General Category > Climate Change

The Cost of EPA’s Senseless CO2 Capture

(1/1)

rangerrebew:
The Cost of EPA’s Senseless CO2 Capture
2 hours ago Guest Blogger 6 Comments

by Frits Byron Soepyan

In April 24, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) passed a new rule that would require coal power plants that plan to continue operating after January 1, 2039, and new natural gas power plants that plan to begin operation on or after 2035 to capture at least 90% of their CO2 emissions.

How much would this cost? And is it worth it?

Well, as they say, we ran the numbers. Thankfully, researchers from the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) have provided the cost and performance estimates for retrofitting an existing coal power plant with Shell’s CANSOLV CO2 capture system.

For the performance and cost estimates, I will use the NETL estimates for 90% carbon capture. (Here, I am using the term “carbon capture,” rather than “CO2 capture,” because NETL uses the mass of carbon, rather than the mass of CO2, in its calculations.)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/09/the-cost-of-epas-senseless-co2-capture/

Smokin Joe:
Okay, you've captured all this 'evil' CO2.

Like the dog who caught the car, what are you going to do with it?

It is a colorless, odorless, heavier than air gas that, in large quantities snuffs out animal life, prevents engines from starting (as if it matters, because there would be no one to drive the vehicle anyway).
A large leak would quietly kill everyone in the plume, from insects to humans and all that wildlife, even Bambi. I reckon the windmills just aren't killing enough critters fast enough.

Some say they want to inject it into the earth, even though injecting frac fluids is 'bad' because they allege it ruins groundwater and causes earthquakes. The same people who don't want oil pipelines, want to transport massive quantities of CO2 by pipeline...

And the people who babble about the 'greening' of the Planet, would be removing plant food from the atmosphere.

None of this makes any sense if the objective is to benefit humans.

andy58-in-nh:

--- Quote from: Smokin Joe on May 09, 2024, 01:06:12 pm ---None of this makes any sense if the objective is to benefit humans.

--- End quote ---
@Smokin Joe

What if the true objective were the opposite. Now, does it make sense?

Smokin Joe:

--- Quote from: andy58-in-nh on May 09, 2024, 01:49:10 pm ---@Smokin Joe

What if the true objective were the opposite. Now, does it make sense?

--- End quote ---
Of course.

Navigation

[0] Message Index