Question of the Week

We have had entire villages die due to underground gas leaks. Who can say how safe the earth crust is? In Endicott, NY a former major computer manufacturer can’t keep the TCE in the ground as it leaks to the surface into the homes. We can’t drill for gas in New York State due to polluting the ground water. Can we figure out how to convert this back to carbon and oxygen and use the oxyen as an alternative fuel source?

If the carbon capture increases the cost of coal fired electricity then what is the advantage of that power source. Why not invest time and money into longer term solutions and technology rather than band aid the poster child of pollution?

Of course it could be used to save money in attacking this problem by via “the dubious value of prolonging the life of
polluting coal-fired plants.”

And perhaps you should not, in the future, phrase your questions in such a biased, one-sided (and uneconomic) way as this.

I think that carbon emissions can and should be captured, but not in the way described. It should be captured and reused to grow algae, which will not only release oxygen but be consumed as biomass for fuel generation.

Yes, one needs to capture the Carbon Dioxide produced by coal-fired generators. However, why store it? Why not convert the CO2 into CO and Oxygen? The Oxygen is released to the atmosphere and the CO is “bottled” for industrial use in making various chemicals and for fuel.

There is an article here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070418091932.htm

that discusses the use of an semi-conductor based system to turn CO2 into CO and O2. However, if one has a coal-fired electrical plant, then one doesn’t need the sunlight driven electricity for this step.

If carbon capture can be made practical & economic then we should do so. The oil industry has been injecting gas into the gound for decades for enhanced oil recovery so the “leak” argument is weak.

Capturing all the carbon dioxide released, no matter the source of it, would in sum total be such a miniscule amount in terms of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that it would essentially be immeasurable. So why in the world should this even be considered? With natural carbon dioxide levels in the hundreds of quadrillions tons, how many milleniums pass before you could see any change in level when you’re “saving” it by a few billions?

Capturing the carbon dioxide would be a good idea to help reduce some of the green house gases however i dont believe that pumping the gas into the ground is a good idea, its like sweeping dirt under the rug. This is at best a short term solution for power plants that need to be replaced by more environmentaly freindly means.

No, I don’t want to pump this pollution under our feet - out of sight out of mind doesn’t work. Unfortunenately coal is too abundant to discard as a power source so we need to work with it, I’d rather find ways to scrub the particulates from the exhaust and use it some way- and algae florishes in CO atmostphere, so attach an algae farm to each plant and product bio fuel as a by product.
The only trouble is getting China and other under developed nations that use coal unrestricted to do it.

Since global warming is a hoax to cover a political power grab, activities to reduce CO2 output are essentially useless. Global cooling is the current state of events; the normal warming cycle stopped in 1999-2000 and the earth has been cooling ever since.
I am a tree farmer so need more CO2 to speed up my tree growth.

Why are we in sucha rush to control CO2 emissions? We manufacture CO2 to put it into carbonated beverages and other things. CO2 is a poor player which is getting notoriety only because it is identifiable with Coal Power production. Research has shown that the carbon dioxide “knee” follows rather than leads warming. Let’s get to the real culprit and major player in atmospheric warming as a so called “Greenhouse Gas” which is water vapor.

Yes it can work and should be used in place of the expensive cap and trade until solutions are found to the co2 problems.

The amount of coal available in this country for energy production far exceeds theoretical crude oil reserves. Upgraded coal-fired power plants now use scrubbers and other technology to virtually eliminate “fly ash” particulate and corrosive and malodorous sulfur oxides. The remaining carbon dioxide is a powerful “greenhouse gas” which has the potential to add significantly to “global warming”. But by liquifying it at relatively low pressures right at the concentrated source and sequestering it deep underground in suitable rock strata, these emissions can be controlled. The state of Pennsylvania, with its tremendous coal reserves and heavy use of coal-fired electrical generation, has already commenced seismic studies to locate suitable depositories nearby to generation sites. See this website:

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/info/carbon/seismic.doc

Pumping CO2 from coal-fired power plants into the ground would not be a wise idea because half of the politicians and scientists have their heads in the ground.

