CCS stands for "carbon capture sequestration." The above link is to an interesting article on ScienceBlogs that presents a strong counterpoint to political and coal rhetoric about Clean Coal. Choice quotes:
Still, if it's just a matter of improving efficiency levels of a technology based on well understood principles, then why should we treat CCS any differently from photovoltaics, which still costs about five times as much as coal-fired electricity? Because photovoltaics are coming down in cost rapidly. CCS, which uses concepts at least as old as solar panels, shows no signs of following a similar path. Consider the example of the Mountaineer coal-fired power plant in New Haven, W.Va., which is being equipped with demonstration CCS technology:
Of the 8.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted annually by the Mountaineer plant, only 100,000 to 300,000 will be removed with the new technology. And American Electric and the maker of the technology, Alstom, are spending $100 million on the initiative -- a daunting expense for some producers. (New York Times, Feb. 15, 2009)
CCS is in the same league as fusion power
ReplyDeleteEvidently you haven't heard of this fusion power:
Bussard's IEC Fusion Technology (Polywell Fusion) Explained
The American Thinker has a good article up with the basics.
Why hasn't Polywell Fusion been fully funded by the Obama administration?
I've got the Google Talk in my queue. Admittedly, I'm no expert on the readiness of fusion technologies, but you're arguing the viability of fusion power and against the title of the post, whereas I linked to the blog for its info on the cost effectiveness and market ETA of carbon capture and sequestration (ccs) technologies.
ReplyDelete