Should we ignore a technology that traps all the carbon emmissions of coal fired power plants?

[JohnWxy]

Interesting article in current issue of Discover magazine about a technology that captures carbon emmissions from coal fired power plants.

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCE) involves exposing coal to oxygen at very high temperatures to cause the release of component gases, mostly hydrogen and carbon monoxide. this makes it possible to capture all the carbon emmissions along with other pollutants such as sulfer. the resulting synthetic gas or syngas is burned in a combustion turbine for power and the exhaust gasses are captured and used to heat water which drives another steam turbine for more power generation. This two turbine configuration enables IGCC plants to operate about 15% mmre efficiently than traditional coal fired power plants. While IGCC plants are 15% to 20% more expensive to build the operating efficiency gain returns the extra investment.

Tampa Electric Company (TECO) has been operating an IGCC plant since 1996 and it's the most efficient coal fired plant they operate. Unfortunately, this plant is not equiped to capture carbon emmissions. What is needed is a carbon tax to incentivize building these plants (or retrofitting traditional plants) to include the carbon trappping capability.

OF course, the trapping of the carbon emmissions is key to this system. The captured carbon monoxide can be sequestered in certain geological formations. The article describes three carbon sequestraation projects underway now.


The oldest of these projects operated by Statoil - Norways national oil company has been in operation since 1996. 2,800 tons of caarbon dioxide is pumped every day into a sandstone formation 3,000 feet below the floor of the NOrth Sea. There is a 250 foot thick layer of shale on top of the sandstone formation and so far no leakage has been detected. Two other carbon sequestration projects are mentioned in the article. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded 2 trillion tons of carbon dioxide could be stored in old coal mines, abandoned oil and gas fields and various other geological formations around the world. This panel estimated the storage capacity to be about 80 times the rate at which CO2 is generated from all sources around the world.

NOw, coal mining is not a very environmentally clean process at least not the way it has been done so far. But if environmental and safety standards were imposed (and actuallly enforced) there are experts who say coal can be mined in an environmentally sustainable way. but the standards must be set and enforced. Whether this can be done with a significant number of Republicans in Congress is certainly a moot point.

The article points out that the Dept of Energy estimated 153 new coal fired power plants will be built by 2025 in the U.S. (9 will be IGCC). Meanwhile China plans to build 562 new coal fired plants over the next EIGHT years. These plants without carbon capture technology will be spewing vast amounts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the 50 years of expected life for a new coal fired plant.

We really need for the coal fired plants to use some kind of carbon capture technology. To hope to have any influence on China in this matter the U.S. hs to show the way in this. These plants are 20% more expensive to build but 15% more efficient to use. So the argument that it is an additional expense doesn't hold water, expecially when you consider that coal will be getting costlier in the future.

We cannot afford to ignore this technology which does work and which achieves greater operating efficiency.

[ramapo]

1. Sure...why not?

We've already ignored technology that drastically cuts emissions. You know...that old, "It is too expensive to implement and will hurt people and wreck the economy...." argument.

Of course, even removing carbon from the emission stream does nothing to negate the absolute destruction caused by strip mining. What about mercury and all the other bad stuff emitted by coal plants? Does that get stripped out too?

[JohnWxy]

6. according to the proponents all the pollutants can be pulled out.

It's basically a closed system. Some of the biproducts (properly handled, some pollutants become biproducts) even have value and can sold.

Strip mining is a nasty business. But there are those who say you can capture the pollutants generated and rebuild the cite after the coal has been recovered. Now, this means the coal will cost more, but it would still be much cheaper than gas (much of which is imported). And of course, natural gas is going to get much more expensive in the future. Coal would still be the second cheapest source of energy (after wind power) even with the extra expense of responsible mining practices.

[On the Road]

9. Now That's Something I Never Think of

...this means the coal will cost more, but it would still be much cheaper than gas....

What always put me off on the scrubbing technologies is their expense. But I belive you are correct, and that scrubbed coal is still a bargain.

[JohnWxy]

23. Please note that IGCC goes far beyond scrubbed coal. the pollutants are

separated out of the coal when it is exposed to the oxygen and only afterward the syngas is burned.


Here is something on the cost of sequestration:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip83.htm


The World Coal Institute notes that at present the high cost of carbon capture and storage (US$ 150-220 per tonne of carbon, $40-60/t CO2 - 3.5 to 5.5 c/kWh relative to coal burned at 35% thermal efficiency) renders the option uneconomic. But a lot of work is being done to improve the economic viability of it, and the US Dept of Energy (DOE) is funding R&D with a view to reducing the cost of carbon sequestered to US$ 10/tC (equivalent to 0.25 c/kWh) or less by 2008, and by 2012 to reduce the cost of carbon capture and sequestration to a 10% increment on electricity generation costs.

[texastoast]

2. If we can't get rid of the CO2

then it is not viable. I don't think it is reasonable to think that stored CO2 wouldn't eventually leak.

[JohnWxy]

7. I agree, I don't think it's been absolutely proven CO2 can be stored indefinitely in the earth.

HOwever, pockets of natural gas have been held in the earth for millions of years. I think it's possible - although, it's certainly possible we will have some learning to do to make this work.

It just seems we should at least keep the CO2 from going strait into the atmosphere. We're talking about an enormous amount of CO2.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. My chem isn't up to this, but...

...as far as I know, NG doesn't make acid when you introduce water. CO₂ does (carbonic acid, H₂CO₃), which probably won't do your chosen rock formations any good.

Plus, CO₂ is going to take up a lot more space than the coal or oil you've removed - You'll never be able to but back more than a fraction of what you take out.

Personally, I'd be inclined to toss "clean coal" research in the bin and concentrate the resources on something more worthwhile (like TWh storage, a decent thorium fuel cycle or even cheap solar...)

[leftupnorth]

12. natural gas coming out of the ground has 30-40% CO2 in it already

So far there isn't large amounts of natural gas leaking out of the ground. I think geological co2 sequestration is probably the most viable option of significantly containing our co2 emissions.

[Dead_Parrot]

27. Define "large amounts"

...is the bubbling at La Brea a large amount? Lake Nyos? Storegga? the PETM? The P-T extinctions?

Yes, there are lots of stable gas fields. There have also been lots of unstable ones: Pulling the gas out of a stable field and replacing with a different gas, on the assumption that it will still be stable for another million years, seems like one hell of a gamble to me.

[TheMadMonk]

15. ¿Que?

I think that multi-million year old natural gas deposits are sufficient proof that sequestration is viable.

And we best think very carefully, before following this line of argument.

The old "too expensive to implement" argument is losing water as it becomes more and more clear that "too expensive" really means foregoing profits that could be had from implementing efficiency improvements and ignoring emissions. After all such plants already provide a 15% drop in emissions per MW generated and we (the people) shouldn't be so greedy as to demand even better performance. Even if the ultimate cost to do so is effectively zero compared to what has gone before.

The new argument might well be, we can't be certain about the safety of sequestration technology, so best just take the 15% and live with it. (And of course our 15% increased profits.

[JohnWxy]

20. Regarde:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=73404&mesg_id=73423

natural gas coming out of the ground has 30-40% CO2 in it already

So far there isn't large amounts of natural gas leaking out of the ground. I think geological co2 sequestration is probably the most viable option of significantly containing our co2 emissions.

[JohnWxy]

21. .. more on carbon sequestration:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=73404&mesg_id=73451


http://www.uic.com.au/nip83.htm


Captured carbon dioxide gas can be put to good use, even on a commercial basis, for enhanced oil recovery. This is well demonstrated in West Texas, and today over 3000 km of pipelines connect oilfields to a number of carbon dioxide sources in the region.

At the Great Plains Synfuels Plant, North Dakota, some 13,000 tonnes per day of carbon dioxide gas is captured and 5000 t of this is piped 320 km into Canada for enhanced oil recovery. This Weyburn oilfield sequesters about 85 cubic metres of carbon dioxide per barrel of oil produced, a total of 19 million tonnes over the project's 20 year life. The first phase of its operation has been judged a success.

