Clean coal plants 'lead the way'

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 26 Mar 2009, 20:28

RogerCO wrote:Thanks RGR - good and useful post

Roger's right. Thanks RGR, a nicely put explanation of why CCS is Stupid

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 26 Mar 2009, 21:48

[quote="biffvernon"]

Mark · Post by **Mark** » 07 Apr 2009, 13:45

Meanwhile.......

Carbon Capture and Storage - The Energy Act 2008 and Beyond:
http://www.law-now.com/law-now/2009/car ... eapr09.htm

Yesterday, those provisions of the Energy Act 2008 (the “Act”) which relate to carbon capture and storage (“CCS”) came into effect. The Act introduces a framework for the licensing of offshore storage of CO2 and extends existing rules for abandonment of offshore installations to carbon storage installations. This will be the first step in creating a full regulatory framework for the operation of CCS in the UK and will soon be followed by further legislation to implement recently adopted EU legislation. The new provisions will be relevant to companies investigating the feasibility of carrying out carbon storage activities in the UKCS, whether acting as operators, owners or developers.

Continues.....

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 07 Apr 2009, 16:11

Energy Act 2008 (the “Stupid Act”)

Mark · Post by **Mark** » 08 Apr 2009, 13:20

Water could be key to carbon capture:
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?src=nl&id=16224

Scientists claim they have managed to lock CO2 in underground water in gas fields around the world where it will remain for millions of years, marking a major step forward in developing viable carbon capture and storage technologies. The international team from the universities of Manchester, Edinburgh and Toronto say they have overcome concerns that this kind of long-term storage might not work and quelled doubts that the gas might be securely trapped.

Project director Professor Chris Ballentine, from the University of Manchester's School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, said: "We cannot change our society overnight to a low carbon economy. While we are in this transition we have to bury our excess CO2 emissions. "Developing a clear understanding of how natural systems behave means that when we inject CO2 into similar systems we know exactly where it will go. This verification is essential to provide public confidence in the safety of this disposal technology."

Continues.....

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 08 Apr 2009, 13:33

Mark wrote:Water could be key to carbon capture:
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?src=nl&id=16224

Scientists claim they have managed to lock CO2 in underground water in gas fields around the world where it will remain for millions of years, marking a major step forward in developing viable carbon capture and storage technologies. The international team from the universities of Manchester, Edinburgh and Toronto say they have overcome concerns that this kind of long-term storage might not work and quelled doubts that the gas might be securely trapped.

Project director Professor Chris Ballentine, from the University of Manchester's School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, said: "We cannot change our society overnight to a low carbon economy. While we are in this transition we have to bury our excess CO2 emissions. "Developing a clear understanding of how natural systems behave means that when we inject CO2 into similar systems we know exactly where it will go. This verification is essential to provide public confidence in the safety of this disposal technology."

Continues.....

Very interesting, thanks for posting.

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 08 Apr 2009, 13:35

Peak Oxygen?

Now lets just hold on a minute here folks.
We dig up Carbon and Hydrogen?
React is with oxygen already up here, creating hydrogen and oxygen, and carbon and oxygen compunds, we then bury the carbon and oxygen, whilst the hydrogen toddles off somewhere like the ocean, in any case ceasing to be oxygen.

How much oxygen can we remove?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 08 Apr 2009, 14:04

Oh look on the bright side - an atmosphere depleted in oxygen is less likely to explode when the methane clathrates emerge.

(No Dominic, the is plenty of oxygen compared to the relatively small amount of carbon.)

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 08 Apr 2009, 15:33

If we remove enough oxygen to drop the percentage in the atmosphere from 20.9% to about 16% we get problems, not least in producing more CO2. At below 16% oxygen things will not burn so we would have problems producing electricity, cooking and keeping warm; our cars would not go; nor tractors so there would be a food shortage. Also the metabolic rate of all creatures, including us, would reduce.

The problem would come if advanced global warming resulted in acidification of the oceans and the destruction of the plankton, which produces much of our oxygen. At high levels of warming much of the tropical rain forest, which is another significant producer of oxygen, would disappear.

I could go on (what do you mean, I have) but I've got work to do. Anyone fancy doing a PhD on the subject?

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 08 Apr 2009, 15:38

If the plankton die to the extent that oxygen levels fall measurably, we are all toast anyway. The oxygen would presumably still be in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2. Apart from greenhouse and acidity problems, that level of CO2 starts to become directly toxic.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 08 Apr 2009, 16:56

Talking of rainforests, did you see the article in this weeks New Scientist?

Evapotranspiration - humid air rises - water vapour condenses - volume decrease - low pressure - onshore wind brings more water - rains - forest grows - evapotranspiraton.

Cut down coastal forests and it all stops. Aboriginees did this to Australia long ago - desert. Now we're doing it to Amazonia - it will soon be desert. Plus there's a high level poleward airflow that bring water to USA. That will also become desert.

Moral - don't cut the trees down.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 08 Apr 2009, 16:57

kenneal wrote:If we remove enough oxygen to drop the percentage in the atmosphere from 20.9% to about 16% we get problems, not least in producing more CO2. At below 16% oxygen things will not burn so we would have problems

Also above 22% I think things like trees start to spontaneously ignite. Could be fun

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 09 Apr 2009, 11:08

Excellent post RGR, I hadn't realised that the capacity to sequester was so very very far from the capacity to produce.

We need to plant trees, plant trees like there's no tomorrow, which there might not be.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » 15 Apr 2009, 09:20

It's 'all systems go' to find the Holy Grail.....

Carbon Abatement Technologies Funding Competition:
http://innovation.globalwatchonline.com ... a0/?mode=0

The UK Technology Strategy Board, in partnership with The Northern Way and the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC’s) Environmental Transformation Fund, have allocated up to £15M to invest in innovative collaborative research, development, component and pilot scale demonstration, in the area of carbon abatement technologies.

Continues.....

goslow · Post by **goslow** » 15 Apr 2009, 10:04

maybe its still worth doing where the geological formations are close by like in the North Sea for the UK, but it will be only used in a minority of power plants worldwide. CCS will also increase the cost of electricity generated x2 at least so it will need a high carbon cost to make financial sense.