Deployment of
new carbon capture facilities in these sectors would reflect experience to date.
Not exact matches
«There will be relatively high costs in developing this
new nuclear
facility but broadly comparable with other low
carbon technologies such as offshore wind, and, potentially,
carbon capture and storage applied to gas and coal fired power stations.
Hydrogen Energy, a joint venture between BP and Rio Tinto, has proposed a
new hydrogen - powered electricity generating
facility for the Kern County area that would
capture and sequester (store) most of its
carbon related emissions.
To do this,
facilities would have to incorporate
carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology in their construction, a promising but relatively
new method of
capturing CO2 and either storing it underground or using the gas for industrial purposes.
The technology to remove
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, including planting
new forests and building
facilities that directly remove and
capture climate pollution from the air, is in its infancy.
• Leads global sector public financing towards cleaner energy by calling for the end of U.S. government support for public financing of
new coal - fired powers plants overseas, except for the most efficient coal technology available in the world's poorest countries, or
facilities deploying
carbon capture and sequestration technologies; and
Third,
new technologies, such as underground coal gasification and especially
carbon capture and storage, can — if given substantial financial support — reduce emissions substantially from coal use in power plants and industrial
facilities.
The American Lung Association does not support the construction of
new advanced coal - based generating
facilities, including
carbon capture and sequestration and integrated gasification combined cycle plants.
[1] The Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012 defines «clean» electricity as «electricity generated at a
facility placed in service after 1991 using renewable energy, qualified renewable biomass, natural gas, hydropower, nuclear power, or qualified waste - to - energy; and electricity generated at a
facility placed in service after enactment that uses qualified combined heat and power (CHP), [which] generates electricity with a
carbon - intensity lower than 0.82 metric tons per megawatt - hour (the equivalent of
new supercritical coal), or [electricity generated] as a result of qualified efficiency improvements or capacity additions at existing nuclear or hydropower
facilities -LSB-; or] electricity generated at a
facility that
captures and stores its
carbon dioxide emissions.»
(1) deployment of technologies to
capture and sequester
carbon dioxide emissions from electric generating units or large industrial sources (except that assistance under this subtitle for such deployment shall be limited to the cost of retrofitting existing
facilities with such technologies or the incremental cost of purchasing and installing such technologies at
new facilities);
I have just had a piece published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: «We'd have to finish one
new facility every working day for the next 70 years» — Why
carbon capture is no panacea.
The CCS project was started last October at the plant near
New Haven, W.Va., in an attempt to demonstrate the feasibility of
capturing carbon from a coal - fired generation
facility.
Not one of the few specific actionable proposals (such as the WWF proposal to replace all fossil fuel fired plants with renewables or Hansen's proposal to shut down all coal - fired power plants or a proposal posted here by Bridges to install
carbon capturing + sequestering
facilities on half of all
new coal plants) result in any perceptible reduction in global warming by 2100, all at exorbitant cost.
The credit would become effective for
new power production
facilities after January 1, 2017, although after 2016 a 20 percent credit would be available for existing
facilities that retrofit to
capture at least 50 percent of
carbon dioxide emissions.