News

How the World's Oil Giants Are Selling the 'Captured Carbon' Dream

Inside a global effort to convince the public an unproven technology will let us have our fossil fuels and a cooler planet, too.

By Geoff Dembicki, 17 May 2010, TheTyee.ca

Alberta tar sands

Tar sands processing on Alberta's Athabasca River. Photo: S. Jocz.

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Related

The world's biggest producers of fossil fuels are carefully crafting strategies to convince the public that carbon capture and storage is a promising technology, even as that dream of a solution to global warming is battered by mounting expert opinion that it won't work.

Carbon capture and storage -- CCS in industry parlance -- is the quest to prevent greenhouse gasses from escaping into the atmosphere while drilling for or processing oil, gas and coal. Billions are being spent to try and figure out a way to instead pump the gasses back into the ground. The future of Alberta's tar sands may be riding on the idea, if Canadian and international regulations clamp down on its role as a prime greenhouse gas emitter. So it's no surprise the provincial government is itself investing a lot of money in developing CCS technology -- and a lot of effort in promoting it to the public as a coming solution.

But while there are some experimental projects underway here and elsewhere, the prospect that CCS will become a workable and widespread practice any time soon took a big hit last month when a Houston University research team threatened "to blow a hole in growing political support for carbon capture and storage," according to a Guardian newspaper story.

The report added to a growing chorus of experts who say pumping gasses back into the Earth is itself just too energy intensive, expensive and geologically dicey to bet on.

That isn't stopping the full tilt, professionally designed public relations effort to make citizens around the world embrace CCS. The goal is to frame CCS as a way to let oil and gas extraction to continue apace without threatening the planet -- a message slammed not only by environmental groups but at least one oil industry analyst who say the CCS feel-good story is just a wasteful diversion.

Just how much time, money, and coordinated effort has gone into selling the carbon capture and storage dream was on full display last November in Paris, France, as nearly 100 international delegates attended a conference hosted by the Global CCS Institute -- four months after the Institute's G8 Summit launch.

A full day of interactive discussion centred on how to communicate the "risks and benefits" of carbon capture technology to a sceptical public. Results were summarized in this 65-page report.

For delegates, the stakes were high. Speakers noted several failed attempts to gain community support for local projects. "It is apparent that this issue could become a commercial show stopper for CCS," the report read. It painted a portrait of a public distrustful of their governments and big oil firms, slow to believe CSS was a real, or even necessary, solution. And the media wasn't helping, because news reports tended to dwell on risks to the new technology.

Framing the CCS story

Conference participants discussed a number of ways to tweak the message for maximum success, based on several recurring themes from years of public opinion research. Excerpts from the conference report:

"...people wish to talk about CCS in comparison to other low-carbon technologies as part of an energy portfolio... Research has demonstrated that once individuals recognise the limitations of other technologies they may reluctantly accept CCS as the most appropriate solution."

"When the two words storage and sequestration were compared it was found that storage was a better word because it was more easily recalled. Individuals were able to accurately define the principle underlying the technology when storage was used and in general it created a more positive image of the technology."

"Within each community there are various audiences that need to be considered, particularly for targeting engagement processes and key messages."

"...uninformed opinions are unstable and change easily over time. To gain a most stable opinion it is important to provide individuals with the opportunity to engage with easily comprehensible information that is seen to be balanced and credible."

"...when multiple stakeholders join forces to communicate a message the message is more likely to be well received and trusted, particularly if those communicating the messages are generally known to have opposing views. For example, when NGOs team up with industry partners..."

Targeting the media

Much of the conference simply pointed out the obvious. Carbon capture proponents were advised to seek public input wherever possible and constantly point out local benefits. Other strategies called for greater sophistication.

There appeared to be consensus that project developers identify "influential stakeholders" early on. These are people, the report noted, "who can have a large influence on either the project or wider lay public and so need to have a high level of resources dedicated to them. This can include both time and money." Examples included "government regulators, media, NGOs, etc."

Lower down the priority list, but also important, was the "Education component." Proponents should focus "not only on schools at all levels but also wider institutions such as museums, science centres and so on," the report read.

They were also urged to target "the broader public through a variety of engagement activities including local shopping centres, large group processes, access to experts and project representatives etc.," according to the report.

Conference participants agreed there should be more mention of carbon capture technology in the media. One delegate requested "a carefully scripted Q&A session which might reflect the type of interaction one would have with a journalist regarding issues of both CCS in general and of a particular (generic) project."

Alberta's $2 billion wager

Thousands of kilometres away, the Alberta government was busy at work on its own pressing problem: How to keep making billions of dollars from the second largest oil reserves on Earth, while assuaging those worried about an ever-warming world?

Clawing and steaming tarry bitumen from wetland-rich boreal forest, then cooking the sticky goo into synthetic crude, creates up to three times as many carbon emissions as regular oil.

In the United States, clean fuel laws and pending climate change legislation could restrict a vital market.

Seventeen European Parliament members are actively campaigning against future oil sands imports.

Add to that resistance strong campaigns from groups like Greenpeace, which may be discouraging new projects.

In December 2009, Alberta finalized plans for the world's biggest-ever investment in state-of-the-art technology generally referred to as carbon capture and storage. The basic premise is carbon emissions are trapped at their source, converted to liquid, shot down sealed pipelines and injected deep underground.

A $2 billion taxpayer subsidy -- with $650 million more from the feds -- is helping fund four demonstration projects. They won't come online until 2015, and will only account for a small fraction of Alberta's CO2 output.