Overall in USA, 32 million tonnes of CO2 is used annually for enhanced oil recovery, 10% of this from anthropogenic sources.

[stuckinlodi]

3. Yes

My mother's family lost a whole generation of men to mining accidents and black lung disease. Until coal can be mined safely, it should be forgotten.

[Kolesar]

4. The real advantage of IGCE is efficiency, meaning less fuel use & hence less CO2 emissions

IGCE by itself does not "capture" the CO2 (I think you knew that). CO2 sequestration is still experimental and unproven.

I lament that Ohio plans to dump taxpayer money into "clean coal" technology. I fear that sequestration is a distraction that will forestall more important methods that have to be employed like demand-side reductions and urban planning.

[NNadir]

5. Maybe you haven't heard that Statoil is using the CO2 to push out oil.

What good could capturing CO2 possibly do if there is no where to put it?

It is wholly unsurprising though that you wish to argue for the existence of "clean coal." While you're waxing romantic about 2800 tons per day, being used to push out more oil to inject more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide are injected into the atmosphere each year.

Do you have any idea where to put 27 billion tons per year and to keep it there for eternity? I mean, you cry and cry and cry and cry about 75,000 metric tons of solid spent nuclear fuel that has accumulated over 50 years, but you have no trouble buying this totally suppositional scheme hook line and sinker.

Once more you are evoking a completely nonsensical scheme that has no industrial scale plans for working on anything remotely approximating the scale of the problem.

Nowhere on earth is a single facility even on the drawing boards than can accommodate 1 billion tons a year for eternity. No where. In zero places.

[JohnWxy]

13. to quote the article:

"In September 2005, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a Unted Nations organization that includes scientists from nearly every country in the workld, released a report estimating that 2 trillion tons of carbon dioxide could be stored in old coal mines, abandoned oil and gas fields, and in various other geologic formations around the world."

According to Robert Socolow, a Princeton University Physicist who coheads it's Carbon Mitigation Inititiative: "Coal -Power plants account for abut 25 percent of that carbon dioxide, so it's 320 years of coal-power emissions."

and:

"Statoil estimates that all the carbon dioxide emissions of from every power plant in Europe for the next 600 years could be stored in the (sandstone) formation."


NOte that Socolow is a physicist on the faculty of Princeton University. If you have any criticism of this 'scheme' I suggest you contact the scientists on the INtergovernmental panel on Climate Change or talk to Sokolow himself. But be advised you will be talking to real scientists, not self proclaimed, pretend internet 'scientists'. LOL (LEt me guess, you won't email them. YOu prefer to continue your act here. You live for the attention you receive here, even if it's that of contempt.)

[NNadir]

25. Note that the numbers say otherwise. "Could" is not "is."

You really can't get it through your head that naming a prestigious institution is the same as producing a result.

In fact, your completely misleading thread title aside, this facility has nothing whatsoever to do with coal. It's a natural gas plant for which Norway suggests sequestration. Why has Norway just begun to burn natural gas after decades of relying on hydroelectricity? Because they have not been able to conserve and because they loudly eschewed nuclear power. It is always the case that one eschews nuclear power, one relies on fossil fuels.

You substitute name dropping for thinking and no amount of confrontation and exposure can get you to desist from this demonstrably poor thinking. Saying "Princeton" or "Argonne" doesn't mean anything whatsoever. The need to say those words is simply a rather weak "appeal to authority argument."

The actual case can be looking at the numbers. You do know what numbers are, don't you? Do you have a number for the billions of tons of carbon dioxide being sequestered next week by Statoil?

You don't?

What a fucking surprise.


Maybe you think that Statoil has solved Europe's contribution to climate change. Any evidence? Has Norway and the rest of Europe announced Kyoto compliance because of the Statoil speculation?

If you read the IPCC reports - and you haven't because you're so damn intellectually lazy - you will see that the mitigation strategies are all parts of "scenarios," and thus are not results, nor are they proved solutions.

Here is what Statoil says it could sequester:

http://technocrat.net/d/2006/3/10/1275. 2.5 million tons per year.

Here is what Europe releases: 4.6 billion tons per year.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

You come here and you mutter nonsensical crap about "all" of Europe's carbon dioxide when if fact the actual number is 0.05% of "all" of Europe's carbon dioxide if the system ever functions. It doesn't function in fact. It's a "what if" marketing fantasy. Maybe you think the readers of the E&E forum are stupid?

One partial solution that is well characterized, and well discussed in the IPCC reports is the one I advocate, the expanded use of nuclear power. Regrettably there are stupid people all over the world who denigrate the one strategy that is actually working at this time, as opposed to hare-brained wishful thinking about sequestration schemes that may or may not fail to deliver and if they do deliver - may fail within a few decades with a massive out gassing.

Here is what it says in the IPCC mitigation report of 2001:

The five variants constructed in the bottom-up analyzes were (1) BI: biomass intensive, (2) NI: nuclear intensive, (3) NGI: natural gas intensive, (4) CI: coal intensive, and (5) HD: high demand. The BI variant explores the potential for using renewable electricity sources in power generation. Both intermittent renewables (wind, photovoltaics, and solar thermal-electricity technologies) and advanced biomass electricity-generating technologies (biomass-integrated gasifier and/or gas turbine technologies through 2025 and biomass-integrated gasifier and/or fuel-cell technologies through 2050 and beyond) were applied. The NI variant involves a revitalization of the nuclear energy option and deployment of nuclear electric power technology worldwide. In the NGI variant, the emphasis is on natural gas. Any natural gas in excess of that for the reference cases is used to make methanol (CH4O) and hydrogen (H2). These displace CH4O and H2 produced from plantation biomass. In the CI variant, the strategy for achieving deep reductions involves using coal and biomass for CH4O and H2 production, along with sequestration of the CO2 separated out at synthetic fuel production facilities. Finally, in the HD variant the excess demand is met by providing an extra supply of fuels with low emissions. To illustrate the possibilities, the HD variant is constructed with all of the incremental electricity provided by intermittent renewables.

(bold mine).

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/073.htm#box22

Note that this report is now 5 years old. In 5 years, not one of these variants is consistently used on an exajoule scale except nuclear power.

The new report, due out next year, is said to be far more emphatic about the need for nuclear power. Even if you don't get it, the rest of the fucking world does, and is now planning more than 200 new nuclear reactors. The world doesn't give a fuck about your ethanol dreams anymore. They're played out your dreams because - just as you vastly overstate the potential for that Statoil pilot - you have vastly overstated the potential for ethanol.

Now, I do realize that it is very difficult to get you to distinguish between 2800 tons per day (1 million tons per year) and 27 billion tons per year, and I also know that you hear only what you want to hear, but the IPCC mitigation strategies are on line. Still, if you want to know why people look at arguments like yours and find them laughable it because you oversell everything you talk about, hugely.

For the record, I have already written one of Sokolow's colleagues on the subject of nuclear power and received a gracious, albeit silly, response on the subject. The person in question is a Professor at Princeton, and by the way, he's wrong. I contacted him after he appeared on the radio in a local talk show talking about climate change. He was claiming that climate change could be addressed with a few cool windmills. He thinks that renewable energy is sufficient to address global climate change. He says - to me and not on the radio - that he doesn't oppose nuclear power in principle, but he doesn't know all that much about it.

He is wrong - even if he is a professor at Princeton - if he believes climate change can be addressed without appeal to nuclear power. People have been appealing to renewable energy for decades - and it is failing to deliver. Climate change is getting worse, not better, and renewable energy is completely incompetent to meet the challenge. Even a country like Norway - which has huge hydroelectric resources - is failing to avoid increased fossil fuel use. When Norway's glaciers are gone - and yes, they are going, the situation will deteriorate further, not that you give a fuck. The world is not building solar, wind, etc plants even at the pace it is building new fossil fuel capacity. Renewables are thus losing ground. However the matter is not about new capacity only in any case. It's about existing capacity. You have no fucking insight about what to do what is coming, never mind what already exists.

