Seventh blog, February 20, 2019
Carbon Capture and Storage, or CCS, is the toy of a few companies that want to filter CO₂ from the combustion gases - including power plants - with an extremely expensive technology, and then store it in underground empty-vacuumed fields that used to contain fossil fuels.
The technology is still in its infancy - it is in the demonstration phase - and is so expensive that only the largest companies in the world can develop it. Because the result is so uncertain, they ask huge subsidies (think billions) from the government (from you) to develop the technology further. It comes down to the fact that the citizen pays the research and development for a technology that the big companies think they need - to solve their own CO₂ emissions. And what happens if these CO₂ storage fields start leaking?
The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency estimates that the Dutch Climate Agreement will cost between 20 to 25 billion euros annually. That is around 3,000 euros per household per year. A considerable part of that cost goes to CCS technology. If the plans of the Dutch Climate Agreement will be implemented, we will pay a huge amount of money for something that nature dissolves for free through photosynthesis (see my previous blog: The miracle of the tree).
CCS is not only expensive because the technique is so complicated. It is also expensive because lots of extra energy is needed for the purification, transport and storage processes: the energy consumption (and therefore the heat emission) increases by around 20%. This is called the 'efficiency penalty'. CCS is therefore a goldmine for its operators: first receive billions of subsidies for R&D, then increase the gas deliveries by 20% because of implementing that same technology. Our gas supply is not infinite, and now we want to burn the remaining gas 20% faster so that we can store the released CO₂ somewhere underground? Are we crazy?
In the book The Treesolution you can find much more information about CCS. Remember that we are implementing the Dutch Climate Agreement in order to help stop our society from the addiction to fossil fuels - with the aim of reducing CO₂ emissions to zero. The CCS lobby then ensures that CCS is included in the Climate Agreement and we’re going to use 20% more fuel. Do you find this logical?
Can we reach net zero CO₂ in a different way? Yes, follow my blogs to learn how, and spread the message.
The title of my next blog is 'Discarded money'.
On 8 October 2018, the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) issued an emergency call to all countries to reduce their CO₂ emissions by at least 50% by 2030. The Netherlands wants to comply with this by means of a Climate Agreement. Pieter Hoff is of the opinion that the Climate Agreement needs additional policies to achieve 0% net CO₂ emissions by 2030 and that this supporting policy can be implemented much more efficiently, quicker and less costly than the current proposals that are included in the proposed Dutch Climate Agreement.