Wait - maybe that WOULD be a good idea.

Bob King is correct — sunspot activity basically controls the surface temperture. “Global warming,” now morphed into “Climate Change,” is a hoax. The quantities of CO2 emitted by coal-fired power plants will help plants to grow. (I especially like the new “Diesel algae.”) Let’s get some sanity into our decision-making process.

Frank

1st I reject the premise that CO2 emmisions from industry is causing catastrophic climate change but the question about capturing and storing CO2 emissions begs a question….What kind of capture technology are we going to use on say, on the Okmok volcano in the Aleutian Islands that just erupted? More CO2 there than we let off in 100yrs! Why are people so intent on making themselves out to be the bad guys? Amazing!

What a joke this discussion has become.
I seriously doubt that any of you know what you
are talking about and are just parrotting what
you hear on the news.

I think it might be technically feasible to capture carbon, perhaps not this specific method, but possible.
The bigger question is “Should we?”. I think not. The point of using coal is that it’s a relatively inexpensive and plentiful source of energy, and it’s domestically available. Increase the cost by expensive carbon capture, and it’s no longer an advantage. Instead, put the money into nuclear energy, develop it more rapidly, and coal wil gradually lose its appeal naturally as cleaner nuclear power becomes more available. Also, it avoids some of the invariably coercive strategies of the environmentalist left (why do their “solutions” ALWAYS have to be by force, intimidation, and legislation?).
Also, nuclear has benefits even if global warming turns out to be either way overhyped, or not generally harmful (remember global cooling a couple of decades ago?). It reduces dependence on foreign oil, and on fossil fuels in general (good for national security AND good for the environment!). The waste for the entire US for the next 100 years would fit in an area the size of a soccer stadium (if I remember the figure correctly). I think we could probably manage to seal and guard an area that small very effectively. And I believe there are new technologies to recycle spent nuclear fuel as well. If it will take, say, a decade or more to ramp up nuclear, or any other “green” energy for that matter, why waste the billions on a technology (coal) that you want to phase out anyway? Use the coal as is for now, but throw the money at better technology. My vote is nuclear for the next several decades because it actually has potential for providing clean power on the scale we would need if we are to scale down coal, oil and gas. Most other technologies are a lot farther away from being economically viable on a large enough scale. Not saying don’t work on other energy sources, just put most of your focus with the cleanest available that can power a large country in a reasonable time frame.

I’m not up to speed on the latest carbon capture tech, but it does seem like trying to collect the carbon dioxide from the hot flue gas during the few seconds it spends in the smoke stack will be a real problem. Making the smoke stack longer would help, but that is likely to result in higher back pressure, making the furnace burn less efficiently. Replacing the smoke stack with a more complex manifold to decrease the flue gas velocity might help. I think at best such a scheme could work to remove SOME of the CO2.

I think that sequestering the CO2 underground is less of a problem than many of the comments suggest - the Earth’s crust is pretty thick. One solution would be to combine the CO2 with calcium would produce limestone (more or less inert), already a large component of the crust.

Ultimately we need to replace combustion based systems with other technologies, and clearly some progress is being made on this front, but in the short term we will continue to burn carbon based fuels to meet our energy needs while the newer technology comes on line. Carbon capture and sequestration at the source is an important stop gap solution. Another solution is to develop large ’scrubber farms’ to begin removing CO2 that is already in the atmosphere. I don’t have much faith in the algae farming model - eventually the algae will die, and the carbon will be returned to the environment. Maybe we should pump the dead algae down abandoned oil wells?

As to those who deny global warming, or who blame sunspots, water vapor, methane, vulcanism, etc., all these factors play a role in global warming, but we can’t control the sunspot cycle or volcanoes. We may be able to control CO2 and methane emissions. But reducing the water vapor in the atmosphere? Get real. No water vapor - no rain - no food.