You seem to think that because Sokolow of Princeton wrote a paper, and someone published it, and Al Gore mentioned in it in his movie, it is gospel. Actually the paper also mentions nuclear power as a stabilization wedge so I could - if I were an idiot - cite it as justification for the fact that global climate change is intractable without nuclear power. (Nuclear power is listed as Wedge #9 in the paper, which I linked here a long time ago. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/NNadir/15) But I don't claim that the discussion of nuclear energy in this paper is the last word.. My posts substitute actual appeals to numbers as opposed to institutional name dropping. (As stabilization wedges go, nuclear is the one of the few mentioned in the paper that is current practice on an exajoule scale.) However not all papers published by people at Princeton (or Harvard or MIT, etc) are correct however. You think otherwise because you don't know anything whatsoever about science, not because the paper is correct.

In fact, of the 15 wedges there is just one that is industrially practiced on a wide, exajoule, scale, two if you note that some automobiles are efficient. There are no wind generated hydrogen fuel cell cars. (#12) There are no synthetic syn fuel plants capturing carbon and sequestering it. (#8). Deforestation has not been stopped (#14)...


Like I always say, "If you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, make stuff up."

You must think everyone is monumentally stupid.

[JohnWxy]

35. YOu are confussed

YOu are confused:
YOu stated i said"

"nonsensical crap about "all" of Europe's carbon dioxide when if fact the actual number is 0.05% of "all" of Europe's carbon dioxide if the system ever functions."

My post included a quote from a Statoil representative abaout the potential of the entire sandstone formation under the NOrth Sea. NOte that he refers to "all the CO2 emmissions from every poewr plant in Europe" that is NOT the same as all the CO2 emmissions from ALL Sources in Europe.

"Statoil estimates that all the carbon dioxide emissions of from every power plant in Europe for the next 600 years could be stored in the (sandstone) formation."

the "crap" you attribute to me is from a Statoil representative and you didn't understand that he was referring to the potential of the entire sandstone formation and only the CO2 emmissions for powerplants - not form all sources.


YOur statement that Statoil says it can store 2.5 million tons per year - refers to a project where they are storing CO2 eleases from 2 specific sources only


"The project consists of a gas-fired power plant and methanol production facility at Tjeldbergodden in Mid-Norway, providing CO2 to the Draugen and Heidrun offshore oil and gas fields."

"Shell and Statoil have signed an agreement to work towards developing the world's largest project using carbon dioxide (CO2) for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) offshore. The concept involves capturing CO2 from power generation and utilizing it to enhance oil recovery, resulting in increased energy production with lower CO2 impact.
~~
~~
" The project could potentially store approximately 2- 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 annually in two different fields."


This is entirely different matter than the question of the capacity of the entire sandstone formation under the North Sea.

[NNadir]

45. Confussed (sic) indeed.

It is clear that your title is meant to imply that Statoil has a solution to global climate change.

You talk about ignoring technology, but there is no technology to ignore. Europe doesn't capture carbon dioxide and has no plan to do so.

In fact, you wouldn't know a gas separation membrane from a bottle of soda pop.

They have nothing more than yet another "could" statement that is meaningless since it is not connected to anything anyone plans to do. In fact, there is no industrial system on the drawing board or under design or being financed to do any such thing. Rather there is a rather dubious and unproved muttering by a Statoil executive - an oil company guy in fact - about the alleged size of a sandstone formation. This of course is supposed to make people complacent about burning fossil fuels.

The main reason that Norway is burning fossil fuels of course remains exactly what I said it is: Norway refused to build nuclear power plants. Norway may talk about wind generated hydrogen, and they may talk about giant sandstone formations that could do this and that, but what they are doing is building fossil fuel plants to service their fossil fuel industry. Of course they want to divert attention from what they are doing by raising red herrings. There is always a mindless squad of apologists to point at these herrings, of course, but these people are not environmentalists. They are people who kill by appeal to wishful thinking.

Thus, as always, you are full of shit, and talking about a subject about which you know zero.

You may try to suggest that I should scour your nonsensical references, line by line, in great detail but I think I've represented quite clearly that I would regard such an effort as a complete waste of time. Like the community of nations that is now working on 220 new nuclear reactors, I don't really care what you think. I know full well that there is no fucking thing as sequestration plants on scale, that none are under construction, none are ordered and none are even planned or proposed. I also know full well about the quality of your thinking. Therefore it would be purely absurd to assume that I find anything you say remotely believable or worth more than 50 seconds of scanning. I don't. There is no reason to do so, since your threads almost always consist of spectacularly misconstrued half-assed regurgitations of hack marketing pronouncements. I scan your nonsense for less than a minute and then spend whatever time I feel like spending demolishing it. It's easy to do.

Be that as it may, there are apparently some rational people that really are looking for information about sequestration, who legitimately don't know if it's a realistic approach or not. For those people, and not for you, it is useful to explore the case and demonstrate conclusively that it is, at best, wishful thinking.

The spell checker button, by the way, is on the lower left hand of the posting window.

[JohnWxy]

52. "No technology to ignore"?? Your words: "Statoil is using the CO2 to push out oil."

You just stated oil companies are pumping CO2 into oil fields to enhance oil recovery. Are you discounting what you said a couple remarks back?

now regarding your remark in general:

In other words, you completely mis-understood my links and a link you yourself provided.

YOu confused a statement about the amount of carbon being stored in a specific project going on right now, with a another statement I referred to which pertained to the capacity of the entire sandstone formation under the NOrth Sea.

YOu further failed to understand that a statement of a Statoil rep pertained to total CO2 emission from POWER PLANTS in Europe - NOT the TOTAL CO2 OUTPUT OF EUROPE FROM ALL SOURCES.

This is why I don't like to take much time reading through your apoplectic meandering attacks. I end up spending time figuring out how you got so fucking confused. I only do this because some people might read you sound bites and think they are based on something close to sound logic.

[NNadir]

58. Um, pumping more fossil fuels is not sequestration.

I certainly wouldn't call getting more oil out of the ground a climate change strategy. Apparently you do, but that is hardly surprising. If nothing else you are consistent.

I'm sure you don't like reading my remarks, since this would involve reading (and comprehending) something called science.

It's pretty amusing to watch you wiggle. With your attempt to qualify and spin things, you really belong in the Bush administration. For the record, there is no plans whatsoever to sequester all the fossil fuels from power plants, or any other major source of carbon dioxide in Europe - or for that matter any other continent on earth. Thus the Statoil executive's appeal to wishful thinking is without merit to environmentalists. It may however, appeal to some marketeers.

Thus a thread title implying that such a technology exists to sequester all of any source of carbon dioxide that is generated as the result of combustion on an exajoule scale is fraudulent.

People pump all sorts of things into wells to make them give up more fossil fuels. Water is the traditional fluid, but now oil executives have chosen another fluid, carbon dioxide, which has the advantage that it can be marketed as "environmentally" friendly. Rebranding this as "sequestration" or as a "climate change strategy" however has no effect on the physical, economic or other type of outcome.

Statoil is an oil company that sells fossil fuels. They have an extreme economic interest - a profit interest - in making fossil fuels palatable, in making them seem less odious than they are. But this has no bearing on the external cost of fossil fuels - which is unacceptably high.

Of course, since I know science, I can see through such marketing immediately. As someone who knows science though, I am always astounded to note that no matter how dumb a marketing concept is, there is always a self-deluding or deliberately deluded rube to buy it and push it.

[Dead_Parrot]

28. So let me get this straight:

You think it's it's a bad idea to bury 10,000 tons of solid waste for 10,000 years, but you are quite happy with burying 2 trillion tons of gas waste for the remaining lifespan of the planet?

[JohnWxy]

34. You have mis-quoted Prof Ewing, let me repeat his statement:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=72478&mesg_id=72478

"We currently have 400-plus nuclear reactors operating worldwide, and we would need something like 3,500 nuclear power plants," Ewing said.

Developing the necessary nuclear technologies and building the additional power plants is an enormous undertaking that probably would take longer than the 50 years that experts say we have in which to come up with solutions to global warming, Ewing said.

Even if they could be built and brought online quickly,"that many power plants would generate tens of thousands of metric tons of additional nuclear waste annually. "The amount that would be created each year would be equal to the present capacity anticipated at the repository at Yucca Mountain,"


Tens of thousands of metric tons generated each year the nukes would be in operation. (NOte: "tens of thousands" is not necessarily the same as 10,000 tons. But for simplicity let's use 10,000 tons per year for possibly 3,500 nukes in operation.) Over 10,000 years that would result in 100,000,000 tons of not necessarily solid waste but radioactive waste. Radioactive waste is not easy to contain. It has a tendency to react with or affect anything it comes in contact with. When you add in the factor of time, to the extent of 10,000 or more years this becomes much more of a concern.

I said that although carbon sequestration is being used already (e.g. for enhanced oil recovery) it in fact has not been absolutely proven to work over thousands of years. HOWEVER, it is instructive to note that natural gas (which found naturally, contains some CO2, 30% to 40% - natural gas coming out of the ground has 30-40% CO2 in it already - LeftupNorth ) has been found to remain in the earth for millions of years . While this is not to be considered a scientific experiment I think it does give some indication of the feasiblity of the concept of sequestration of a gas such as CO2 (which, as noted is found in natural gas pockets naturally occurring in geological formations).

[Dead_Parrot]

36. I guess it depends on your fuel cycle.

Personally, I think a once through fuel cycle is almost as retarded as burning coal, but let's run with some big numbers and see where we end up.

430 years x 100,000 tons per year = 43,000,000 tons.

Now, unless I'm missing something, that's still less than 2,000,000,000,000 tons.

And if we run this this scenario, the nuclear waste would be suitably decayed after 10,430 years: The CO2 waste would need to be contained for about 4,000,000,000 years.

Plus, the nuclear waste is solid. If there was a containment breach, it might get carried around by mutant squirrels and affect the surrounding area - say 1,000 square miles, if the mutant squirrels are really tall. CO2 is a gas: if it leaks, all 2,000,000,000 tons will spread over the entire fucking planet.

If you really think gas does not leak from the planet, go ahead and reply to post #27, rather than just echoing what somebody else has said. I'm afraid you'll have to do some original thinking, but you'll get the hang of it.

[jpak]

37. Reprocessing only increases the volume of high level waste from spent fuel

Fission products are not recycled - they end up in highly radioactive liquids or (soluble) solids.

...and they still need to be isolated from the environment for hundreds of years.


Also - crustal weathering and solution in the ocean will remove all anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere in 100,000 years - not 4 billion years (just to be picky).

[Dead_Parrot]

38. Got a cite for that 100,000 years?

Seems a little short, but I'm open to corrections. That's not what I'm talking about, though: The 4 billion years is how long you'd need to keep this extra CO₂ locked up. If 2,000,000,000,000 tons escaped into the atmosphere, it would yank the atmospheric CO₂ up by an extra 500ppm instantaneously.

That's the sort of shit that wipes out most life on the planet. You think the Earth could take it? 'Cos I don't. It amazes me that anyone would even consider taking this route, let alone advocating it.

[jpak]

47. Here ya go...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFMGC61A..02B

Abstract

CO2 is supplied to the atmosphere by metamorphic reactions involving carbonate minerals and by mantle degassing. CO2 is consumed from the atmosphere by silicate rock weathering and subsequent carbonate mineral sedimentation. Photosynthetic production of organic carbon also consumes atmospheric CO2, whereas oxidation of organic matter returns CO2 to the atmosphere. The balance between these carbon flows largely determines atmospheric CO2 content on million year and longer time scales. This long-term, or geological, carbon cycle is distinguished from the more familiar short-term cycle involving the transfer of carbon between the oceans, atmosphere, living biosphere and soils. A typical molecule of volcanic CO2 remains in the atmosphere and ocean roughly 100,000 years before being buried as carbonate sediments, yet atmospheric CO2 content has not varied widely for many millions of years. The stability of atmospheric CO2 content over many residence times of CO2 in the atmosphere suggests that a strong negative feedback exists to stabilize atmospheric CO2 content. For a negative feedback to exist, either sources or sinks of CO2 to the atmosphere must be influenced by atmospheric CO2 content. Silicate rock weathering (and subsequent carbonate mineral sedimentation) consumes atmospheric CO2 and can be shown to increase with increasing temperature and atmospheric CO2 content. Enhanced atmospheric CO2 concentration, through the "CO2-greenhouse effect," would tend to warm the land and increase the hydrologic cycle with more water contacting silicate minerals. Both of these processes would function as a negative feedback stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentration through accelerated silicate rock-weathering. The evolution of Earth's biota has had a very large impact on silicate weathering rates, and hence atmospheric CO2. In general, land plants tend to accelerate silicate rock weathering, lowering atmospheric CO2 levels. In this talk, we will show that many factors may have influenced the evolution of atmospheric CO2 content. A model of the long term carbon cycle, GEOCARB, has been constructed that quantitatively considers: (1) the uplift of mountains as they affect relief, climate and silicate weatherability, (2) the rise of large vascular land plants as they affect both silicate weathering and organic carbon burial; (3) changes in continental size and position as they affect temperature and river runoff from the continents; (4) variations of atmospheric CO2 as they affect weathering as a negative feedback mechanism; (5) the slow evolution of the sun as it affects global warming;. Factors affecting degassing include changes in the distribution of carbonates between shallow platforms and the deep sea as they affect the amount of carbonate undergoing thermal decomposition via subduction of ocean floor. Sensitivity analysis shows that the major forcing factors affecting CO2 over the Phanerozoic (past 550 million years) are plant evolution, solar evolution, and mountain uplift. Levels of paleo-CO2 calculated via GEOCARB are, within the errors of the method, in good agreement with many independent estimates using a variety of paleobiological and geochemical methods. The Phanerozoic CO2 trend is in agreement with the atmospheric greenhouse effect as a major control on (very) long-term climate.

[Dead_Parrot]

48. I think the GEOCARB models...

...refer to a time before the "large vascular land plants" were cleared for cash crops, but clearly I have some homework to do... Cheers! :)

[jpak]

49. A most excellent reference book for homework

William Schlesinger

Biogeochemistry: An Analysis of Global Change

2nd ed 1997

Academic Press

Very comprehensive and accessible (and highly recommended)

[JohnWxy]

41. I refer to anyone who seems to know what he is talking about. I do not pretend to have

mastery of all knowledge on all subjects. I readily make use of knowledgeable input when trying to understand an issue. This is much preferable to pretending to be and expert or let's say reinventing the wheel everytime you want to go somewhere. As far as I am concerned, thisis not an adolescent contest to see who is "smarter". I am not trying to impress anybody here. When I discern a knowledgeable person or reliable source of information I take advantage of it. LeftupNorth's statement as to the proportion of CO2 present in natural gas was consistent with what I have seen stated elsewhere. I also wanted to recognize his input. I am not putting on a show here, just trying to commuicate what I think are significant ideas and considerations (more often than not originally raised by someone other than me. I am not claiming to be the "worlds most neglected brilliant scientist-thinker".).

NOw, as to your consideration of sequestering 100,000 tons of hot radioactive waste generated every year for 430 years, - question, where do you expect to find the sites for all this hot waste. Remember geological stability and ground water are of concern here.

Your blase attitude about a containment breach is rediculous. For adults, this is a very real concern and after reading what many knowledgeable people (I consider them (scientists familiar with nuclear technology and geologists) more knowedgeable than me, regarding nuclear waste, is that okay with you?) I think the notion that it's possible to contain nuclear waste for thousands of years is a fantasy.

But let's put aside that question for a minute. The idea that we can build nukes fast enough to meet the need for energy is itself a fantasy. Assuming we were stupid enough to believe that was a good idea! And what about finding the sites for 3,500 reactors. Siting a reactor is not a simple matter. There are a lot of safety considerations to be met here too.

The situation is this: hundreds of coal fired plants are going to be built in the coming decades. Do we want them to be standard coal fired plants or IGCCs which will capture the CO2 and keep it from going into the atmosphere. I present this for peoples consideration. My feeling is it's better to stop the CO2 from definitely going directly into the atmosphere and sequester it (for me, there are enough knowledgeable people who say this will work).

[hunter]

42. An IGCC power plant with sequestration is a more difficult undertaking than a nuclear power plant.

We already know how to build and operate nuclear power plants.

IGCC with carbon dioxide sequestration is at this point still speculative, and in any case piping very large amounts of high pressure carbon dioxide about only adds to the danger of fossil fuels, even in terms of very localized industrial accidents.

The idea that we could build "clean coal" power plants fast enough to meet future energy needs is the greater fantasy.

What we are really going to do as a nation is build more conventional coal plants, and synthetic fuel plants, until nature pulls the rug completely out from under us.

I believe climate change is going to be especially cruel to the United States as drought becomes a permanent condition in most previously fertile places. Australia may only be a preview of a more widespread and worsening condition.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6142756.stm

[Dead_Parrot]

43. Can you say "double standards"?

You say there's a problem find suitably stable sites for 43,000,000 tons or waste? fair enough. Yet you seem to think there are suitable sites for 2,000,000,000 tons of waste - waste that takes up a hell of a lot more volume per ton - and sites that are not just water-tight, but air-tight.

You don't see a discrepancy there?

Just one CO₂ dump - your 600Gt Norwegian site - would contain enough CO₂ to add 150ppm to the atmosphere if it breached. That's more carbon dioxide than mankind has produced since the discovery of fire: And CO₂ has no half-life - being contained for 10,000 years wouldn't be enough. Nor would 10,000,000 years. It has to be contained for as long as life endures.

You really don't see a problem there?

Am I being blase about the breach of a nuclear dump? Yeah, I probably am. But you are totally ignoring the possibility of a breach in a CO₂ dump that, based of previous history, would wipe out 95% of all life on Earth.

Can you see why that might be a bad thing?

If you find the notion of storing nuclear waste "a fantasy" I really have no idea why you are seriously suggesting CO₂ sequestration. I can only assume you're been so enchanted by the coal companies that you've given yourself a lobotomy, because you just don't seem to grasp the horrifying enormity of what you are proposing.

[JohnWxy]

51. Carbon sequestration should only be necessary for 50 to 70 (maybe 100) years.

We will not be doing it for the 'life of the planet'.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=73404&mesg_id=73692

[Dead_Parrot]

53. You still don't get it, John.

The CO₂ needs to be stored forever. It doesn't matter if you sequest it over a hundred years or a thousand, it will never decay, and it can never be allowed to escape.

[JohnWxy]

61. there are those who are convinced it will work. Natural gas contained underground for millions of

years gives an indication that carbon sequestration is feasible. I will take the judgement of geologists over your opinion. I am not worried about that choice.

[Dead_Parrot]

66. So long as they agree with you, for a guess.

Science, June 30, 2006

Scientists testing the deep geologic disposal of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide are finding that it's staying where they put it, but it's chewing up minerals. The reactions have produced a nasty mix of metals and organic substances in a layer of sandstone 1550 meters down, researchers report this week in Geology. At the same time, the CO2 is dissolving a surprising amount of the mineral that helps keep the gas where it's put. Nothing is leaking out so far, but the phenomenon will need a closer look before such carbon sequestration can help ameliorate the greenhouse problem, say the researchers.

Drillers often inject CO2 into the ground to drive more oil out, but researchers conducting the U.S. Department of Energy-sponsored Frio Brine Pilot Experiment northeast of Houston, Texas, pumped 1600 tons of CO2 into the Frio Formation to see where the gas went and what it did. "We're the first looking in this huge detail so that we can see what's going on," says geochemist and lead study author Yousif Kharaka of the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California. He and colleagues found that the CO2 dropped the pH of the formation's brine from a near-neutral 6.5 to 3.0, about as acid as vinegar. That change in turn dissolved "many, many minerals," says Kharaka, releasing metals such as iron and manganese. Organic matter entered solution as well, and relatively large amounts of carbonate minerals dissolved.

The loss of carbonates worries Kharaka particularly. These naturally occurring chemicals seal pores and fractures in the rock that, if opened, could release CO2 as well as fouled brine into overlying aquifers that supply drinking and irrigation water. Perhaps more troubling, says Kharaka, is that the acid mix could attack carbonate in the cement seals plugging abandoned oil or gas wells, 2.5 million of which pepper the United States. The lesson is that "whatever we do , there are environmental implications that we have to deal with," he says.

Geologist Julio Friedmann of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is less concerned about corrosion eating away the seals on a sequestration site. "The crust of Earth is well configured to contain CO2," he says. He points to 80 U.S. oil fields injected with CO2 for up to 30 years. "We've seen no catastrophic failures." Nevertheless, the Frio results do "suggest an aspect of risk we hadn't considered before," says Friedmann. There is a "new potential risk should CO2 leak into shallow aquifers."

Doesn't it concern you at all, that the first geologists to actually look at what the CO₂ was doing down there found it turning the rock to mush? Or that the response from Friedmann equates to, "Well, nothing's blown up yet."?

No, of course it doesn't. Stupid questions.

Incidentally, the sandstone/brine/injected CO₂ combination of Frio is similar to Statoil's Sleipnir field. Except no-one is looking at Sleipnir, of course - presumably because it hasn't blown up. Yet.

[Nihil]

67. Eek!

> Perhaps more troubling, says Kharaka, is that the acid mix could attack
> carbonate in the cement seals plugging abandoned oil or gas wells,
> 2.5 million of which pepper the United States.

Not only do we create the potential for an instant CO2 disaster at each
sequestation site by the act of storing large quantities of a pressurised
poisonous gas but we also have the built-in deterioration of the seals
holding it all in. Who needs an asteroid strike?

:scared:

[hunter]

68. Eek, indeed!

You are walking along minding your own business when BOOM a volcano of hot frothy toxic brine suddenly erupts from the ground suffocating everything for miles around.

But things could have been worse. You might have lived a very long and happy life all the while suffering exposure to utterly negligible amounts of man-made nuclear materials.

[JohnWxy]

69. NO, not "so long as they agree with me". I am interested in legitimate, well founded investigations

of any issue of importance.

the cite to Science presents an article which raises important concerns. Congratulations. This is good stuff. It's raises some definite causes for concern. I wonder how all that CO2 that the AMerican oil industry has been pumping into oil fields for 30 years is faring? Can any differences in conditions (from those investigated in the Science study) tell us something?

Here is some more from the Livermore studies of sequestration:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/May05/Friedmann.html
~~
~~
Studying Sequestration Risks

Scientists are concerned that even slow, small releases of CO2 over many years could significantly reduce the efficacy of carbon storage and could even pose risks to the environment and human health. Studies indicate that faults in the caprock are the natural path for subsurface fluids to slowly escape to the surface, especially when a reservoir is overpressurized. According to Friedmann, the risks of CO2 leakage are not serious. “Almost all of the risks associated with leakage can be prevented by carefully analyzing the site and downhole pressure data,” he says. In addition, any leaks are likely to be detected early by standard monitoring techniques and remediated.

The worst-case scenario is that CO2 might escape from an injection well that was completely open to the surface, perhaps because the well’s seal failed. “A drilled well could be a faster conduit for CO2 than tiny fissures,” says Friedmann.
~~
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not to discount the Science article. IT certainly raises important issues. I just wonder if others have looked into these matters too and found ways of dealing with them? Over-all there does seem to be considerable confidence that this can work. (note. this does not mean it might not require some efforts to make it work).

[Dead_Parrot]

72. If they have...

...I'd be interested in seeing what they came up with, although as this year's tests seems to be the first time anyone looked I'm guessing it's still a work in progress.

Pity the practise has been going on for 30 years, really, but that's the oil corps for you :(.

[JohnWxy]

63. some information on carbon sequestration and work done by Geochemist James Johnson, Lawrence

Livermore National Laboatory:

http://www.llnl.gov/str/Johnson.html

MORE carbon dioxide is making its way into our atmosphere as we burn fossil fuels and deforest tropical lands. Most experts agree that increased emissions of greenhouse gases-especially carbon dioxide-are responsible for an overall warming of our planet over the last 150 years.