"The objective is to prove out the technology and ultimately to bring down the cost," said Jim Carter, chair of the development council which helped plan the initiative. Alberta has pledged big emissions cuts by 2050, with 70 per cent to come from carbon capture.

Meanwhile, oil sands production could nearly triple by 2025, according to industry estimates.

Canada's tar sands giants lobby for CCS

In Canada, industrial corporations representing 95 per cent of Alberta's oil sands production belong to a powerful lobby group called the Integrated CO2 Network. Its goal is to accelerate "large scale CCS" across the country. (Though members Syncrude and Suncor didn't bother to compete for Alberta's $2 billion funding.)

Last year, founder Eric Beynon met personally with many government officials, including some of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's policy advisors. The group also employs top-tier lobbying firms such as the Earnscliffe Strategy Group to plead its case.

A similar U.S. alliance -- whose membership includes energy mega-player Halliburton -- has spent US$90,000 lobbying Capitol Hill since 2009. That's not a lot of money by Washington standards, but still conspicuous from industrial sectors not generally known for environmental leadership.

Europe has its own carbon capture interest groups, filled with familiar fossil fuel giants.

CCS lobby goes global

In July of last year the carbon capture and storage lobby -- backed by many of the world's biggest carbon emitters -- went international. At the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and U.S. President Barack Obama launched a new group with a broad vision.

The Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute would hasten efforts to deploy CCS technology on a commercial scale, across the entire world. The idea came from coal-consuming Australia, which has the planet's highest per-capita carbon emissions -- followed closely by the United States.

Institute membership reads like a cross section of the oil-dependant developed world. Members include giant investment banks (JP Morgan), oil sands lobby groups (Integrated CO2 Network), luxury car makers (Rolls-Royce) and carbon-heavy fuel interests (Australian Coal Association). Canada and Alberta have signed on, in addition to 30 other national and sub-national governments.

The Canberra-based Institute aspires "to be a key voice in the debate on climate change," according to its Overview Booklet. Australian taxpayers are paying AU$100 million a year to keep that mandate alive.

CCS may be costly 'diversion': Pembina

Of course it isn't surprising news that any major player in the climate change debate -- from militant greens to Big Oil and Coal -- would give thought to public relations.

What worries some observers is that huge investments in carbon capture and storage may placate a concerned public, while basic realities stay the same. "There is a risk that these very costly demonstration projects become something of a diversion," said Simon Dyer, oil sands program director for the Alberta-based Pembina Institute.

"The real issue of course is we need to put a high enough price on carbon and bring in regulations that drive emission reductions." Alberta emitters currently pay $15 per tonne for carbon emissions that exceed reduction targets. Meanwhile, carbon capture technology costs anywhere from $75 to $150 a tonne, Dyer estimated.

Billions of taxpayer dollars help bring down costs. Dyer's group thinks big carbon emitters should pay a bigger share. "We support the polluter pays principle, not the polluter gets paid," Dyer said.

Yet perhaps the biggest issue, particularly in Alberta, is whether carbon capture technology will actually produce carbon-neutral energy. "CCS is vital to the sustainability of Canada's oil sands development," reads a recent Integrated CO2 Network report.

Scientists advising federal and provincial ministers aren't so sure. "Only a small percentage of emitted CO2 is 'capturable' since most emissions aren't pure enough," read confidential briefing notes made public in 2008. "Only limited near-term opportunities exist in the oilsands."

Even staunch industry proponents have pointed out 80 per cent of fuel emissions come from end users -- vehicle commuters, for instance, who combust gasoline in their engines.

Latest blow to CCS hopes

Then, a few weeks ago, Houston University researchers dropped their bombshell, garnering press attention world-wide. The scientific study concludes that when emitters inject CO2 underground, pressure builds, restricting capacity for further injections.

It could mean the greenhouse gas output from one power station alone would fill a reservoir the size of a small U.S. state. "The findings of this work clearly suggest [CCS] is not a practical means to provide any substantive reductions in CO2 emissions," write the authors.

The paper hardly puts an end to the debate over carbon capture and storage -- the Carbon Capture and Storage Association lobbying group was quick to call the study mistaken, as did the American Petroleum Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Pacific Northwest National laboratory, and others.

But it makes winning over the public that much harder for a carbon capture and storage lobby that has hundreds of billions of dollars at stake in the concept that fossil fuel production -- and consumption -- need not be curtailed to save the planet.

'Bury the problem'

The Houston University report's co-author Michael Economides is not opposed to big business. In addition to a long academic background, he's editor-in-chief of the often pro-oil-and-gas Energy Tribune.

But he has said that carbon capture and storage "is like putting a bicycle pump up against a wall. It would be hard to inject CO2 into a closed system without eventually producing so much pressure that it fractured the rock and allowed the carbon to migrate to other zones and possibly escape to the surface."

His paper concludes the vaunted techno-fix for global warming "is not a practical means to provide any substantive reduction in CO2 emissions, although it has been repeatedly presented as such by others."

Economides labels himself an "agnostic" on the idea humans cause global warming. He thinks Western fossil fuel producers shouldn't waste valuable time and resources on a carbon capture scheme that won't work.

Especially, as he told The Tyee, when "even Ray Charles can see" it's nothing but a public relations ploy.

"CCS goes something like this," Economides said. "'We can continue doing what we are doing and literally and figuratively bury the problem.'" [Tyee]

Geoff Dembicki reports for The Tyee with a focus on the Alberta tar sands and the fossil fuels industry.

