power_guy

Of the three steps in CCS - capture, transportation and storage - capture is by far the most costly (almost 70% of the total cost of CCS). So what could really bring the costs down? Will they be new types of enzymes (see an interesting"]http://powerplantccs...tml]interesting post on enzymes[/url]) for making the CO2 capture process more efficient? Or will it be through better materials for capture? (see here for an interesting"]http://www.azom.com/...474]interesting update on this[/url] ). Or could it be a better method of amine-based CO2 capture? Or could it be something radically different like using"]http://www.powerplan.../alg.html]using algae to capture CO2[/url]? What are your thoughts?

Retrofitting CCS machinery and equipments to old power plants is always going to be clumsy and costly, and uncertain as well. But, are the new power plants going to do much better when it comes to installing CCS systems? Will they be "shovel ready" in that CCS systems could be installed in them far more easily? For instance, this article (see the article Sargas Technology – Carbon Capture Under $20 Per Ton? ) claims that a particular technology from Sargas will work with new pressurised fluidized bed combustion systems much more easily because the technology requires the flue gas to be under pressure to work. Similarly, it is well known that IGCC power plants are far more easily amenable to CCS than are the old PC plants. What are your thoughts on the readiness of the new power plants for CCS? Do you think they are as shovel ready as they are claimed to be?