The Generation Professionals Group is for utility professionals who work in biomass, coal, gas/oil, hydro, natural gas, or nuclear power generation fields. 

Stan Kaplan's picture
Energy Consultant KeyLogic

B.A., 1974, History, Rutgers University M.A., 1977, Public Policy, Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at AustinExpertise: Electric power and fuel marketsStan has...

  • Member since 2006
  • 38 items added with 40,266 views
  • Aug 10, 2020

Disappointing.  CCS is running out of time and chances.

Stan Kaplan's picture
Thank Stan for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Aug 10, 2020

“DOE remains committed to CCUS technology as it is critical to meeting our nation’s emission reduction goals,” she said, referring to carbon capture, utilization and storage.

This jumps out-- do you think CCUS should still be given such a platform and a role? I wonder if the time has passed-- where if more time and resources were spent on it a few decades ago and technology was fruitful today it would then be valuable to be using, but given the need for immediate decarbonization action we don't really have the luxury of waiting for CCUS to get to a point that they can help existing coal plants continue to be viable? 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Aug 10, 2020

"The plant was designed to capture 33% of the carbon emissions from one of four units at the W.A. Parish coal plant, and pipe it 81 miles to the West Ranch oil field, where it would push more oil to the surface."

Disappointing? Stan, if successful it appears this $1 billion project would capture only 1/3 of the fossil carbon generated from burning coal, then use it to extract more fossil carbon in the form of oil. I would be amazed if, with losses, it didn't at least double the amount of CO2 emitted.

I'm disappointed it didn't fail sooner.

Stan Kaplan's picture
Stan Kaplan on Aug 12, 2020

I understand your point.  In general I think it is better to have more options than fewer.  It looks like this will not be an option.

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Aug 12, 2020

That's definitely true in theory, but I think an important point to note is how little time we have left to 'beat' climate change compared with if we started in earnest with more urgency decades ago. But given the short runway we have left, 'all of the above' isn't necessarily a viable solution mindset anymore-- there's only so many resources to go around, and so they do need to be triaged and focused on the options that are most likely to get us to the goal line!

Kent Knutson's picture
Kent Knutson on Aug 11, 2020

Interesting story and a tough time (with oil production down) for carbon capture sequestration . . . . . for some stats on Petra Nova and the Prairie State project that's currently being evaluated click on the link to a story I ran back in late May. . . . ironically, Reuters used the same 'Adobe Stock' photo I used at the time.  I sincerely do hope that there is a break through in new CCS technology.  There are a number of potential carbon-capture technologies being developed that could make a difference.  Stan, thx for sharing the story.  

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »