Skip navigation

Category Archives: Cabon pollution

CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) and CCUS (Carbon capture, utilization, and storage) technologies are essentially “after thought” to fix the CO2 emission by 2050. It also indirectly encourages continuity of fossil fuel usage for a foreseeable future to help those industries who have invested billions of dollars in creating their infrastructures including “fracking”. Fracking generates hundreds of cubic meters of toxic effluent whose salinity is more than ten times that of the salinity of seawater. It is an environmental nightmare. Are these technologies practicable? Will they pay $100 or more for a ton of CO2 to capture and then transport hundreds of km distance to find a suitable site; and even if they pay what will be the cost implications? Certainly, their cost of production will sharply increase, which will be necessarily passed on to the consumers whether it is a power industry or oil and gas industry. Why some of the CCS projects are dormant in many parts of the world? They claim injecting CO2 into existing oil field will increase oil production. Only US companies and US governments support such schemes by way of carbon credit at the rate of $ 35/Mt to please local companies and local population. There is hardly any evidence to substantiate their “Carbon negative” claims. How many such oil fields exist in Australia, for example? The same question should be raised for all the countries around the world especially those oil importing countries like India. IEA should lead the world in energy matters by publishing necessary data to back up claims that CCS and CCUS will lead to zero emission by 2050 instead of simply following American companies claims. In the absence of such data and hard evidence and the cost and economic analysis these projections will lead us nowhere. Without imposing Carbon tax as a financial incentive (not as a penalty) will these industries embark upon such a venture? The Carbon tax cannot be less than $250/Mt (because Carbon capture from air, for example, cost more than $150 to 200/Mt depending upon the maturity of technology). Now they want to utilize capture Carbon to produce synthetic fuel with green Hydrogen. Green hydrogen is awfully expensive, renewable energy is costly and storing them is prohibitively costly and converting them to Hydrogen by electrolysis is even more expensive. Despite all these expensive measures can zero emission be achieved by 2050? The cost of green fuel will be at least 10 times more than fossil fuels currently used. Will consumers afford to pay for such high fuel cost? Many questions remain unanswered. The word “Carbon capture” implies continuity of fossil fuel. It is like tobacco industry. At least in cigarette packs there is a warning ” smoking is injuries to health” but there is no such warnings in CCS or CCUS because the “captured CO2 will be released back into atmosphere slowly at the point of usage in the near future , for example, Urea made out of captured CO2 will slowly release CO2 back into atmosphere by soil enzymes. Conversion to “concrete” or “Nano Carbon” are claimed to be potential products but only future can tell. We are talking about “billions of tons of CO2”. Only carbon recycling and circular economy will be the answer and not CCS or CCUS.

#CCS #CCUS # Carbon emission and Carbon capture # Net Zero emission.


When mother nature buried Carbon under the ground by way of fossil, we human beings mined them at enormous cost and added further value by combustion with air converting it into CO2 (carbon dioxide). In fact, we human beings added enormous value to carbon that remained buried (with zero value) for millennia. We were interested in the heat of combustion but forgotten about the CO2 emission. This is the fundamental flaw in the commercialization of thermal power using fossil fuels. Now there is a price to pay. There are only 2 options to overcome this problem.

  • We can completely ignore and ban fossil fuel all together at enormous cost (we have already invested in trillions in mining, processing, transporting and storing) and seek completely a new solution without any Carbon at all. This is unlikely to happen.
  • We can continue to use fossil fuel and generate base load power as we have been doing for decades but capture CO2 and convert it back into fuel so that it can be recycled with Zero CO2 emission. This is certainly feasible.

Many “so called innovators” are suggesting alternatives to fossil power generation using renewable source of energy. These sources were available with us from the beginning of the world as we know it, but they are intermittent. We are used to 24 x7 base load power using fossil fuels.

The real solution lies in using intermittent renewable energy to generate base load power with zero Carbon emission. Renewable Hydrogen (RH) can achieve this goal. In doing so battery can also play a small role but not a major role. Couple of things should happen to achieve this goal.

  1. Capturing CO2 at the lowest cost. It can be best achieved using Oxy combustion of fossil fuel such as LNG (because it is a purified form of natural gas) using Brayton cycle with 100 % CO2 capture.
  2. Generate renewable Hydrogen (RH) using electrolysis using renewable energy source such as solar and wind etc. Technology is well proven and commercially available.
  3. Convert captured CO2 into CH4 using methanation reaction (which is already commercially practised) and recycling CH4 as a fuel to continue the base load power generation as usual. The newly generated CH4 becomes a renewable natural gas (RNG) substituting fossil Hydrogen with renewable Hydrogen(RH). The above described technology is known as Carbon Recycling Technology (CRT) dveloped by CEWT, Australia. The process uses LNG only for a start up and then continue to generate its own RNG to continue the power generation using RH.