33 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Van Isle

    2 years ago

    Just more ponsi economics by

    Just more ponsi economics by our business and political elite

  • Takuan

    2 years ago

    uninformed commonsense tells me

    that unless you can "capture carbon" at a rate faster and greater than burning oil/coal releases it, you have no hope of reversing a situation that has already reached a tip-over threshold. Now I'll read the article.

  • KWD

    2 years ago

    Social engineering and the 'Carbon Capture Dream'

    The 65 page report is a prime example of how desperate the oil industry and its stakeholders have become.

    That desperation is best summed up by Samuela Vercelli, University of Rome, pp 24 of the report.

    “When we work on CCS, we work on climate change, we work on the hard reality of dramatic environmental transformations. Children perceive very clearly that we are facing a life-death issue. It is not, only, if we will be able to look at television, to keep our standards. It is whether we care for life, or not. So, while children invite us to look at reality, we need to know that any solution will work only if we are honest, thus trustful. It is a big challenge for those of us who work in big organizations or private companies: communication strategies might not fit with our own feelings and thoughts. How can we
    harmonize different perspectives to produce communication messages that respect life?”

    Are we surprised that honesty and trust aren’t part of the values and standards for big organizations or private companies?

  • Conductor274

    2 years ago

    human beings

    Human beings are just too stupid to survive. We are supposedly on the top of the food chain, the smartest inhabitants on the planet. Buul shiet! We are willing to allow governments and oil companies to value money ahead of the health of the planet. I repeat. We're too stupid to survive and we don't deserve a future.

  • Takuan

    2 years ago

    yep. Still doomed.

    Two things: firstly, where on Earth will be the last place rendered uninhabitable by the coming catastrophe? I expect the oil elite has already bought all the property, but you never know.

    Secondly: if those over-moneyed idiots trying to sell carbon capture would get their heads out of the clouds with all their fancy-pants marketing schemes and just get down to basics: All they to have to do is run some Ronco-K-Tel style TV ads for a new improved Karbon-Twaddler (now comes with batteries!) and they could have the unwashed masses actually PAYING them for the privilege of "saving the planet. Millions of slack-jawed, socred/conservative/republican voting-consumer drones sitting at home in front of their TVs, grasping their new Karbon Twaddlers in their pudgy hands and madly spinning the little cranks (which are not connected to anything).

  • mopled

    2 years ago

    There is absolutely no need to capture plant food.

    This idiocy really should be dropped soon before the Left is totally disgraced.

    "The Laws of Physics Ably Defeat the Global Warming Theory".
    "Among a steady groundswell of scientists eager to contradict the faltering greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming, comes 'Induced Emission and Heat Stored by Air, Water and Dry Clay Soil' by Professor Nasif Nahle.
    http://biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html

    Oceans Drive Climate, Not Trace Gasses

    The internationally-acclaimed professor, from Monterrey, Mexico, exposes the weakness of the greenhouse gas theory for its failure to consider that other processes are important in the atmospheric radiative heat transfer event. A former Harvard and UCLA graduate with degrees in science and mathematics, Nahle confidently states, "I demonstrate that the climate of Earth is driven by the oceans, the ground surface and the subsurface materials of the ground."
    Warmists Miscalculate Heat

    A dwindling band of supporters of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) still cling to the discredited notion that 50% of the energy absorbed by atmospheric gases (especially carbon dioxide) is re-emitted back towards Earth’s surface, heating it up.

    Nahle, whose areas of expertise ranges from Physics to Biology, Ecology, Bioeconomy and Biophysics, attacks this flawed assumption, “The problem with the AGW idea is that its proponents think that the Earth is isolated and that the heat engine only works on the surface of the ground.”

    Instead, Nahle's robust calculations prove that photon streams from oceans, the ground and other subsurface materials, both day and night, succeed in overwhelming the emission of photons from the atmosphere, returning them to space.

    Laws of Thermodynamics Held Firm

    Nahle, like many other respected analysts, insists that a scientific law is exactly that and cannot be ignored. While theories, like AGW, come and go dependent on their ability to withstand scrutiny.

    The harshest criticism made by Professor Nahle is that global warmists have absurdly discarded the accepted laws of thermodynamics to prop up their improbable theory."
    http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/laws-of-physics-ready-to-defeat--the-global-warming-theory

  • freebear

    2 years ago

    Pet rocks for sale ; again!

    The 21st century snake oil; selling the 'capture' of carbon dioxide!

  • dave49

    2 years ago

    If CCS works...

    If CCS works, it will mean energy that is spectacularly expensive because of the huge energy and resource footprint of the CCS technology. That in itself will be a huge economic disruption, a la James Howard Kunstler and "The Long Emergency"

    http://thetyee.ca/Books/2006/06/12/Kunstler/

  • seth

    2 years ago

    Harpo, Suzuki and Pembina

    Harpo, Suzuki and Pembina while rejecting nuclear power advocate clean coal as Canada's global warming solution.

    "...Technological approaches to achieve major reductions in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions range from increased energy efficiency and renewable energy to carbon capture and storage.

    http://www.sqwalk.com/blog2009/001864.html

    Both Harpo and Pembina are big fans of cleaner coal. Coal kills several million people every year with its toxic radioactive waste spewing emissions and sickens hundreds of millions more. With cleaner coal those emissions would be cleaned up quite a bit only a few hundred thousand dead people - nice!!.

    Then there is the deadly toxic radioactive coal ash. If you drained Lake Erie you could fill it forty feet higher every year with coal ash from Canada and the US. Cleaner coal changes this not a wit.