In 1991, Norway became the first country to impose a federal tax on atmospheric CO2 emissions from combustion-based point sources such as coal-fired power plants. Shortly thereafter, this tax-$55 per ton of CO2-was extended to include emissions associated with offshore oil and gas production. The day is not far off when other countries, possibly including the U.S., will follow Norway's lead, thus creating a strong financial incentive to develop strategies for safe disposal of CO2 waste streams.

One such strategy is to capture excess CO2 and inject it underground, where it will remain sequestered from the atmosphere for thousands of years. Geochemist James W. Johnson is heading a Livermore team that is developing criteria for identifying subsurface geologic formations that could be used for CO2 sequestration. "Our work is part of a long-term Department of Energy effort to identify optimal sites for sequestering CO2," says Johnson.
~~
~~
Modeling a Dynamic System
Reactive transport modeling integrates the geochemical, hydrological, and mechanical processes that characterize dynamic geologic systems. These processes, which include chemical reactions, fluid flow, heat transfer, and mechanical stress and strain, are interdependent and must be modeled simultaneously to simulate the true behavior of geologic systems. Simultaneous modeling was not possible for complex geologic systems until the advent of massively parallel supercomputers. Now, Johnson's team is producing the first-ever reactive transport simulations of CO2 injection and sequestration within geologic formations.

Their initial Sleipner simulations examine what happens to CO2 after it is pumped into its watery grave. At Sleipner, the storage formation is a highly porous, fluid-saturated sandstone aquifer, sealed at both the top and bottom by thick, relatively impermeable shale. The CO2 moves through the formation via several migration processes and at the same time is trapped by various sequestration processes. The CO2 migrates by displacing ambient water, with which it is largely immiscible, and by rising relative to this water, owing to its lower density. It also moves faster than the ambient fluid because of its lower viscosity. As the CO2 plume migrates, some of it may react with formation minerals to precipitate carbonates (mineral trapping), some dissolves into the formation waters (solubility trapping), and some may eventually be isolated within anticlinal structures bound by the shale cap (hydrodynamic trapping).

Understanding the relative effectiveness of these competing migration and sequestration processes is the key to identifying sites that will provide optimal sequestration performance. Reactive transport modeling represents a unique capability for quantifying this balance of processes.

[JohnWxy]

64. a better article on Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's research on carbon sequestration.

http://www.llnl.gov/str/May05/Friedmann.html

Lawrence Livermore research on geologic sequestration combines fieldwork, laboratory experiments, and modeling and includes scientists and engineers from the Laboratory’s Energy and Environment (E&E), Engineering, Chemistry and Materials Science, and Computation directorates. For example, one project is developing methods to capture CO2 at smokestacks. Another project is helping monitor CO2 movement after the gas has been injected underground. Laboratory scientists are also studying the safety of carbon sequestration and how CO2 injection affects a formation’s geophysical and geochemical properties. Computer simulations of sequestration techniques will also help decision makers evaluate potential storage sites across the nation.
~~
~~

Preliminary estimates indicate that geologic formations could store many decades’ worth of CO2 emissions safely. “By 2050, nations could be burying 5- to 10-billion tons of CO2 every year,” says Friedmann. “We think Earth’s crust could handle that.”

CO2 Already Captured, Stored

Friedmann points out that scientists already know how to capture CO2 and inject it underground. Since the 1930s, manufacturers have extracted CO2 from factory emissions and used it to process food and make dry ice. For the past three decades, U.S. oil companies have also injected CO2 underground to increase production from oil and natural gas wells, a process called enhanced oil recovery. Indeed, the U.S. leads the world in enhanced oil recovery technology, using about 32-million tons of CO2 per year for this purpose. In addition, Friedmann says, “Enhanced oil recovery represents an opportunity to sequester carbon at a lower cost, compared with storing it in geologic repositories that do not contain fossil fuels. Sales of the recovered oil and gas would generate revenues to help offset the expenses of sequestration.”

For safe, long-term storage, CO2 must be injected more than 800 meters below Earth’s surface. At that depth, CO2 becomes a supercritical fluid, in which it is neither liquid nor gas. Supercritical CO2 is more dense than CO2 gas and thus would require less storage volume. Supercritical CO2 is also less mobile and has a higher solubility underground, which would make sequestration more effective.

[JohnWxy]

50. BTW Carbon sequestration of CO2 from IGCC should only be necessary for 50 to 100 (max) yrs

Carbon sequestration will not be necessary for the "remaining life of the planet". Perhaps when you try to do some 'original thinking' you should stop yourself and let somebody else do your thinking for you. OHHH, being a nuclearfile you are already doing that though.


Carbon sequestration should only be necessary (for the CO2 from IGCC or later technologies) for 50 to 100 years, not forever into the future.

Wind Power will likely surpass coal in 20 to 25 years. Wind Power is the cheapest source of power available and as fossil fuels become more expensive in future, the cost differential will become greater and more difficult to ignore. Installed Wind power is growing at about 25% per year. This figure would be greater but for the limiting factor of wind Turbine manufacturing capacity not being able to meet the demand for turbines. Wind turbine manufacturers are adding to production capacity right now. Solar power is getting cheaper and should become cost effective in the next twenty years and then it will grow exponentially.

but there would still be CO2 sequestration for the next 50 to 70 (possibly 100 years) (allowing for operation of already built IGCC coal plants operating lifetimes). But as I said, the fact that natural gas has remained in geological formations for millions of years demonstrates the feasibililty of this approach. There are many who are convinced sequestration will work. There will be many more who feel it's better than just pumping the CO2 directly into the atmosphere.

However, Carbon sequestration won't go on forever, and i don't think it will involve the kind of figure you used for CO2 storage.

[Dead_Parrot]

54. If you are going to criticise my ability to think

At least learn the difference between making something and storing it.

And saying something twice doesn't make it true. One reply on the same point would have been sufficient.

[JohnWxy]

57. May I quote you (just once)?: "happy with burying 2 trillion tons"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=73404&mesg_id=73471

"but you are quite happy with burying 2 trillion tons of gas waste for the remaining lifespan of the planet?"

[Dead_Parrot]

59. If there was a point to that post, I missed it. nt

[JohnWxy]

60. okay, what the hell. I'll give it another try. I responded to your post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=73404&mesg_id=73698

"If you are going to criticise my ability to think At least learn the difference between making something and storing it."

So I quoted you from your own post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=73404&mesg_id=73471


WHEre YOU said:

"So let me get this straight:
You think it's it's a bad idea to bury 10,000 tons of solid waste for 10,000 years, but you are quite happy with burying 2 trillion tons of gas waste for the remaining lifespan of the planet?"


UNless my eyes decieve me your statement was about "BURYING" (which I take to refer to underground sequestering or storage of CO2.

So what sense does it make to say "If you are going to criticise my ability to think At least learn the difference between making something and storing it."

YOur statement is about "burying" nothing said about "making it". So what is your point or do you have any coherent train of thought behind your statement: "If you are going to criticise my ability to think At least learn the difference between making something and storing it."

I guess now you are pretending to not see the nonsense of your statements as pointed out. I guess it's embarrassing to you to have the lack of coherent thought in your posts pointed out to you. So if all else fails pretend you can't see it.



Kinda sad, I must say.

[Dead_Parrot]

62. Oh, for pity's sake.

I guess if I said "I'm making sandwiches for a picnic tomorrow" you would assume that I plan on leaping out of bed at midnight and spending the next 24 hours buttering bread.

Christ almighty.

[JohnWxy]

65. OH my, you are quite the thespian? LOL

[JohnWxy]

70. The pity is you still haven't told me why you said:

"If you are going to criticize me at least learn the difference between making something and storing it."

Since your post I criticized spoke only of "burying" Co2. That's why I quoted your post to that effect. My point is "why are you saying "learn the difference between making something and burying it." ...while your statement I criticized spoke only of "burying" it (CO2).

