Several European news outlets carried an article last week by a Belgian journalist about the poor performance of the world’s most important carbon capture site at Brevik in Norway, where Heidelberg Materials operates a large cement works.[1] Having promised to deliver 360,000 tonnes into permanent storage in its first year - and 400,000 tonnes thereafter - the Brevik works seems to have achieved substantially less than a third of this amount.
CCS has long been” supported “ by the oil and gas industry, solely because it might provide them with a useful source of public money to enhance increased extraction , whilst simultaneously providing a figleaf to pretend they are (even marginally) aware of the appalling damage their product causes to our climate. End of case.
Compression, drying, transport of dense phase or liquid CC2, re-compression at the injection site and the ‘Hotel Load’ of the facilities are all energy consuming steps.
If they are fueled by burning gas, then more (dilute) CO2 is created and emitted. The net gain (or decrement) in CO2 emissions avoided is very doubtful.
Then there are the many uncertain geological risks to successful long-term (centuries) storage.
Let’s see the calculations and estimates of all those elements of the puzzle that is CCS, rather than common ‘boosterism’ of the basic concept.
What about other pipe dreams, like getting rid of cement entirely? Maybe we can install a tap into Mount Erebus and exploit the lava in ut that has been active for the last 2 million years in Antarctica? Do we really need cement for everything and where is the funding for alternatives to petrochemicals? I'm not aware of any inherent monopoly on research here.
Yes, I agree. This sounds like a relatively normal result for a complex project. But Heidelberg did promise to achieve 360,000 tonnes in the first year and achieved about 105,000. We've had no explanation and its various websites continue to state that the site achieves 400,000 tonnes a year. No explanation has been provided as to why the deficiency has occurred, nor when the problems will be remedied.
I am not convinced of the value proposition of CCS, but taken on its own merits, a first year of ~30% capacity (with two months "near capacity", perhaps) does not sound like an unmitigated failure. Unmitigated failure is 5 years late, 3x over budget, and not actually working yet. 30% capacity sounds pretty good.
CCS has long been” supported “ by the oil and gas industry, solely because it might provide them with a useful source of public money to enhance increased extraction , whilst simultaneously providing a figleaf to pretend they are (even marginally) aware of the appalling damage their product causes to our climate. End of case.
Carbon dioxide capture is thought to be good by those with absolutely no perspective.
Almost akin to reducing sea level rise by using a bucket.
CCS is an energy intensive process.
Compression, drying, transport of dense phase or liquid CC2, re-compression at the injection site and the ‘Hotel Load’ of the facilities are all energy consuming steps.
If they are fueled by burning gas, then more (dilute) CO2 is created and emitted. The net gain (or decrement) in CO2 emissions avoided is very doubtful.
Then there are the many uncertain geological risks to successful long-term (centuries) storage.
Let’s see the calculations and estimates of all those elements of the puzzle that is CCS, rather than common ‘boosterism’ of the basic concept.
jrobert@vtown.com.au
Building what is essentially a heavy industry in its own right is not easy. It will be interesting to see the full 2026 capture figures.
What about other pipe dreams, like getting rid of cement entirely? Maybe we can install a tap into Mount Erebus and exploit the lava in ut that has been active for the last 2 million years in Antarctica? Do we really need cement for everything and where is the funding for alternatives to petrochemicals? I'm not aware of any inherent monopoly on research here.
Yes, I agree. This sounds like a relatively normal result for a complex project. But Heidelberg did promise to achieve 360,000 tonnes in the first year and achieved about 105,000. We've had no explanation and its various websites continue to state that the site achieves 400,000 tonnes a year. No explanation has been provided as to why the deficiency has occurred, nor when the problems will be remedied.
I am not convinced of the value proposition of CCS, but taken on its own merits, a first year of ~30% capacity (with two months "near capacity", perhaps) does not sound like an unmitigated failure. Unmitigated failure is 5 years late, 3x over budget, and not actually working yet. 30% capacity sounds pretty good.
Good stuff. Keep it coming