    Pembina loves coal because the only alternative is nuclear which violates their secular Nuclear Denier religious beliefs.

    Harpo knows that clean coal is ineffective but spends a minimal amount on it mostly to enhance existing oil plays and make his government look like they are doing something.

    They both claim to be wanting to do something about Global warming but are both deliberately ineffective at it. They are both heavily funded by Big Oil which is of course a huge fan of global warming and pays its friends well.

    Harpo further is a faithful devotee to his church's dogma prophesying an Apocalypse within this generation. Since a climate crisis could be the Lord's way, Harper is making sure them fossils keep a burnin. Keep those Albertan's dropping dead from Coal pollution - more troops for the righteous when the climate Apocalypse comes.

    Pembina on the hand pushes those absurdly ineffective and costly climate measure like wind and clean coal which do little more than increase Big OIl's sales of Natural Gas.

    Harper believes nuclear power would stop his Apocalypse and the second coming. He's put AECL up for a fire sale and hopes to be rid of it shortly.

    Pembina has this absurd religion of its own which believes nuclear to be so horrible it's better millions die every year from its alternative and civilization ends than a single new plant be built.

    We could "green" up the Tar Sands using nuclear steam instead of natural gas for producing the oil. We'd need about 12 gigawatts of reactors to do it.

    However Big Oil/Coal are both terrified that folks will find out that it is feasible to replace their sickening pollution spewing economy wrecking product with mass produced nuclear power. They've purchased Harpo, Doltan and the Gordo to make sure that doesn't happen.

    The Liberal party not being acolytes to Harpo's Tim LaHaye end of times philosophy wants to move Canada to a clean and green cheap nuclear power future instead.

  • Fish-counter

    2 years ago

    Carbon dioxide storage is not the answer, for many reasons

    First, the CO2 could escape, with catastrophic effects. It could kill millions of people if a cloud of CO2 came up out of the ground all at once. Google "Lake Neos" to see what I mean.

    Second, the carbon is down there now as oil, coal or methane. Burning it consumes oxygen from the atmosphere. Sequestering the CO2 buries oxygen with it. This will result in an oxygen deficit over time. Any Grade 10 science student can see why. Where would the replacement oxygen come from to replenish the atmosphere? Sorry if that is a big concept but that fact that you don't get it doesn't mean it isn't true.

    Third, it is not sustainable. About 1% of the CO2 from a coal-fired power station can be sequestered underground. The other 99% escapes into the atmosphere. Go take college physical cemistry to understand the energy flows, but it takes energy to absorb the CO2 and bury it.

    We need to stop playing games. It will not do to play, "Let's not and say we did" with the environment. There is too much at stake, but I don't think for one minute that big business and the testosterone jockeys who run it will ever change their ways. We have to change them out for replacement business managers who DO get it.

    I find the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico highly entertaining. Watching BP executives spin it off to contractors reminds me of one of the more memorable quotes of "Chairman Mao", when he said, "Political power speaks out of the barrel of a gun". Sometimes, a bit of rough justice is entirely appropriate.

  • YCSTS

    2 years ago

    The Bad Economics of CCS

    Harper & the Alberta gov’t are planning to spend $2 billion on a nutty CCS scheme for the Tar Sands. That way the Oil Gang gets to abuse public land to sell Oil at a profit, gets to sell the NG to process the Oil at a good profit, and gets the taxpayer to pay for a $2 billion public relations exercise – to pretend they’re seriously going to cut CO2 emissions!

    One example of a nuclear alternative, the Hyperion Nuclear Reactor. With 70 MW thermal output, well suited for providing process heat in the Tar Sands. Cost C$32 million.

    With a zero CO2 output, it will produce 6.2 TWh of heat within 10 years, before needing refueling. Displacing NG, that will amount to 1.2 million tonnes of CO2 avoided. Displacing Coal Thermal energy, that will amount to 1.8 million MTs of CO2 avoided.

    Cost of NG CO2 avoided = C$32 million / 1.2 million tonnes = $27 per tonne.
    Cost of Coal CO2 avoided = $17 per tonne.

    Compare with the Harper CCS special of $200 per tonne. And Suzuki & Pembina are advocating a carbon price of $200 per tonne.

    That’s just using one fuel cycle. What about including two or three fuel cycles? Probably drops below $10 per MT.

    But there’s more to consider. We are also avoiding the cost of the Natural Gas or Coal fuel over the 10 year Hyperion fuel cycle.

    Taking NG @ a forecast price of $7 per GJ, and using a 5%, 10 year bond to finance the NG purchases, that yields a Present Value of $121 million, fuel cost.

    Taking Coal @ a delivered price of $50 per ton, that would be $43 million fuel cost.

    Conclusion. Each Hyperion Nuclear reactor used instead of CCS, would save $240 million in CCS costs, and $121-$32 million = $89 million in NG fuel costs, or $12 million in Coal fuel costs. In other words zero carbon is not only FREE BONUS, but a MONEYSAVER!! And that’s just for one fuel cycle.

    CCS as a Terrorist Target or Public Taxpayer Insurance Bailout - makes Nuclear look like a kid's potato cannon. Hundreds or even thousands of miles of liquid CO2 pipelines, EASILY blown open to release deadly CO2 to blanket a large area, smothering all humans and animals. Storing CO2 acidifies the groundwater with unknown consequences. And release of that CO2, due to an earthquake or ground rupture will be a hazard that LASTS FOREVER for future generations to deal with. CCS operations are already demanding and getting FULL INDEMNITY PROTECTION, without charge, for CO2 releases.