The above process is the only economical, commercial and environmental solution to the problem of global warming and climate change. All other methods will be expensive, time consuming with no guaranteed results and are unlikely to happen in the shortest time we have. By scraping fossil subsidies and taxing Carbon @ $100/Mt of CO2 (at least) and offering liberal subsidies to renewable energy the cost of renewable Hydrogen (RH) will be reduced. The cost of renewables is coming down and it can generate RH to the lowest so that CRT can be deployed everywhere. This technology will help achive Zero carbon emission while  a base load (24 x7) power is generated while keeping the Carbon below the earth as nature has done for a long time.

We at CEWT (Clean Energy and Water Technologies, Australia) sco2-power-cycleCO2 cloudcoal power plantoxy-fuel-directly-heated-sco2-power-cycle-flow-diagram-1have the solution (not just theoretical but practically and commercially implementable immediately) and we seek like-minded partners and investors to team up with us so that we can show case the technology and implement them worldwide. (








Australia energy mixcost of living not skrocketed by Carbon taxCHP plant CO2 reductionTaxing Carbon pollution is already paying the dividends according to the National Energy Market of Australia. Such a tax will encourage fossil fuel fired power plants to review   the way they generate power and emit the Carbon into the atmosphere. For example, black and brown coal power plants can switch over to gasification technology from their existing combustion technology  which can cut their Carbon emissions. Coal fired power plants can switch over to gas-fired power plants and cut their emissions by almost 50%. By employing CHP (combined heat and power) the gas-fired power plants can cut their Carbon emission as much as 75%. Taxing Carbon will encourage efficiency and reduce pollution. Australian Carbon tax is a good example which has clearly shown the way to cut Carbon pollution and to encourage renewable energy. The following is an excerpt from Climate Institute of Australia:

“Emissions from electricity are falling:

Annual carbon emissions from the National Electricity Market fell by over 12 million tonnes (CO2-e) between June 2012 and May 2013. They fell by only around 1.5 million tonnes over the previous twelve-month period. Carbon pollution per megawatt-hour has also fallen: from 0.86 to 0.81 tonnes per unit of output, or a little over 5 per cent.

According to the National Energy Market (NEM) data released in June this year, Australia’s electricity supply is becoming cleaner: electricity from renewable sources has risen by nearly 23 per cent and natural gas power by more than 5 per cent since the previous twelve months to May 2012. At the same time, the use of brown coal has fallen by about 12 per cent and black coal by more than 4 per cent. Generation by Australia’s seven biggest coal-fired power stations has fallen by over 13 per cent. Structural changes driven by the high Australian dollar, rising electricity prices, introduction of energy efficiency measures, increased home installations of solar photovoltaic (PV), and the Renewable Energy Target are key drivers of this change. However, early indications are that the carbon price is playing a supporting role by make renewable energy even more competitive compared to fossil-fuel generation. As the price becomes more embedded in longer-term investment decisions the role of the carbon price will increase.

Electricity price-rises—perception and reality:

For businesses and consumers alike, electricity prices have risen sharply for several years—more than 40 per cent in the last few years. On average, more than half of this rise is the result of network upgrades, including the replacement of aging infrastructure. Despite the recent increases, however, when adjusted for inflation, electricity prices are about the same as they were a generation ago.

Yet, according to the Australian Industry Group, there is still a false perception amongst many in business that the carbon price is the biggest contributor to rising prices.

The biggest of [the] …pressures [on prices] is the rising cost of electricity networks, the poles and wires that deliver power. The high-profile of the carbon tax appears to have led to some over-estimation by businesses of the specific impact of the carbon tax on energy prices…

For residential retail customers, the carbon price accounted for around 9 per cent of power bills in 2012–13, or between about $2 and $4 extra per week, depending upon the state or territory. It should be noted that the carbon price is unlikely to materially increase bills any further in the next few years, although prices will continue to rise for reasons that have nothing to do with the price on pollution.

An upshot of recent price rises—and scare-campaigning by some in politics and industry—may be the spread of a more energy-efficient ethos: in 2012, approximately 90 per cent of Australians did something to minimize their power bills, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Such changes in consumer and business behavior are likely to help cushion the impact of any future price-rises.

The cost of living has not skyrocketed:

 Before 1 July, 2013, the Australian Treasury predicted that the carbon laws would add 0.7 per cent to the Consumer Price Index, while CSIRO and global consulting firm AECOM conservatively predicted inflation at 0.6 per cent, given 100 per cent cost pass-through. This was part of a study for The Climate Institute, Choice, and the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS). The impact of the carbon price on particular prices is barely discernible. Indeed, the ABS has said it is unable to discern any impact against normal variability in consumer prices. One estimate, by Westpac Economics, suggests the reality is that the carbon price has added just 0.4 per cent to the Consumer Price Index.

For the vast majority of Australian households, the increase their cost of living has been very small and this will be covered by the assistance package associated with the scheme. According to independent analysis, for a low-income family of four, for instance, assistance is, on average, around $31 per week; for a single pensioner, it’s a little over $19 and for a middle-income family of four, it’s about $13. Federal assistance was projected to leave the large majority of households better off.

