ACK: I am aware that many commenters - myself included - have commented on CCS in the past. My attempt at reviving this commentary was more to do with the concentrated lobbying (there is no other word for it) that the DT and AE-P have been indulging in over the Summer: 'Wind is great, we need more; Solar is cheap, we need more; and CCS will make FF power more expensive than either - so green is cheap'. That seems to sum up for me that that is where AE-P is going. And he's wrong, IMHO.

tomo. It will never ever stop. Climate science has its own incantations and holy relicts. If it gets colder it will undergo transfiguration to Global Cooling and will still be "our fault" and will have been predicted by the holy ones - climate modellers.

You can't win, you can't even get close, you're not even in the game.

ACK
I agree CCS is a dead duck as well as being totally unnecessary.

In a Times article on the tender for battery storage the report says " 200 MW" of power is required. All the quotes in the article only mention power; no mention of capacity. How long is this battery supposed to deliver 200 MW of power for ? Without quoting the capacilty the article is meaning less. This illustrates how scientifically illiterate the Journalist are.

Harry passfield. I have commented on this topic before here at BH and at WUWT. Introducing CO2 into the subsurface, say into depleted oil or gasfields, requires large amounts of energy to displace the water that has invaded the porosity. This energy requirement increases with time as the displacement front moves progressively away from the well and expands accordingly. There is a limit, the pressure required to frac the topseal of the original hydrocarbon accumulation. This is well known, but of equal importance is the rate at which CO2 can be introduced. Increasing the rate will cause a pressure increase that, again, must not approach the fracture pressure that will cause a breach of the topseal. So numerous injection wells are required.

I once read a calculation of the cost and the number of wells needed to dispose of the USA CO2 emissions at JunkScience. Both were "mega" as my granddaughter is wont to say.

tomo +1 They never seem to be held to account for their failed prophecies.

Stewgreen. put Aspen Parkland into Wiki

At the risk of dragging this thread back onto CC topic, and in the absence of comment facility at the DT, I wondered what the Bish would have to say about the latest crap article from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on CCS. He's been a busy lad of late banging out article after article about how the Green future will actually be so very rosy.

On this particular subject (CCS) he dismisses the risks of CO2 storage (what would happen if it leaked?) with a shrug, as he does with the fact that the rosy future that it would open up to us would only mean paying slightly more than double for our electricity. In fact, his whole economic argument for Green action seems to disqualify him from future employment in the role he seems so self-satisfied about in his sign-off comment:

Thank you to those on the front-line who have sent me breath-taking material on scientific advances. You have left me more convinced than ever that humanity is about conquer this challenge. I now return to my normal job covering the world economy.