    Also reduces efficiency of the power plant by 25%. Does not reduce the BILLIONS OF TONS of toxic radioactive waste that Coal Power plants produce - mercury, uranium, thorium, lead, cadmium, sulfur compounds, NOx, arsenic. Doesn’t change the destructive Coal Mining. Added cost to the Coal power plant makes it at least 3X more expensive than Nuclear. An ABSOLUTE WHACKY IDEA!

  • Bobb999

    2 years ago

    CCS = Greenwashing

    CCS = Smoke & mirrors (or CO2 & mirrors), propaganda, stalling/diversionary tactics, selling pipe dreams (or smokestack dreams),green re-branding,green image-making,buying time,a disinformation p.r. exercise.

    Too bad CCS sounds like it has little or no actual viability to address tar sands CO2 emissions, and isn't really intended to. It's real purpose & value being to provide camouflage, greenwashing & a friendlier image for the industry, so it can get maximum oil extraction out of tar sands, while getting away with maximum crimes against nature over the longest period of time possible.

    The oil industry & its climate change denier allies have been trying to sow doubt about the science, with some success. Now with CCS, they've cleverly added a new propaganda angle:
    sowing hope & optimism for carbon capture & storage science & technology.

    The hope they're selling may be false, but hey, we're not supposed to notice that!

  • KWD

    2 years ago

    Going nuclear ... according to Peter Goodchild

    "Nuclear power presents significant environmental dangers, but the biggest constraints involve the addition of new reactor capacity and the supply of uranium. Peak production of uranium ore in the United States was in 1980. Mainly because the US was the world's largest producer, the peak of global production was at approximately the same date. [Energy Watch Group, Storm van Leeuwen] Statements that uranium ore is abundant are based on the falsehood that all forms of uranium ore are usable. In reality, only high-quality ore serves any purpose, whereas low-quality ore presents the unsolvable problem of negative net energy: the mining and milling of such ore requires more energy than is derived from the actual use of the ore in a reactor. The world's usable uranium ore will probably be finished by about 2030, and there is no evidence for the existence of large new deposits of rich ore. Claims of abundant uranium are generally made by industry spokespersons whose positions are far from neutral, who have in fact a vested interest in presenting nuclear energy as a viable option. [Storm van Leeuwen] One must also beware, of course, of the myth that “higher prices” will make low-grade resources of any sort feasible: when net energy is negative, even an infinitely higher price will not change the balance. For all practical purposes, the nuclear industry will come to an end in a matter of decades, not centuries."

    http://www.countercurrents.org/goodchild090510.htm

  • YCSTS

    2 years ago

    Storm van Leeuwen Nuclear Hogwash

    Storm van Leeuwen is a Club of Rome Elitist, and his crap has been torn to shreds many times over. Like here:

    http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/01/van-leeuwen-and-smiths-egregious.html

    If Uranium is limited, then Oil must be finished. Go on Google Earth, and take a look at the area north of Fort McMurray (75% of North America’s and 97% of Canada’s Oil Reserves are right there), at a resolution of about 1 km per cm, and check out the torn up Earth and Environmental Destruction.

    Now do the same to McArthur River in Northern Saskatchewan, which produces double the Energy of the Tar Sands, burnt in the exceedingly low efficiency, once through LWR, with no fuel reprocessing. And compare the environmental damage - at 1 km per cm you will have a hard time seeing any sign of the Northern Saskatchewan Uranium mines.

    Exploration expenditure in 2004 in all of Canada was C$44 million, mostly at established projects. However, the C$26 million of this on grassroots exploration in Saskatchewan - double the 2003 level - represented a major proportion of world uranium exploration. These are amounts that the Tar Sands Companies would call “Pocket Change” or “Coffee Money” or “Chicken Feed”.

    "...In fact, there is 600 times more uranium in the ground than gold and there is as much uranium as tin. There has been no major new uranium exploration for 20 years, but at current consumption levels, known uranium reserves are predicted to last for 85 years. Geological estimates from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) show that at least six times more uranium is extractable – enough for 500 years’ supply at current demand (3). Modern reactors can use thorium as a fuel and convert it into uranium – and there is three times more thorium in the ground than uranium (4)...."

    Total LIFETIME ENERGY consumption per capita, in the USA would be met with 0.26 kg of natural uranium or thorium with ~0.26 kg or < one cubic inch of waste products, burnt in a GenIV reactor, like a LIFTR, IFR or Accelerator Driven Subcritical Reactor. Just the current US store of Depleted Uranium waste from enriching Uranium for the current Light Water Reactors, burnt in GenIV Reactors, would fuel the entire current US electricity demand for 1150 yrs.

  • samuidave (not verified)

    2 years ago

    Yet another way

    to sell the western world a way to continue living beyond its means at the expense of others and the planet. The capitalist shtick is one of growth and consumption.

    If change is going to come, it will have to start in trying to unshackle ourselves from the propaganda machine and start thinking for ourselves. But the inertia is clearly in the hands of the corporations who pull the levers of government which will validate with our vote. So who is to blame? We could simply revolt. Do you have the stomach to take back the country?

  • Dr Alexander

    2 years ago

    Captured Carbon is a Waste of time and effort.

    Especially considering that the carbon dioxide that is being produced by humans is inconsequential to anything that may be happening to the long term climactic patterns on this planet.

    The wheels have fallen off the AGW wagon folks. Time to put one's efforts on things that have a real impact on the planets long-term livability.

