Where do they get their numbers?
In Tuesday’s National Post, Juliet O’Neill of Canwest News Service quotes the climate change campaign manager of the WWF Canada, Keith Stewart:
The lack of reference to the oil sands was no accident, says Keith Stewart, manager of the climate change campaign at the World Wildlife Federation of Canada.
The federation estimates that while it may be technically feasible to capture 90% of carbon emitted by a new coal-fired generator, only an estimated 10% of greenhouse gases from oil sands can be caught.
“Carbon capture has the technical potential to dramatically reduce emissions from the electricity sector, although this hasn’t yet been proven at scale anywhere in the world,” Mr. Stewart said in an interview. But the amount that can be captured from the oil sands is so low, he said, that suggesting it’s the answer “can’t be seen as anything other than a public relations smokescreen.”
OK – I know more about the oil sands than your average Joe, and I can say that he’s wrong. Far more than 10% of the emissions from oil sands can be captured, depending on what part you look at.
Mining of oil sands is the most difficult, because the emissions come from two sources: The diesel-powered mobile mining equipment and the utilities plants that generate the electricity and steam used to extract the oil from the sand. Roughly 50% of the CO2 emissions from mining could be captured from the utilities plants. Much more than 10%.
In-situ production of oil sands is easier, since the primary methods, CSS and SAGD, use large quantities of steam. The CO2 emissions come from the fuel burned to raise steam – which is done in a central facility. Capturing this CO2 is no more difficult than doing so from a conventional coal-fired power plant. You can capture 80% or more.
Upgrading of bitumen from oil sands is the final part before refining. In an upgrader, the CO2 emissions come from numerous pieces of fired equipment, so yes, it is more difficult because there are numerous dispersed sources. But there is one really big one. Hydrogen production needed to hydrotreat the bitumen and remove sulfur and nitrogen from the oil results in about 50% of the upgrader CO2 emissions. From one stack. If you include a couple of other large furnaces (i.e. Crude Furnace, Utility Boilers), you can get to 70% or more of the CO2 emissions from Upgrading.
So I ask – where does the World Wildlife Fund get their numbers?
As I pointed out last year, the CO2 emissions from oil sands production pale in comparison to the emissions from the users of petroleum products (i.e. everyone); so if anyone wants to reduce CO2 emissions – the real answer is to curtail consumption of oil – not production.
2 Comments
This entry is filed under Climate change, Engineering, Politics, Religion.
You can also follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Or perhaps you're just looking for the trackback and/or the permalink.
Where do they get their numbers? Thats easy: it’s on those sheets of unused toilet paper that they’re hoarding in an effort to save the environment.
That said, who cares about the efficiency of various CO2 capturing technologies? Despite the hype from the NGOs, activisits and media – CO2 is not and never has been a pollutant. All the money wasted on carbon capture is better spent on little things like more efficient use of water; looking at techniques to minize the soot and aerosols released in the mining process; greater efficiencies in extraction; more resources towards land reclamation. You know, tackling REAL pollution.
If we reduced fuel consumption by 100,000 barrels per day, we could have an extra 100,000 barrels to sell. At $40/barrel, that would bring in another $4,000,000 every day to be distributed among workers, shareholders, contractors and governments. It would increase the wealth of Canada. Instead we want to reduce production and spend money on carbon capture that achieves nothing at all. That sounds pretty much like a government project to me.