To quote your statement, which I questioned, again:

"So let me get this straight:
You think it's it's a bad idea to bury 10,000 tons of solid waste for 10,000 years, but you are quite happy with burying 2 trillion tons of gas waste for the remaining lifespan of the planet?" post 28. Deadparrot.

so, I ask you, what's your point? in saying to me:

"If you are going to criticise my ability to think
At least learn the difference between making something and storing it." post 54.

THAT was the point of quoting you to yourself (your post 28) In response to this quote from your post 28, you said"

59. "If there was a point to that post, I missed it."

If you still don't get it, - I'd would like to know what is the point of your statement:

"If you are going to criticise my ability to think At least learn the difference between making something and storing it." post 54.


BTW no flights of fancy are necessary, just a logical and coherent answer will be sufficient.

Maybe I better not hold my breath.

[Dead_Parrot]

71. Sorry if I was a little tetchy...

...I thought I'd made it clear in #53, but I know what it's like when you get a brain worm. This is future perfect continuous* 'burying', as in "we will to need to bury the CO₂, and we will have to leave it a buried state forever".

Hope this clears it up. :)

(*I think. It's been a while since I did grammar!)

[XemaSab]

24. Sequestration is very viable and will happen.

There are also other technologies coming on line for industrial power production, but there are all kinds of formations in California that could store CO2 and other products.

[NNadir]

26. I'm sorry, but I don't believe it.

Even if the facilities are built, and I know of no industrial plans to deal with even one half a billion tons per year, I don't believe that they will be stable for very long. There is also the matter of the energy involved in the separations.

One of the fun things to contemplate is that uranium forms a stable carbonate complex and is in fact extracted into supercritical carbon dioxide. This is, in fact, the latest technology for in situ uranium mining, carbon dioxide injection. I can just imagine Carson California should the clouds of uranium migrate over to Santa Monica and West LA. It would be tragic of course, but given the kind of New Age mentality I remember there - well, let's just say...interesting.

[XemaSab]

29. It's like any other alternative technology

It's just a part of the overall scene, and I'm not pretending it's going to solve all our needs. I think solar is where it's at personally, but we're not there yet.

[NNadir]

30. I think it is dangerous to use fossil fuels under all scenarios.

As for solar, I've been hearing that for some 4 decades now. It is still producing less than 0.01% of our electrical needs, although I will confess that in California, it has now reached 1% of renewable or 0.3% of overall electricity:



I'll believe it when I see it, if climate change doesn't kill me first - but it may.

I'm sure that Governor Hydrogen Hummer will fix that though. I understand he is going to install a brazillion solar roofs. Even so, I am going to predict that California's emissions are going to continue to rise.

Speaking only for myself, I'd rather live right on top of Yucca Mountain than next to a big sequestration facility.

When Lake Nyos out gassed, it killed 1,800 people and 3,500 live stock in a matter of minutes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

Lake Nyos contained only 1.6 million tons of carbon dioxide, and the area was not that densely populated. The Carson plant will sequester 4 million tons per year. Thus if the plant runs 5 years, it will have pumped 20 million tons of carbon dioxide into the formation.

http://www.gasification.org/Docs/News/2006/BP%20and%20GE%20Press%20Release.pdf

Carson has a population of 90,000. Torrance has a population of nearly 140,000. Lomita has a population of 20,000.

I hope the seals on those wells are tight, and that if the cork on the bottle fails, it will do so when the Santa Ana's are blowing heavily. I hope that the seals are tight enough to contain anything on the Crenshaw fault, which runs right down Crenshaw Blvd next to the big refineries.

[hunter]

8. All that coal is already sequestered. Leave it be.

"Clean Coal" is bullshit. There's no such thing.

There's very dirty coal, which we use now, and slightly less dirty coal, which some spinmaster tries to call "clean coal."

It's doublespeak of the worst sort.

[ClintonTyree]

14. Absolutely......

every time I see those "clean burning coal" commercials on TV using CHILDREN to tout how WONDERFUL the coal industry is I want to SCREAM! :banghead: Those people are the scum of the earth. :grr:

[TheMadMonk]

22. Hey, I've got a radical idea.

Let's stop telling these people what arseholes they are, and trying to dictate all the things that they can not do, AND getting ourselves dismissed as radical nutcases entirely out of touch with reality in the process.

Instead, why not accept that the energy business is going to do pretty much what it wants anyway, and work towards getting them to do that in the best way possible. For now that probably means sequestration of CO2 in geological formations, (the alternative (and I believe cheaper) sequestration option being considered is dissolving it in the oceans below the thermocline.)

As for the nuclear waste issue. A clean disposal option has been available since pretty much the beginning. Breeder reactors can be used both to create virtually unlimited quantities of fuel and to burn the ashes. That breeder reactors can be used to make weapons grade material is something of a Furphy. Anyone who can enrich conventional reactor fuel also has the wherewithal to extract weapons grade plutonium from the ashes of those reactors.

The simplest solution is to build reactor complexes as one stop shops: Thorium/Uranium in and nothing but power and non-radioactives out. And strong international oversight to keep it that way.

[JohnWxy]

16. please provide some links. IF IGCC is not for real I would appreciate some substantive

evidence to the contrary.

[hunter]

17. I think the burden of proof is on you.

My first objection is that even the cleanest coal mines are very dirty and destructive.

You can argue about how much carbon dioxide you can hypothetically shove back into the ground all you want to, but until we find out how much that costs and what the very real dangers are, that's sort of moot.

I don't like coal mining, in much the same way I don't like industrial scale agriculture. Both are perhaps, for the time being, necessary evils, but we must regard them as that -- as something that should be minimized -- and not as some sort of hope for our future.

Coal strip mining near Four Corners, New Mexico:

[JohnWxy]

18. Here is some more info f rom Chemical and Engineering News:

(I asked for some evidence thinking you might have some detailed knowledge of this process. I know that in the past the promise of "clean coal" has proven to have been a figment of some public relations man's imagination. But this technology seems to have more going for it.)


http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8208/8208coal.html

In IGCC'S GASIFIER, carbon-based raw material reacts with steam and oxygen at high temperature and pressure. Mostly hydrogen is produced in the gasifier, along with carbon monoxide, methane, and carbon dioxide. The gasifier's high temperature vitrifies inorganic materials into a course, sandlike material, or slag.

The synthetic fuel leaves the gasifier and is further cleaned of impurities. It is used in the system to run primary and secondary gas and steam turbines, similar to a natural gas combined-cycle generating system.

The primary environmental benefit is increased efficiency and nearly zero air pollution. Most pollutants are removed before combustion and are not created when the fuel is burned. Or, in the case of sulfur, it is collected in a form that can be used. This is a big change for coal plants, where even clean ones produce a lake-sized impoundment of sulfuric slurry by pulling sulfur compounds from the stack flue gas.

~~
~~

Support for the technology by NRDC is due to the potential for large reductions in emissions of conventional pollutants as well as CO2 reductions gained through efficiency and carbon removal. The group wants more R&D on CO2 sequestration to see if it can be safe and effective.

To spur the technology to commercialization, NRDC wants the government to require a carbon cap. But meanwhile, IGCC, if defined as a best technology, will lead to the development and use of new technologies that will allow easier capture of carbon when or if regulations come in the future.

~~
~~

George Rudins, DOE deputy assistant secretary for coal, has 30 years' experience in the federal coal program. IGCC is the most revolutionary advance ever in the clean-coal technology program, he says. "It is a huge leap to zero emissions." The driver, he says, will be a combination of high natural gas prices and concerns about global warming.

IGCC is more efficient, Rudins notes, creating more electricity per unit of coal and less CO2. "Efficiency will be increased from about 33% from a traditional coal-fired plant to 38% at a plant like Tampa to 50 to 60% with FutureGen," he says. But the biggest climate-change benefit will be from reductions in the release of carbon dioxide.