 Looking forward

The hyperbole that characterized the twelve months to 1 July 2013 has largely given way to reality. The carbon laws have not undermined Australia’s economic performance nor have they raised the cost of living substantially.

What is more, the package of carbon laws is contributing to emissions from electricity falling, the energy mix shifting in favor of renewable and cleaner fuels, and energy use is becoming more efficient. Low-carbon investment is flowing—the carbon price at work using money raised by the price on pollution, over six years, $946 million is committed to maintain stocks of carbon in bush land, and to enhance the resilience of natural systems to climate change. In the first round of the Biodiversity Fund, around $270 million has been allocated to more than 300 landscape rehabilitation and restoration projects around the country.  Hundreds of firms are investing in energy efficiency, cleaner manufacturing, and innovative renewable energy projects, such as geothermal and solar-thermal. Many have received grants drawn from monies raised by the carbon price. Federal clean technology funding programs total $1,200 million over the next few years. Already, companies with household names like Arnott’s, Bundaberg Sugar, Bega Cheese, CSR, and Coca-Cola, together with many others, have received public grants leveraging considerably more private investment.

Meanwhile, the Carbon Farming Initiative is seeing the big end of town investing new money in regional and rural communities. Between them, BP Australia, CS Energy, CSR, and Energy Australia have purchased more than 322,000 Australian carbon Credit Units, representing more than $7 million in low-carbon projects, such as sustainable forestry, cleaner livestock production, better landfill operations, and savannah management. Overall, Australian Carbon Units and ACCUs purchased by fossil-fuel power stations were worth $39 million in June 2013.”

President Obama has recently outlined his policy on climate change and Carbon pollution reduction measures.US and the rest of the world can learn lessons from Australian experience on how low Carbon economy can be achieved without compromising an economic and industrial growth. In fact low Carbon economy can create millions of jobs and a sustainable future. The same polluting Carbon can become a source of cheap Hydrogen by innovative gasification technology. Innovation is the key to achieve a sustainable energy mix between renewable and fossil fuels.


Environment Pollution Authority EPA of US Government regulated the gas emission standards for power plants for oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur in the past but not for GreenHouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. However when President Obama took over power, EPA passed ‘Clean Air Act’ to regulate the emission standards of all gases including GHG for new stationary power plants. This act projected to prevent over 230,000 early deaths in US alone by 2020 due to Carbon dioxide. According to this act,

1.  Starting in January 2011, large industrial facilities that must already obtain Clean Air Act permits for non-GHGs must also include GHG requirements in these permits if these increase are newly constructed and have the potential to emit 75,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) or more or modify and increase GHG emissions by that amount.

2.  Starting in July 2011, in addition to facilities described above, all new facilities emitting GHGs in excess of 100,000 tons of per year CO2e and facilities making changes that would increase GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e, and that also exceed 100/250 tons per year of GHGs on a mass basis, will be required to obtain construction permits that address GHG emissions (regardless of whether they emit enough non-GHG pollutants to require a permit for those emissions.)

3.  Operating permits will be needed by all sources that emit at least 100,000 tons of GHG per year on a CO2e basis beginning in July 2011.

4. Sources less than 50,000 tons of GHGs per year on a CO2e basis will not be required to obtain permits for GHGs before 2016. (Sources: clean technica)

According to Stanford scientist Mark Jacobson, there is a definite link between the Carbon dioxide and increasing deaths. While the argument continues between believers of global warming and skeptics, it clear that Carbon pollution kills people without any discrimination. Any gaseous emission into the atmosphere will eventually spread across the borders of each country and becomes a global issue.

EPA in each country in the world should pass similar legislation to curb GHG emission at least to protect their people, if not to curtail global warming. What is most surprising is some scientists still want more ‘scientific data’ to accept whether GHG causes global warming or not. One need not be a rocket scientist to conclude that chemical pollution is slowly poisoning the air, water and earth. Hundreds of chemicals that we used in the past were abandoned due to their harmful effects. For example, Asbestos,DDT,Chlorine for disinfecting drinking water, coal tar dyes, Nicotine, Refrigerants like Fluorocarbon etc to name a few. We can choose to ignore the warnings of Nature and carry on the business as usual in the name of science. But we cannot ignore people claiming their legitimate rights to live and breathe a quality air to lead a normal life. It is a human right issue. It is not an issue that can be debated only by scientific community and decided.

WHO should classify ‘Quality air’ as a fundamental human right with great urgency. Governments around the world can pass ‘Clean air act’ similar to US. They may not levy carbon tax or offer new incentives to promote green energy, but regulate the indiscriminate emission of GHG into the atmosphere, which passively kills millions of people around the world. This is nothing but ‘weapons of mass destruction’ in a passive way, but on a grander scale. When ‘passive smoking’ is a serious health issue, Carbon emission too is a  serious health issue. It is the duty of industries to incorporate carbon pollution prevention measures by scientific innovations.

%d bloggers like this: