to lunch.

[grassfarmer]

Grass has a new shed full of diesel powered equipment and produces one of the highest carbon contributing foods there is beef. He is established and comfortable what about the next generation of farmers they wont be so lucky under the carbon tax regime.

Hardly - I just got my old tractor rebuilt in time for its 30th birthday. Sitting in the shed alone. Building my systems around only needing to run it for 2-3 hours once every 3 days in winter. Sequestering more CO2 than we produce through our grazing management. Doing more than most to ensure there is a future generation of farmers on the land. Opposite of you climate change denial neanderthals.

[grassfarmer]

You can average all you want, but you leave out the lows ( a lot of frosts ) and half a degree wouldn't have caused that. The big problem was a huge volcanic explosion which cooled everything off far more than half a degree avg.

Not my facts stonepicker - the generally accepted facts of the scientific community. Why are you manipulating the data or do you have some superior knowledge of the events of 1816?