~~
~~

DOE HAS HAD two IGCC plants in operation for several years: a 250-MW unit in Florida at Tampa Electric Power's facility and a refurbished 300-MW unit at Cinergy's Wabash River coal-fired power plant in Indiana. The Wabash plant is a rebuilt 50-year-old facility that now reports an 82% reduction in NOx emissions and 97% fewer sulfur dioxide emissions. DOE also has two other plants in the works, according to department officials.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- there is a lot more to this article, especially re costs, but the article is 2 yrs old and newer more accurate cost estimates may be available.


Keeping in mind the article in Discover it said that while the IGCC plants are 15% to 20% more expensive to build they are 15% cheaper to operate, so there will actually be a cost savings (for the power-plants) after several years of operation.


IF we just keep building standard coal-fired power plants then we KNOW the CO2 is going to go into the atmosphere.

[JohnWxy]

19. Here is some info on carbon sequestration currently being done:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip83.htm


Captured carbon dioxide gas can be put to good use, even on a commercial basis, for enhanced oil recovery. This is well demonstrated in West Texas, and today over 3000 km of pipelines connect oilfields to a number of carbon dioxide sources in the region.

At the Great Plains Synfuels Plant, North Dakota, some 13,000 tonnes per day of carbon dioxide gas is captured and 5000 t of this is piped 320 km into Canada for enhanced oil recovery. This Weyburn oilfield sequesters about 85 cubic metres of carbon dioxide per barrel of oil produced, a total of 19 million tonnes over the project's 20 year life. The first phase of its operation has been judged a success.

Overall in USA, 32 million tonnes of CO2 is used annually for enhanced oil recovery, 10% of this from anthropogenic sources.
~~
~~
The world's first industrial-scale CO2 storage was at Norway's Sleipner gas field in the North Sea, where about one million tonnes per year of compressed liquid CO2 separated from methane is injected into a deep reservoir (saline aquifer) about a kilometre below the sea bed and remains safely in place.
(more)

[jpak]

32. A coalition of utilities and the DOE built the first IGCC plant in CA back in the '90's

It was called the Cool Water Coal Gasification Program.

www.energy.ca.gov/2005_energypolicy/documents/2005-08-17+18_workshop/presentations-081705/Wolk_Ron.pdf

Several US and EU utilities operate IGCC plants today...

www.bechtel.com/PDF/BIP/35478.pdf

IGCC is real and it works...

www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/18.pdf

[JohnWxy]

33. Really GOOD links. Informative. good reads! anyone really interested in understanding this

technology and it's promise should check these out.

Especially the last one:

AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF IGCC POWER SYSTEMS
by
Jay A. Ratafia-Brown, Lynn M. Manfredo, Jeff W. Hoffmann, Massood Ramezan
Science Applications International Corporation

and

Gary J. Stiegel

U.S. DOE/National Energy Technology Laboratory

~~
~~
CO2 emissions, compared on an electricity output basis, generally correlate directly with the
thermodynamic efficiency of the respective power cycles. Thus, the IGCC plant and the PFBC
plant have the lowest emissions based on a heat rate of 8,600 Btu/kWh. However, as discussed
previously, the high pressure and high CO2 concentration of IGCC’s synfuel provides optimum
conditions for CO2 removal prior to combustion, if required. This capability has the potential to
further set IGCC apart from the other coal- fueled power generation technologies, and would go a
long way toward eliminating its contribution to possible global climate change. Depending upon
a plant’s location, captured CO2 has the potential to be transported and utilized for enhanced oil
or gas recovery applications.

Finally, this comparison definitively shows IGCC’s advantage with respect to water consumption
and solid material production. On an output basis, IGCC will consume roughly 30% to 60% less
water than the competing technologies, which gives it more siting and permitting flexibility.
Equally as important, IGCC’s solids generation amounts to about 50% less than tha t produced by
the PC plant and 63% less than that of the AFBC technology. While all of these plants produce
byproduct material that may have commercial value, the slag and sulfur produced by the IGCC
plant should be highly valued commodities in numerous areas of the country.
~~
~~
(much more)

[acmejack]

11. Cough, cough, gasp-no...

wheez...

[eppur_se_muova]

31. "...so far no leakage has been detected." Until, of course, it is.

The thing that worries me about this technology (besides the unlikelihood of adequate capacity to make much difference) is that we may be creating a planet of deadly fumaroles. Remember what happened at Lake Nios (aka Nyos), then think twice about whether you would want this anywhere near your home.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40710FF355C0C708EDDA80894DF484D81&n=Top%2fNews%2fWorld%2fCountries%20and%20Territories%2fCameroon

[kestrel91316]

39. Oh yeah, this sounds just GREAT:

"...cause the release of component gases, mostly hydrogen and carbon monoxide..."

Instead of filling our atmosphere up with CO2 we can fill it up with CO!!

At least it's a peaceful way to die................

[FogerRox]

40. Holy shit Batman

If we are still using coal in this country in 50 years, it will because Fusion never paid off and by then the planet will be close to death.

If we are still using coal in this country in 50 years, it will be because nothing else worked, we will be fucked.

If we are still using coal in this country in 50 years, I won't know it, because I will have shot myself in the head the year before.

Is there enough coal to burn for 600 yrs.... I don't think so. The concept is so stupid.

I hope this works:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/28/15328/187

[seasat]

44. If I were them I wouldn't use TECO as an example of Clean Coal

(LINK)

TALLAHASSEE -- The state fined Tampa Electric Co. $333,100 Wednesday for improperly storing waste at a Polk County plant that's billed as a state-of-the-art "clean coal" facility.

The plant, in Mulberry, is a showcase facility for the U.S. Department of Energy, and regularly hosts visitors from all over the world.

But the Florida Department of Environmental Protection says the plant burned inefficiently, and produced huge piles of unburned coal, ash and a waste product called slag, threatening groundwater.
...
In May 2000, TECO reached a deal with the EPA over repeated violations of the Clean Air Act. TECO disputed the violations but agreed to the settlement after the EPA and Justice Department sued the company. The settlement requires TECO to clean up its two plants in Hillsborough County: Big Bend and Gannon. The company was fined $3.5-million and is required to spend $1-billion to fix the plants and make up for environmental damage.

[JohnWxy]

56. My interest is the IGCC technology. Industry practices in energy and in mining are unacceptable.

but it doesn't have to be this way. This is result of lax enforcement and inadequate regulations - thanks to the GOP Coal industry contributions 70% to 90% to GOP, and utilities: elctric utilities contr to GOP 66%

the article also said the TECO plant does NOT recover CArbon monoxide - that's because we do not have a carbon tax. Try to get THAT passed with Republicans in the legislature (or in WH to veto).

Repunks keep repeating industry crap it will cost too much to go green. the article said the plants will cost 15% to 205 more to build but are 15% more efficient to operate. So they would pay for themselves over several years of operation. And you're keeping the carbon out of the atmosphere!

[NickB79]

46. Reading the article, it states that each plant costs $1 billion or more to build

I distinctly recall one of the arguments here against nuclear power plants being they cost massive sums of money to build, like (gasp) billions of dollars.

So nuclear plants that cost billions to build are bad, but clean-coal plants that cost billions to build are good?

[JohnWxy]

55. I'm glad you at least read the article before commenting. Did you notice that operating costs are

15% less than for a conventional coal fired plant? The initial cost to build a IGCC plant is 15% to 20% higher than for a conventional coal fired plant with no carbon capture capability. so the extra cost is the 20%. The operating cost savings over the life of the plant will more than pay back the extra 15%-20% required to build the IGCC.

NOte, these coal fired plants (hundreds of them) are going to be built (it's going to take a while for wind power installations to make coal fired plants unnecessary). I'm just saying, would it not be better to build IGCC plants (which will operate 15% cheaper and in several years will save the additional cost to build them) and keep the CO2 from going directly into the atmosphere?

Nuclear plants, when you look at the true costs, not only to build them but to decommission them are far more expensive than these IGCC plants. Of course, the main argument against nuclear is that you really can't store thousand of tons of radioactive waste for thousands of years without haveing some of it get out into the environment. Once in the environment the damage will take a very long time to be undone.

I'm glad you at least read the article before commenting. That seems to be a novel approach in these parts!