The Viability Of Carbon Capture And Storage

Industries and Electrical generation are estimated to produce “a little over 50%” of greenhouse emissions, making it the biggest problem (Petterson

The stage for a deeper integration of Renewable Energies in the UK was set by a number of these policies which has evolved over the years. These policies however were not delivering maximum efficiency when compared to other policies in other European countries. For instance, the inefficiency of some of the policy mechanisms when compared to those obtainable in Germany had been severally argued. The Energy White Paper 2003 was largely a response to the future of the UK Energy industry drawing from the failures of these past policy implementations.

Professor Per Peterson from the Department of Nuclear Engineering says, “It's difficult for me to see how we can transition away from fossil fuels and not use significant amounts of nuclear energy” (Phillips, 2012). Many argue that renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind should be implemented instead of nuclear energy as they too produce no air pollution. However, modern society requires a reliable ‘base load’ of electricity which renewables are not equipped to provide. In Australia there are limited sources that could potentially supply a suitable ‘base load’. They include coal and gas (which produce CO2 emissions) geothermal, hydro (which is limited due to the lack of water), developing technology and nuclear energy (Krieg, 2014). Renewable sources of energy also prove to be a problem as they are too fickle to provide base load power to a nation, as they depend on intermittent things such as weather and seasons, whereas nuclear power is available constantly whilst being a cleaner source of power.

Carbon emissions are changing the planet for the worse. Energy production (mostly coal) is producing a one third of the US 's global warming emissions. Renewable sources produce little to zero percent. The balance of coal and renewable energy in the U.S. needs to be evened out with renewable techniques. Statistics from the Union of Concerned Scientist’s “Benefits of Renewable Energy Use” show that most renewable resources emit less than one pound of CO2E/kWh. These have significantly less of a carbon footprint than coal, which emits 1.4 to 3.6 lbs. CO2E/kWh or natural gas, which emits .6 to 2 lbs. CO2E/kWh. This impressive difference of carbon emissions between renewable and fossil fuel is the key to caring for our environment. A 2009 USC study found that if 25 percent of the US 's

As we go throughout life, we use various kinds of energy sources for our needs. Whether it be from solar energy to wind energy, there is a multitude of sources that allow us to do the things we do each and every day. Throughout the world, however, coal and nuclear power have risen to the

Conference Focus: Implement a new policy within five years to move into renewable energy, with a focus on solar power, while decreasing the use of fossil fuels. This policy will examine the barriers to implement new renewable energy technologies that will decrease the carbon dioxide emissions and identify ways to overcome these barriers through incentives, tax breaks, and attitudinal changes.

The issue of carbon emissions is an important one not only from an environmental perspective but also an economic one. While reducing carbon emissions is an important one for the health of human beings as well as that of the environment, the larger question is what type of policy strategy is best for both reducing such emissions which might have an impact on efforts to mitigate the effects of pollution on climate change. While ther are options to consider which does not rely on economics-- technological or output standards achieved by command and control regulations--they are often fraught with political resistance by industry because they do not allow industry to make any choices or play a role in solving the problem of

While this is great to the consumer, the renewable sector’s growth was more stagnant. Attention was diverted to use another greenhouse producing fossil fuel rather than a clean renewable. A trend in U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (2017) data showed renewable sector’s power production since 2008 grew only 5.7% as compared to natural gas production 18%. Another disadvantage to the diversion from renewables is the additional carbon dioxide generated from these additional plants operating. “About 24 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are related to natural gas in 2011” (Natural gas prices. (n.d.)). The replacement of coal-fired power plants with natural gas has let to a decrease of the green house gases, mainly particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions. “Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions produced in the generation of electricity at power plants in the United States declined by 73% from 2006 to 2015, a much larger reduction than the 32% decrease in coal-fired electricity generation over that period.” U.S. Energy Information Administration (2017). This shows that more efficient control equipment can be used to almost eliminate the trace amounts of sulfur dioxide in natural gas.