  • Fish-counter

    2 years ago

    Dr Alexander; are you rjfme in another life, by any chance?

    "The wheels have fallen off the AGW wagon folks. Time to put one's efforts on things that have a real impact on the planets long-term livability."

    What utter twaddle! The CO2 produced by humans has driven up the atmospheric level by 30% in 50 years. We are capturing more nitrogen for fertiliser than the entire global budget captured by plants. Sequestering CO2 would also sequester oxygen.

    Humans are having an enormous impact on our environment. The only wheels that have fallen off are those in Alexander's head. Our industrial processes outweigh our metabolic needs by several orders of magnitude.

    I would support the nuclear option if there were a good, permanent storage option, but there isn't. After 60 years of use, every last gram of radioactive fuel is still in "temporary" storage.

  • seth

    2 years ago

    nuclear storage

    All American power reactors are being fueled on waste from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons. Chinese Candu's are using fuel rods remixed from Chinese PWR reactors.

    Frances nuclear reactors are fueled on remixed nuclear waste called MOX.

    India's new 500 Mw gen IV power reactor is getting its first fuel load from nuclear waste. Its the first of 4 waste burners slated for 2020 service.

  • Takuan

    2 years ago

    in nuclear was economically viable,

    big oil would have bought it already.

  • Fish-counter

    2 years ago

    Nuclear power would be fine if the end product were lead

    Now THAT would be something for the fine professors of Anglistan to work on. Perhaps the professors of Ameristan could think about it too.

    Lead is a fine radiation shield and it is not radioactive. Surely, with the right tweaking of these nucular (sic), element-changing ovens, the dream of the ancient alchemists can come true. The Philosopher's Stone turned lead into gold. We need one of those puppies today.

    Which gives rise to another thought yet. Turn the uranium, plutonium and higher elements into GOLD itself. That way, our foxiest ladies would have BLING THAT SHINES IN THE DARK! How cool would that be? Halle Berrie would REALLY shine at the Oscars!

    Neils Bohr, where are you when we need you?
    Heisenberg seems a little uncertain...

  • Takuan

    2 years ago

    that requires

    a time machine, Fish-counter.

  • seth

    2 years ago

    nuke big oil

    Because the Chinese, Indians, Japan, France and S.Korea see nuclear power as the only solution for their 21st century energy needs, and Big Oil can't buy them, Big Oil has chosen instead to shut down nuclear in the west using the usual technique of buying "green" organizations, the media and politicians.

    China and India have no indigenous uranium supply but have lotsa thorium. They are working hard on Gen IV reactors to use uranium much more effectively, to burn the waste from their Gen 3 reactors and breed more fuel for their Gen 3 reactors By 2020 both counties should have enough Gen IV reactors to settle any doubts.

    Then good bye coal.

    We have lotsa uranium. No need to wait.

  • dave49

    2 years ago

    There is also the net energy argument

    There is also the net energy argument, where you look at all the energy you put into the process to have an energy output of some usable form. The tar sands is reputably marginal by the net energy concept. The best numbers I have been able to find suggest it takes one unit of energy (oil equivalent) to produce 1.5 units (oil equivalent). I suspect that if you add in the energy cost of CCS, you would hit unity (1) or worse (negative or less energy in than out).

    This is a losing game folks. Focus the billions on energy efficiency and building super energy-efficient/passive houses.

  • Dr Alexander

    2 years ago

    Fish counter: I see you chose to make a personal attack on me

    It is unfortunate that you have indicated that the only wheels that have fallen off are the ones in my head.

    It is axiomatic that one usually resorts to that sort of thing when they are trying to support an obviously failing argument.

    I did not say that humans have not contributed carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, I said that what we put in the atmosphere is of no climactic consequence. A review of all the Climate 'Gates should be sufficient to illustrate that belief in AGW is a veritable exercise in cognitive dissonance. Indeed, the only twaddle around here are all the pronouncements coming from the IPCC and their enablers.

    I do not dispute that humans have an enormous impact on the environment. In fact I agree. My statement was, in effect, that we examine and ameliorate to the best possible extent, those negative impacts that he measurably have.

    To put time, effort and money towards something that we are not responsible for, is a complete and utter waste.

  • YCSTS

    2 years ago

    new study shows CCS to be totally infeasible

    http://twodoctors.org/manual/economides.pdf

    "...Our very sobering conclusion is that underground carbon dioxide sequestration via bulk CO2 injection is not feasible at any cost..."

    "...Further, this paper will show that the volume multiplier is another 50 times more when compressibility and solubility are taken into account. The net result is that it takes more than 500 times more volume to sequester carbon dioxide than was originally occupied as coal. The pore volume required to sequester 1.75 billion tonnes is 182 billion barrels annually, and this represents about 8.5 times the total US crude oil reserves of about 21.5 billion barrels..."

    "...This work has related the volume of the reservoir that would be adequate to store CO2 with the need to sustain injectivity. The two are intimately connected. In applying this to a commercial power plant the !ndings suggest that for a small number of wells the areal extent of the reservoir would be enormous, the size of a small US state. Conversely, for more moderate size reservoirs, still the size of Alaska's Prudhoe Bay reservoir, and with moderate permeability there would be a need for hundreds of wells. Neither of these bodes well for geological CO2 sequestration and the !ndings of this work clearly suggest that it is not a practical means to provide any substantive reduction in CO2 emissions..."

  • Michael Puttonen

    2 years ago

    Question?

    Are all AGW deniers middle-aged Anglo-Saxons, or do they just write that way?

