Giving up on carbon capture would be a mistake

Despite development hiccups, process works and is environmentally friendly

Given Monday’s expected announcement that Sask Power aims to generate 50 per cent of the electricity through renewable energy sources, like wind, solar and hydro, some people might get the idea that the Crown corporation is getting ready to pull the plug on its problem-plagued $1.5-billion carbon capture plant at Estevan.

While I don’t think that’s going to happen, if it did, it would be a colossal mistake.

Let’s be clear. The carbon capture and storage project at Unit 3 of Sask Power’s Boundary Dam power station has had more than its fair share of problems, starting with hundreds of millions of dollars in cost-overruns, largely due to the unbudgeted-for removal of lead paint and asbestos during the refurbishment of 45-year-old Unit 3 power island.

The fact that the construction period (2011 -2014) coincided with one of the most overheated labour markets in the region’s history also contributed to the project’s ballooning capital cost.

More importantly, the carbon capture plant has been beset by a number of technical bugs, operating glitches, equipment failures and construction flaws, which have reduced the plant’s expected carbon-capture rate of one million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year to 400,000 tonnes. That’s only half the 800,000 tonnes of CO2 Cenovus Energy contracted Sask Power to produce for its enhanced oil recovery project at Weyburn.

This, in turn, has led to contractual breaches that will cost Sask Power additional millions of dollars in penalties, on top of the lost income caused by the reduced quantity of CO2 produced and sold to Cenovus.

Also, because the amine solvent technology chosen to capture the CO2 had never been used on a commercial scale before, Sask Power and its team of contractors had to build and operate a chemical plant — the first of its kind in the world — without any operating history.

This meant that issues like contamination of the amine solvent by particulates in the flue gas produced by the burning of coal had to dealt with after the plant was up and running, rather than on the laboratory bench or pilot plant.

Sask Power’s choice of commercially unproven technology was driven to a large extent by the looming threat of federal regulation on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from coal-fired generating stations, which took effect July 1, 2015. Had the utility not chosen Shell’s CANSOLV amine solvent technology when it did, Sask Power likely would have had to shut down Unit 3 and its 139 megawatts of electricity generation.

Worse than that, without CCS technology, Saskatchewan would eventually have had to shut down its entire fleet of coal-fired generating stations, which account for 37 per cent of Sask Power’s generating capacity of 4,181 MW.

That would not be an easy hole to fill, given that Sask Power’s three coal-fired plants, Boundary Dam, Shand and Poplar River, provide reliable baseload power, something that can’t be said for renewables, like wind, solar and, to some extent, hydro.

Which brings me back to Monday’s scheduled announcement by Sask Power. The Crown corporation should be commended for aiming to get to 50 per cent renewables by 2030 — just 15 years from now.

That’s roughly double the 25 per cent of renewable energy (20 per cent hydro and five per cent wind) that Sask Power produces today.

But wind and hydro are not without their environmental impacts and detractors. Hydro projects damage the environment by damming up rivers, effectively flooding the land upstream, destroying wildlife habitat and raising the level of mercury, methane and other contaminants in the impounded water. Wind projects can have negative effects on wildlife, like birds and bats, especially ones located near migratory bird routes.

In any case, neither wind nor hydro are considered baseload power sources, because they require backup since neither wind nor water flows can reliably produce electricity 365 days of the year.

Coal has the advantage being abundant (250 to 500 year’s supply in Saskatchewan), relatively cheap and readily accessible source of energy.

Clean coal has the added advantage of being cleaner than its main competitor, natural gas combined cycle, potentially even cleaner than wind (given the need for natural gas-fired backup power).

Of course, many will say that’s all fine and well, but does it work? Actually, it does work — 400,000 tonnes of CO2 captured in the past year alone.

We just have to remember that our carbon capture glass is half full, not half empty.

(Sask Power) should be commended for aiming to get to 50 per cent renewables by 2030 — just 15 years from now.