I originally reasoned that renewable energy was effective and because it could not run out, it was a much better option. But, the credibility and reasoning of Spector’s argument, along with the fallacious arguments of the Union of Concerned Scientists, I now believe that renewable energy is not beneficial to energy companies. After looking at numerous articles, it was clear that the UCS purposefully overlooked many facts that rendered their argument, and article, useless. They had disregarded the sheer ineffectiveness of renewable energy and the previous failures of implementing renewable energy (Jogulekar, Scientific American). For example, Germany, a world leader in renewable energy, tried to go all solar, but they failed, having to eventually import nuclear energy from France and opening up coal plants. Jogulekar asserts that Germany would have created less carbon dioxide if they simply stuck to nuclear energy. Spector asserts that a 100% renewable energy grid is far from beneficial, it is not even feasible. Looking at all arguments, I agree with Spector and that nuclear energy should be implemented and is far more beneficial to energy companies for a few reasons – because of its reliability, its low carbon emission and its extreme efficiency. I have come to the conclusion that switching to renewable energy is not beneficial to energy companies as there are many other low carbon alternatives. Spector’s arguments and his article is more reliable than the UCS’s. For this reason, renewable energy is not beneficial to energy companies, and nuclear energy, because it is more efficient and reliable, should be

However, the Action Plan is not likely to produce 9.8 Mt in new reductions by 2020, as the government stated. For example, the government claimed that using Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account funds to subsidize electricity prices which would produce 3 Mt in emission reductions. We found no evidence to support this claim and concluded that subsidizing electricity rates is not an acceptable use of these funds. Fortunately, the government is no longer proposing to divert Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account funds in this way.

First we should understand how the carbon cap and trade system came about. The system of carbon cap trade used to be known as ‘emissions trading’, the alliance of free-market republicans and renegade environmentalists got the system adopted as national law in 1990 as a part of the Clean Air Act, to control the power-plant pollutants that cause acid rain, which is triggered by vast clouds of sulfur dioxide

Whilst it may seem a “no-brainer” to cease investment in non-renewable power and transfer our effort, resources and investment into developing renewable energy sources, the reality is that we have become so reliant and dependent upon non-renewable energy – particularly fossil fuels – that we must continue to use, develop, and invest in such energy to maintain the living standards that we enjoy today. In our short to medium-term future, and in spite of our ever-increasing scientific knowledge about the environmental price that we pay in using non-renewable energy, we must continue to invest in it. Let me explain why.

This is not only a benefit to the environment, but it also benefits the shareholders as a more efficient company will turn a better profit. Suncor has made it a goal to improve energy efficiency by 10% by 2015. To do this is had focused on developing technologies to increase energy efficiency and recapture. Carbon capture and storage (CCS), Integrated CO2 Network (ICO2N) and CO2 Capture Project (CCP3) are all developed policy and technology projects that have been deployed throughout the Suncor organization. Suncor is also taking a leadership role in Carbon Management Canada (CMC). Suncor is revisiting future growth project designs to evaluate GHG reduction opportunities. Suncor is also participating in advanced research on GHG abatement technologies through CMC, ICO2N, CCP3 and other groups.

CO2 is the most significant greenhouse gas, which mainly comes from the use of fossil fuels. Many people feel that content of CO2 in the atmosphere is the main reason for manmade global warming. The main sources of CO2 emissions involve electricity generation, industrial processes, fumes from transportation and commercial buildings and use. Emissions of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, to the atmosphere are expected to cause even more of a significant change in global climate (Davison, 2007). The main focus to try to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to reduce the amount that is released from coal-fired power plants. Greenhouse gas emissions that involve the productions of electricity come from natural gas production and coal-fired power plant operations. Natural gas production accounts for twenty-four percent and coal-fired power plant operations accounts for seventy-five percent, while the other one percent is caused by other electricity generation operations. The main reason why coal-fired power plants have a higher percentage of emissions is because the sulfur content of coal is much higher than that of other fossil fuels (Jarmaillo et al., 2007). This proves that there is a great need to find an alternative fossil fuel to use instead of coal. Although coal is easy to mine, transport and process for the electricity generation process, it is also the

emissions. It is interesting to point out that since 2005, CO2 emissions from power plants have already