  • DWIGHTBAKER

    2 years ago

    Carbon and Credits

    Carbon and credits what say you?
    How sweet with greed is their milk?
    By Dwight Baker
    May 20, 2010

    Eagles Eye View Aiming at Issues for We the People Advocates

    The swollen teats of the Rothschild’s and Rockefellers draws a lot of attention for those elite dietist who like to worship first themselves then men and women who offer the sweet milk of greed. Yes, many run to suck from those bulging teats sucking away while selling their mortal souls for a piece of the New World Order action.

    Those that do have ins that we know not of, and that is OK by me. They are sadistic vicious beast with blood dripping from their lips and teeth that do not revere God and have no respect for mankind out side of their few favorites akin to their likeness. The dark demonic rituals are a part of their con, they set the stage for the inductees to renounce conscience and take pledges to obey the monarchy at the top of the heap.

    Many today being dumb down by religion believe in the misstatements said about the words found in the bible and are looking for the anti-Christ and guess what the many anti-Christ are all around. They were around when the Lord was with us. Anti-Christ and Anti-God mean the same thing.

    I know what we should do----do you? Try Study!
    http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/jordan-maxwell-you-are-property-of-the-rothschild-family/

    http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/mass-depopulation-genocide-ww3-part-2-the-satanic-new-world-order/

    http://cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521145664&ss=exc

  • DWIGHTBAKER

    2 years ago

    Carbon and Credits

    Carbon and credits what say you?
    How sweet with greed is their milk?
    By Dwight Baker
    May 20, 2010

    Eagles Eye View Aiming at Issues for We the People Advocates

    The swollen teats of the Rothschild’s and Rockefellers draws a lot of attention for those elite dietist who like to worship first themselves then men and women who offer the sweet milk of greed. Yes, many run to suck from those bulging teats sucking away while selling their mortal souls for a piece of the New World Order action.

    Those that do have ins that we know not of, and that is OK by me. They are sadistic vicious beast with blood dripping from their lips and teeth that do not revere God and have no respect for mankind out side of their few favorites akin to their likeness. The dark demonic rituals are a part of their con, they set the stage for the inductees to renounce conscience and take pledges to obey the monarchy at the top of the heap.

    Many today being dumb down by religion believe in the misstatements said about the words found in the bible and are looking for the anti-Christ and guess what the many anti-Christ are all around. They were around when the Lord was with us. Anti-Christ and Anti-God mean the same thing.

    I know what we should do----do you? Try Study!
    http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/jordan-maxwell-you-are-property-of-the-rothschild-family/

    http://nwoobserver.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/mass-depopulation-genocide-ww3-part-2-the-satanic-new-world-order/

    http://cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521145664&ss=exc

  • DWIGHTBAKER

    2 years ago

    Green could be better said Greed

    Beware take heed Green could be better said Greed
    By Dwight Baker
    May 20, 2010

    Eagles Eye View Aiming at Issues for We the People Advocates

    Before Oil and Gas came along folks got along OK but needed light for the night and the power to run the Industrial Revolution. So who took the lead and made that all happen---John D. Rockefeller? The whaling industry went broke overnight no more whale oil was needed to light up the night. Henry Ford came along with his ideas of mass management of assembly lines and put America’s people on motorized wheels. Steel mills were seen all along the shores of our Great Lakes, New York city grew up to behemoth size demanding that the entire world peoples come to her to trade and invest.

    Now at the core of all those tangents of industry trade, banking and the makers of war --- sit big oil John D. Rockefeller the king of ALL the con’s. He set out to control all the oil and gas produced and refined marketed and sold around the entire earth, in doing he took in more money--- gold of human work [labor] and rose to the ephemeral epicenter the richest man in [gold] to ever live. All come running to him with a deal he set back and stayed on top of things that he could spread a bit of his wealth to keep all Gods People in slavery to oil and gas and the other many things that he made to happen.

    And despite what many might say [with eyes full of sand and ears full of wax] inside the compound John D. had built that rest near New York city all 3500 acres with 11 palatial mansion resides David Rockefeller grandson of John D. controlling most money mattered things as the self proclaimed KING of the New World Order.

    Now for those of us that like to dig deeper than many mind control media magicians CALLED JOURNALIST the proof of the Bilderberg confidants running after the whims of Rockefeller in Green grows with Greed. Thus WHO pushed Gore to the top with money for him to set out to sail and sell his global warming scandal? Who is behind nearly all-alternative hydrocarbon capturing BIG TAX CARBON CAPTURING issues?

    Enough said on my end, now if you care to study to find the real truth of the matters GO FOR IT then publish the truth. EXPOSE the ones against US in simple language written for the common man.

