ShareAssessing the effects of CO2 cryocapture
According to Physicists at the University of Oregon, refrigerating coal plant emissions would reduce CO2 emissions by 90%, and reduce levels of other dangerous chemicals such as SO2 and Mercury, but would raise electricity costs by about 25%.
According to Physicists at the University of Oregon, refrigerating coal plant emissions would reduce CO2 emissions by 90%, and reduce levels of other dangerous chemicals such as SO2 and Mercury, but would raise electricity costs by about 25%.
They argue that the estimated health costs of burning coal in the US are in the range of USD 150-380 billion and include 18 000-46 000 premature deaths, 540 000 asthma attacks, 13 000 emergency room visits and 2 million missed work or school days every year. Therefore, implementing large-scale cryogenic systems in coal-fired plants would reduce overall costs to society by 38%.
In December 2011 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new mercury and air toxic standards (MATS), calling for the trapping of 41% of sulphur dioxide and 90% of mercury emissions. According to the Oregon University team, a cryogenic system would do better, capturing at least 98% of the SO2 and virtually 100% of the mercury and in addition, 90% of. CO2.
They argue that the estimated health costs of burning coal in the US are in the range of USD 150-380 billion and include 18 000-46 000 premature deaths, 540 000 asthma attacks, 13 000 emergency room visits and 2 million missed work or school days every year. Therefore, implementing large-scale cryogenic systems in coal-fired plants would reduce overall costs to society by 38%.
In December 2011 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new mercury and air toxic standards (MATS), calling for the trapping of 41% of sulphur dioxide and 90% of mercury emissions. According to the Oregon University team, a cryogenic system would do better, capturing at least 98% of the SO2 and virtually 100% of the mercury and in addition, 90% of. CO2.