05-16-23, 02:18 PM
From HERE
A further comment. Biden’s EPA is delusional. This BEV thing is but one of two examples in the past week.
The other is mandating power plant CCS based on the Clean Air Act. That act specifically allows the EPA to only mandate BACT (best available control technology). So for example sulfur flue gas scrubbers, catalytic auto exhaust converters. The EPA problem is, power plant CCS isn’t ‘available’. There is not a single viable scaled CCS anywhere in the world despite a decade and an half of talking. Every single one proposed in Europe got cancelled as being infeasible once detailed engineering started. The only heavily subsidized (in an effort to meet BACT) US attempt was Kemper, Mississippi. Came in $2.5 billion over budget, a year late, and only CCS 65% of emissions due to CCS downtime. The S part was easy—into depleted nearby natural gas fields in Louisiana.
The only other exhaust gas scaled CC anywhere in the world is SaskPower’s Boundary Dam generating station unit 4. Despite years of tweaking with modified designs, its availability is still under 60% and its parasitic power draw is over 30%. (The original ‘plan’ was 85% uptime and 20% parasitic load. CC was to be sold to a nearby oil field for tertiary oil recovery, so no S. And the oil field cancelled the original contract when SaskPower could not deliver the contracted minimum CO2.)
The only other industrially scaled S was a federally subsidized large trial in Illinois to inject ethanol fermentation CO2 (so no CC) into an imperviously capped deep brine aquifer. The problem was the CO2 reacted with the brine to form solids that fully plugged the injection well within a month. Infeasible to drill new deep injection wells every month. Experiment was abandoned.Rud Istvan
A further comment. Biden’s EPA is delusional. This BEV thing is but one of two examples in the past week.
The other is mandating power plant CCS based on the Clean Air Act. That act specifically allows the EPA to only mandate BACT (best available control technology). So for example sulfur flue gas scrubbers, catalytic auto exhaust converters. The EPA problem is, power plant CCS isn’t ‘available’. There is not a single viable scaled CCS anywhere in the world despite a decade and an half of talking. Every single one proposed in Europe got cancelled as being infeasible once detailed engineering started. The only heavily subsidized (in an effort to meet BACT) US attempt was Kemper, Mississippi. Came in $2.5 billion over budget, a year late, and only CCS 65% of emissions due to CCS downtime. The S part was easy—into depleted nearby natural gas fields in Louisiana.
The only other exhaust gas scaled CC anywhere in the world is SaskPower’s Boundary Dam generating station unit 4. Despite years of tweaking with modified designs, its availability is still under 60% and its parasitic power draw is over 30%. (The original ‘plan’ was 85% uptime and 20% parasitic load. CC was to be sold to a nearby oil field for tertiary oil recovery, so no S. And the oil field cancelled the original contract when SaskPower could not deliver the contracted minimum CO2.)
The only other industrially scaled S was a federally subsidized large trial in Illinois to inject ethanol fermentation CO2 (so no CC) into an imperviously capped deep brine aquifer. The problem was the CO2 reacted with the brine to form solids that fully plugged the injection well within a month. Infeasible to drill new deep injection wells every month. Experiment was abandoned.Rud Istvan
“A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper
Terms of Service
Moderation Guidelines
Terms of Service
Moderation Guidelines