  • Eric Beynon

    2 years ago

    On behalf of the Integrated

    On behalf of the Integrated CO2 Network (ICO2N), I would like to point out some of the misleading and incorrect information about CCS in this article.
    To begin with, I do indeed work for ICO2N, but I am not, as incorrectly stated in the article, “the founder”. And describing ICO2N as a “powerful lobby group” completely misrepresents who we are and what we do: yes, we do “meet personally” with government officials, because governments, like industry, have a key role to play in reducing GHGs, and in the safe, efficient development of tools such as CCS. ICO2N’s role in all of this has been to ensure there is appropriate research and analysis – technical, economic and policy – on how CCS can be best deployed in Canada, and working with all groups who have a stake in this – governments, industry partners, academia, environmental groups and other NGOs, in Canada and internationally.
    It is a fact that the world is still highly dependent on fossil fuels and will likely remain so for some time. Reducing GHG emissions can be and must be done, but it is not going to be about a single tool. A study released last year by the Delphi Group looked at the potential supply, timing and cost of GHG reductions in Canada from a variety of alternatives and concluded that CCS has the most significant potential for annual reductions, closely followed by nuclear, wind power and vehicle fuel efficiency improvements. The Alberta government’s $2-billion investment in CCS is a vital first step in moving this technology to wide-scale deployment.
    CCS is a proven, technically viable, environmentally safe means of reducing greenhouse gases. For millions of years, subsurface geological formations have acted – and continue to act – as an effective trap for CO2 and other natural gases. Permanent underground storage of CO2 has been used in Sleipner, Norway since 1996, in Saskatchewan and British Columbia and other locations in Canada since 2000, and in Salah, Algeria since 2004 – all without incident.
    The International Energy Agency has identified CCS as “an important part of the lowest-cost greenhouse gas mitigation portfolio” and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “has identified CCS as the most promising technology for the rapid reduction of global emissions – by up to 55% by 2100.” Expert opinion is that CCS will work and is a vital part of the world’s CO2 reduction plan.
    And I’ll add one more positive endorsement of CCS. The Pembina Institute’s position on CCS is in fact that, “It is critical that CCS be considered as part of a portfolio of solutions.”

    Eric Beynon
    Integrated CO2 Network - ICO2N
    www.ico2n.com

  • YCSTS

    2 years ago

    Bunk, CCS is a SCAM.

    CCS shocker: “German carbon capture plan has ended with CO2 being pumped directly into the atmosphere”:

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/29/ccs-german-carbon-capture-storage-plan-co2-vented-into-atmosphere/

    Please explain how CCS is economical.

    "...Oil producer ConocoPhillips looked at building a carbon capture and storage project in the Canadian oilsands and dismissed the idea when the cost estimate came out at $200 per tonne of carbon dioxide stored..."

    http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/09/23/carbon-capture-study.html#ixzz0oWHRWI6T

    $200 per tonne would add 13 cents per kwh to Coal Generation, ridiculous.

    And endorsement by the Fossil Fuel lackey's - the Pembina Institute, pretty much confirms CCS is a SCAM. Pembina actually opposes clean, green Nuclear Power @ $22 per tonne of CO2 avoided, not including the fuel savings of Nuclear.

    Yep, Pembina can't have SOLID Nuclear waste stored safely, a volume for equivalent energy value, of about one millionth of the CO2. And a lifetime of a mere 2,000 yrs vs the CO2 which is FOREVER!

    Ok with Pembina, that a few pilot projects that stored a trivial amount of CO2 for < 15 yrs. But Nuclear Power, that has replaced billions of tons of CO2, safely for over 50 yrs, with only two easily avoidable & correctable incidents - one with no loss of life – well, Pembina goes ballistic at even the mention of Nuclear Power.

    CCS - SCAM, admit it.

  • geoffdembicki

    2 years ago

    Re: On behalf of the Integrated

    Hi Eric,

    I always appreciate feedback on my stories, especially when the accuracy of certain facts is disputed. I described you as ICO2N "founder" based on this line from your personal CV: "In-depth, 3-year role as the central coordinator for the Integrated CO2 Network...Work includes building a 14-company consortium, aligning provincial and federal governments, coordinating economic studies of the potential system and structuring a deal between industry and government for a 3-way public/private partnership." http://www.sustainablegrowth.ca/Files/Eric%20Beynon%20CV%20Summer%202007.pdf
    But if "founder" is incorrect, the Tyee will be more than happy to make a correction. Most definitions of "lobby group" simply refer to an interest group that attempts to influence government to achieve a specific policy goal. "ICO2N will ultimately consist of a CO2 capture and storage policy framework and the construction of the infrastructure for a CCS system," reads the organization's website. (http://www.ico2n.com/faqs.php#question1) "The ICO2N group has been communicating and working with the Alberta Government and the Canadian Government on the development of a CCS system." Since the ICO2N often meets with top government officials, I don't think it's out of line to refer to the group as "powerful". Finally, my story doesn't say CCS is a bad climate change solution, merely that there's serious debate around costs and feasibility -- a debate that seems to be lost in most industry and govt attempts to sell the technology. And while Pembina does acknowledge that CCS should be considered part of a solutions portfolio, representatives such as Simon Dyer have many concerns about whether the AB govt should be spending $2B in this area instead of more renewable energy sources. Also, many enviro groups worry CCS doesn't take into account the emissions that come from combusting gasoline in a car engine, for instance. Thanks for your interest and input!

    --Geoff Dembicki

  • wiley

    2 years ago

    subsidizing an addict's pipe dream

    To me this whole CCS scheme is like handing our grandchildren a big time bomb set to go off on their watch. I wonder what happens to highly-compressed and liquified CO2 down in the warm earth, as carbonic acid eats away at things. I can imagine a whole slew of gas blowouts on the order of magnitude of the GoM disaster, returning all this massive amount of CO2 to the atmosphere about the same time the Arctic clathrates are being released by climate change vectors already in the pipe. Thermogeddon, as Robert Hunter called it, is this terminally-addicted fossil fuel culture's final gift to the future.

    A far more realistic alternative would be to ration all fossil fuel use as they did during WW2. After all, we are locked in a death spiral war against the very real limits of the biosphere to tolerate our greed, insanity and overshoot. CCS is just adding another huge layer of complexity to an overly complex civilization, so it's clearly the wrong way to go.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.