EG1471 Writing Assignment 2

2. Based on Stephens’ article and your related readings do you think R&D should focus on coal-based CCS technologies or on other technologies which are not reliant on fossil fuels?

Research and Development (R&D) can speed up the advancement of a technology. The size of the technology, the cost of the technology or the power of the technology depends on R&D. However, there is a limit to the amount of money cycling in the world. Therefore, the amount of money going into R&D in every country is limited; one must prioritize the importance of each technology that will be researched on. In the context of two technologies, coal-based carbon capture and storage (CCS) and non fossil fuel technology, both technologies are used as the solutions to the increase in the demand of energy, rise in oil prices and increment in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions which is the main cause of global warming. However, I feel that more focus should be placed on non-fossil fuel technology. In order to explain my choice, we will have to look into the advantages and disadvantages of each technology.
In CCS technology, the focus is on capturing the emitted CO2, transporting it and finally storing it away from the Earth surface. With CCS, energy industries can increase the usage of other fossil fuel such as coal that has the highest carbon intensity among fossil fuels. Steel and cement industries will also be able to increase their productivity without worrying about the CO2 emission. The result will be cheaper steel or cement product.
Currently, there are many positive results and tests showing that the CCS technology is ready to operate. In fact, Norway’s national oil company has already started putting the CO2 into empty oil reserves. There are also many big projects involving CSS technology announced by many industries such as British Petroleum (BP).
However, much of these projects and technology are still undergoing research. As mentioned in Stephens’ article (2006), much of CCS technology is performed at a small scale, like in laboratories, or has yet to be demonstrated in large scale power plant. Also, some theses have been made that the CO2 stored in the seabed may leak and cause the sea water to be acidic, hence, making the sea uninhabitable. The executive director of Stanford University’s Global Climate and Energy Project, Sally Benson (2007), said that scientists need to have a clearer picture of what will happen to the storage location when CO2 is pumped into it, how the storage location will keep the CO2 contained and the ways the stored CO2 can escape. More researches need to be done to allow us to make accurate prediction on any negative impacts based on researches that will arise from CCS technology.
On the other hand, we have non-fossil fuel technology that does not emit any CO2. Some of these technologies include solar panel, dam and nuclear power plant. On top of the absence of CO2 as a by-product, most of this technology uses renewable resources like sunlight to generate electricity for a much longer time than what non-renewable resources like coal can produce. One example is the solar cell technology.
Some critics claimed that non-fossil fuel technologies can be dangerous. Here they are referring to nuclear waste produced by the nuclear power plant. Nuclear power is only a small part of the technology and it is its by-product that poses a threat to life. Though there has not been any method to break down nuclear wastes to a non radioactive product, through R&D we may be able to achieve a solution.
On top of that, it is said that non-fossil fuel expensive and space consuming. This is true to a certain extent. Technology has never been a cheap product; it is through years of R&D that it becomes more affordable. The fact that technology such as solar cells and nuclear plants already have a much longer time of research than CCS technology means it will only get cheaper but even more advance with R&D. The U.S. Department of Energy (2001) reported that the cost of solar electricity has been reduced by 100 times over the last few decades and further research can reduce the cost even more. Beside that, researchers have developed methods to make solar cells to be as thin and flexible like plastic films. This means that we do not need to put aside land to capture solar energy.
In summary, we can clearly understand how non fossil fuels technologies are better than CCS in many ways; from becoming a source of infinite energy to reducing the deterioration of the effects of Global Warming. As the amount of money and time spend on R&D is fixed, we must evaluate and prioritize them according to their importance and advantages the technology can bring about. Why spend it on a technology provide only a temporary solution that does not solve the problem completely when you can spend it on a technology that deals with the problem directly. Furthermore, R&D on a technology existing for many decades will show an even better result than that of a younger one.
(825 words)


References:
Department of Energy (2001, March). Making Solar Energy More Affordable. Retrieved Oct 4, 2006, from http://www.er.doe.gov/accomplishments_awards/Decades_Discovery/20.html
Stephens, J.C. (2006). CCS: Research is not enough. The world energy book London: World Energy Council. (pp. 15-18)