Note that this subsidized stupidity couldn’t return a profit even though it was “exporting” CO2 to nearby oilfields for enhanced oil recovery (where you get most of the gas back anyway, but don’t tell the hysterics who think it is “sequestered”). CCS is one of the dumbest ideas in captivity.
A group of energy companies are abandoning their plans for the construction of a $1.4 billion carbon capture and storage facility in Alberta, after completing a front end engineering and design study and deciding the project is not economically viable.
“While we are disappointed that Project Pioneer will not go ahead, we now know the technology works and we still believe there is a future for CCS (carbon capture and storage),” said Dawn Farrell, TransAlta president and chief executive officer in a financial report for the first quarter of 2012.
The Pioneer project was a joint venture between TransAlta, Capital Power, Enbridge and the federal and provincial governments that proposed to build a facility to capture, transport and store carbon dioxide from the Keephills 3 coal-fired generation plant west of Edmonton.
The project, which involved using chilled ammonia to strip carbon dioxide out of emissions from the new 450-megawatt power plant, would have been one of Canada’s first integrated CCS projects.
The CO2 was to be transported for enhanced oil recovery in nearby oil fields, as well as for permanent storage in deep saline formations.
TransAlta estimated the technology would reduce the release of one million tonnes of greenhouse gas a year.
“The first step and an essential part of the project was to prove the technical and economic feasibility of CCS through a front end engineering and design (FEED) study before making any major capital commitments,” said Farrel.
“Following the conclusion of the FEED study, the industry partners determined that, although the technology works and capital costs were in-line with expectations, the market for carbon sales and the price of emissions reductions were insufficient to allow the project to proceed.”
Like every other green energy project, the windfall profits are in the subsidies and ‘carbon sales’, aka carbon credits. The key sentence is at the end- “…the market for carbon sales and the price of emissions reductions were insufficient to allow the project to proceed.”
So, 1 Million tons/yr for $1.4B. Assuming a generous 10 year ROI just on ‘carbon sales’, that would require a ‘carbon’ price of at least $140/ton of CO2.
And the most recent clearing price for carbon was what, around $2/ton? At that price differential, you don’t even need to bother converting from CO2 tonnage to carbon tonnage.