Whatever happened to carbon capture? (power, price, issue, money)

[Baldrick]

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."

[thecoalman]

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.

[harry chickpea]

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.

[Chemistry_Guy]

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.

[Brian.Pearson]

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.