If our politician would read the comments provided from your subscribers,
we would could an intelligent bebate in the congress concerning our energy problems. Of course, that would be too muich to ask for since this is not as important as getting re-elected.

Perhaps best used to feed algae, produce liquid fuel, food, and oxygen.

Carbon capture is simply putting a(n expensive) band aid on a flawed technology. That money would be better spent on more nuclear power plants.

Once again, wrong question. You make the invalid assumption there are “greenhouse gases” and that CO2 is somehow one of them. The whole “global warming” (now “climate change”) fairytale is falling apart and the political scam is being exposed. I am 50 years old and remember what real pollution was - what it looked like and smelled like. Those problems, for the most part, have been dealt with in this country. Coal-fired plants are not “evil polluters” any more. China and India? Maybe. If you really want to stop air pollution, real air pollution like sulfur dioxide that kills people, trees and “sea-kittens”, go stuff a cork in an active volcano. Have fun, kiddies.

How many pounds of coal will be burned to generate the energy required to capture the C02 generated from burning a pound of coal? Seems like a death spiral to me. If you want to capture CO2, plant a tree.

Seems to me long ago in science class we were taught that nature had it’s own method of trapping carbon. Plants take in CARBON DIOXIDE and emit OXYGEN through a process known as photosyntisis.

Now if we would just quit paving every inch of bare ground and stop deforretsing the planet, maybe nature could keep up.

We should stop burning fossil fuels and dumping the CO2 in the air. Is it better to burn coal and capture the CO2 or not burn the coal in the first place. This is a complex economic question which the market place will decide. We need to explore many possible solutions and then let the market decide which are viable.

Anthropogenic CO2 contribution to GW is insignificant. It is a political joke!
Carbon capture along with carbon cap-and-trade would be an economic
disaster! Google the report by the EPA’s Dr. Alan Carlin about his comments
about our political rush to judgment. His report, “Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act” was suppressed by the EPA to continue the GW HOAX! Go to http://petitionproject.org/ and see real scientists and
engineers opinion!

Мебель для дома, Мягкая мебель, Гостинные, Угол. ООО «Балтик Хауз». Дизайн интерьера. Представляем Вашему вниманию высококачественную корпусную и мягкую мебель, а именно спальни, обеденные столы и стулья, гостиные от ведущих производителей Литвы.

http://www.carbonsciences.com offers an interesting alternative approach.

CO2 polution is a money making joke that so many people are making huge amounts of money on, that it will be difficult for real scientists to get the truth out about it. There is so much money to be made by the liberals and environmentalists that anyone who has to say anything against the CO2 hoax is belittled and chastised as be ignorant. A typical environmental ploy, just like so many lies these people try to exploit against so many people that don’t know any better and follow the lead of people back by huge amounts of money.

The key action needed (whether you believe humans can influence the climate or not) is that we should use less energy per capita. If nothing else it protects all our energy futures.

The US has got used to having endless energy and to wasting it on big cars, shirtsleeves in winter and aircon in the summer. Very comfortable thank you very much, but very selfish.

As for politicians delivering a hoax for global warming. Ummm, they get voted in, so want to support popular things. Using less energy is not a popular policy choice, a vote loser to citizens who think only of their short-term comfort.

Carbon capture may work, but it is a stop-gap. Mother Earth took millions of years to carbon capture the coal, oil and gas. Humans are dumping it back in the atmosphere in a couple of hundred. China may be leading this, but it is to feed the west with cheap consumer stuff.

How arrogant are we, to think that we cannot influence the planet with our actions?

Capture all the excess CO2 and then all we need to do is sell the captured CO2 to Coca Cola and Pepsi for decades to come and we’re all set. I love soda pop. It’s a win win situation.

1. CO2 is about 100 times less abundant than water vapor in the earth’s atmosphere.
2. Water vapour is a green house gas, as it absorbs the sun’s radiation very effectively.
So can the advocates of reducing CO2 emission explain, why they never talk about reducing water vapor, which seems to be the dominant factor of the green house effect?