U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-12-2012, 05:36 AM
 
5,660 posts, read 4,501,609 times
Reputation: 5614

Advertisements

I read this and thought some of you may be interested.

BBC News - Whatever happened to carbon capture?

"The process was patented back in the 1930s, and it is reckoned to be one of the most important technologies we have for tackling greenhouse gas emissions. So you might well ask: "Whatever happened to carbon capture and storage (CCS)?"
The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts global energy demand increasing by at least one-third by 2035."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-12-2012, 07:09 AM
 
41,050 posts, read 42,814,964 times
Reputation: 17274
It's expensive and there is other issues like getting indemnification similar to the nuclear industry. There was a plant in Florida ready to do this years ago but that was the hold up. There is no insurance available if say for example there is an earthquake and this gas escapes from it's underground storage and asphyxiates 1000 people.... and yes CO2 can kill you in large doses and we're not talking about CO poisoning either. CO2 is not as bad as CO, with CO2 the cure is fresh air. With CO you're screwed because it bonds to the hemoglobin in you blood, even immediate medical attention will not help given enough exposure.

Another factor is cheap and plentiful natural gas, because of these low prices they are investing in NG fired power plants which have a lower CO footprint.

There is other techs too , personally I would suggest they will be using algae to capture it and produce bio fuel. It's perfect feedstock and this will effectively recycle the CO2 eliminating the output from the power plant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2012, 10:19 AM
Status: "chickpea soup" (set 28 days ago)
 
18,765 posts, read 56,521,786 times
Reputation: 33182
Storing carbon as carbon dioxide gas within the earth has got to be one of the stupidist ideas ever devised. I'm not talking mildly stupid, I mean REALLY stupid, on the odor (sic) of collecting cow farts in plastic bags.

Take a look at thecoalman's header. 100% pure carbon. If you want to store carbon in a stable form that isn't likely to suddenly fart out of a fissure, what form might you want to use... Think hard now...

It is not about the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. It never has been, except to those so gullible they still believe in Santa. It is about money. Once you start following the money, what is going on starts making sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 07:26 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati near
2,591 posts, read 3,659,066 times
Reputation: 5944
Storing carbon as C (s) is a lot more involved than storing it as CO2. Graphite is reduced carbon. In an oxygen atmosphere, you get the energy out of carbon by oxidizing it. Graphite is a fuel. It would take as much energy to reduce CO2 to graphite as you would get from oxidizing (burning) coal.

Any strategy to sequester carbon as graphite could not involve burning the fuel. There are ways to extract energy from hydrocarbons without burning, but at some point the energy cost of obtaining the fuel eclipses the net gain in free energy that you can use by oxidizing it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2012, 08:24 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,070 posts, read 9,164,236 times
Reputation: 1632
I saw this article...Not sure what to make of it:

Milk poured down Britain's kitchen sinks each year creates a carbon footprint equivalent to thousands of car exhaust emissions, research shows.
Scientists say the 360,000 tonnes of milk wasted in the UK each year creates greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 100,000 tonnes of CO2. The study by the University of Edinburgh says this is the same as is emitted by about 20,000 cars annually.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top