Discussions

[1] 2 Next »

This discussion relates to Technology Review's article Carbon Capture Remains Elusive .

• 
  StupidPeasant
  

  Posts:
  35

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  10/05/2009 08:02 AM

  carbon hole

  Why spend money on this when we have nuclear and solar?  The owners of all that coal must be very powerful.
  This is a big waste of time from a very corrupt and stupid government.  Cap and trade= tax and steal.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    hr15allstar
    

    Posts:
    1

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    10/05/2009 11:13 AM

    Re: carbon hole

    i hope the gov't works out the carbon emissions crisis with a carbon tax. any cap and trade program will lead the filthy-rich petroleum/fossil fuel companies to keep on exploiting our earth, with no reason to clean up their act. i know there has to be many other technologies far exceeding clean coal in all aspects. we need a reason to change, not the status quo.

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    enantiomer2000
    

    Posts:
    50

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    10/05/2009 05:48 PM

    Re: carbon hole

    dont worry.  nobody will be using coal in 10 years.  in 20 years just about nobody will be using hydrocarbons for energy at all.  it will probably continue to be used for things like fertilizers.  The middle east will once again be an economic desert.

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      StupidPeasant
      

      Posts:
      35

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      10/05/2009 10:04 PM

      Re: carbon hole

      Good

      Rate this comment:
• 
  JDRUBY
  

  Posts:
  15

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  10/05/2009 11:45 AM

  carbon management

  Least we forget, the issue is separation and capture of the CO2.  Sequestration below ground is more of a PR problem than a technical issue.  Capture is $100 per ton, pipeline and geological sequestration is $10.   The R&D needs to follow the money requirements.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    smithsomian
    

    Posts:
    51

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    10/27/2009 03:15 PM

    Re: carbon management

    why is that the issue? anthropogenic global warming is a myth.  what is the urgency to sequester/control/whatever?

    Rate this comment:
• 
  kellermfk
  

  Posts:
  3

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  10/05/2009 12:42 PM

  Carbon capture

  Rather than pump massive amounts of CO2 into the ground, how about not creating so much in the first place? An emerging hybrid-nuclear technology can burn coal with massively reduced greenhouse gas emissions. See www.hybridpwr.com

  Rate this comment:
• 
  arnetwork
  

  Posts:
  20

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  10/05/2009 01:02 PM

  carbon capture

  The figures of $100 per ton for capture and $10 per ton for distribution and sequestration are meaningless. They have no connection to the real world. They are simply made up numbers to make a very complex and expensive process seem simple to deal with.
  
  Is the operation using fuel that yields high or low quantities of carbon dioxide? Is the fuel energy dense lowering the proportionate cost of the scrubbing process? If it is an existing plant what is the cost of conversion to CO2 scrubbing? If it is a new plant what is the extra cost for the added processes? How far is the existing plant from a suitable sequestration site? What are the transportation costs for that particular plant to that particular burial site? If the new plant is located to be convenient for sequestration how far must it then be removed from the fuel source? What are the drilling conditions for the burial site? What is the cost of reservoir remediation and maintenance? What is the capacity of the reservoir? Does the site capacity limit the lifetime of the energy plant or preclude long term increase in output?
  
  Carbon dioxide (CO2) is stable and therefore very expensive to remove from emissions. CO2 is relatively bulky and therefore very expensive to transport. CO2 is toxic to humans when concentrated so burial sites must be such that they can never permit a discharge for thousands of years.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    erbium
    

    Posts:
    110

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    10/05/2009 04:23 PM

    Re: carbon capture

    carbon dioxide is not particularly toxic to humans, we receive shipments daily of coolers filled with CO2 ice to keep the contents chill.
    
    Sequestration doesn't need to be 'sealed for 1000 years'.  If MOST of it stays in the ground it is effective even if small leaks occur. 
    
    However we should rethink the whole idea of sequestering.  Why are we sending what could be a valuable commodity back into the ground.  It's likely we will be mining landfills for resources in a few years so same might happen with the CO2 that we could sequester.
    
    Instead, separate the C from the O2 and release the O2 or sell or use in industrial processes.  The carbon can be used to create plastics, carbon fibers for everything from bicycles, airplanes, cars, building girders, stronger and lighter than steel and concrete strengthening fibers.
    
    There are many other industrial processes where they previous threw out the byproducts and are now using them in secondary processes.
    
    For those who think a carbon tax is akin to socialism, the act of polluting or spewing co2 endlessly at the rate of 1% of the natural total yearly is socialism, polluting the 'unowned commons' of the sky.  If I came to your house, parked 20 busses around it and ran them day and night I think you'd agree that there is real damage done by this pollution.  As society we agreed to let this happen by default at the much lower levels as cars and industrial plants spewed but it is now out of control.  We simply need to tell them not to spew out the CO2. 
    
    Nukes are not the answer either:
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/12/seven_myths_about_alternative_energy?page=0,3
    
    

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    smithsomian
    

    Posts:
    51

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    10/27/2009 03:17 PM

    Re: carbon capture

    CO2 is not toxic. it can be deadly, but that is in circumstances where it displaces O2 in the lungs and therefore stops breathing. it has little or no chemical toxicity.

    Rate this comment:

[1] 2 Next »