Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Flagship UK carbon capture project 'close to collapse'
The Guardian ^ | 10/06/2011 | Terry Macalister and Damian Carrington

Posted on 10/10/2011 6:17:16 AM PDT by RobertClark

A £1bn flagship government project for fighting climate change – the construction of a prototype carbon capture and storage (CCS) project at Longannet in Scotland – is on the verge of collapse, it emerged on Thursday.

Talks between the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) and Scottish Power have run into deep trouble and the electricity supplier is expected to pull the plug on the government-promoted scheme, which hoped to bury carbon emissions from the coal power station in the North Sea.

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: algore; climate; climatechange; exchange; globalwarming; scotland; uk
We keep running full speed toward the brick wall that the UK and Europe are beginning to figure out may not be a worthy endeavor.
1 posted on 10/10/2011 6:17:20 AM PDT by RobertClark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith

Ping.


2 posted on 10/10/2011 6:23:25 AM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark
Carbon capture project 'close to collapse'

Economics vs. thermodynamics. Guess which one wins.

I'll give you a hint: the winner the actual science.

3 posted on 10/10/2011 6:25:58 AM PDT by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

They should compress the CO2 and send it via rocket into space so it can harmlessly fertilize the universe.

(Kidding)


4 posted on 10/10/2011 6:27:48 AM PDT by listenhillary (Look your representatives in the eye and ask if they intend to pay off the debt. They will look away)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

Scam didn’t hold out for to long did it?


5 posted on 10/10/2011 6:29:15 AM PDT by ronnie raygun (V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

If it wasn’t for the meddling the one percenters, we could afford this.

(kidding again)


6 posted on 10/10/2011 6:29:52 AM PDT by listenhillary (Look your representatives in the eye and ask if they intend to pay off the debt. They will look away)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

If you release the energy from the coal, and then use even more energy to capture the byproduct of that coal energy release you will go broke...........


7 posted on 10/10/2011 6:31:56 AM PDT by Red Badger (Furthermore, I think Obama must be impeached....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

What do we want? Carbon capture and storage! When do we want it? Uh... soon?


8 posted on 10/10/2011 6:32:42 AM PDT by palmer (Before reading this post, please send me $2.50)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

How about making diamonds out of the carbon?


9 posted on 10/10/2011 6:33:01 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps; golux; SteamShovel; Bockscar; Thunder90; rdl6989; marvlus; Fractal Trader; ...
Thanx for the ping Army Air Corps !

 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

10 posted on 10/10/2011 6:37:31 AM PDT by steelyourfaith (If it's "green" ... it's crap !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

Give the liberals credit! You can’t call this a Ponzi Scheme!


11 posted on 10/10/2011 6:39:05 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

A £1bn (and remember that’s a British billion, meaning what we call a trillion, so that’s about $1.56 trillion dollars) spent on the pointless activity of removing CO2 from power plant emissions. Not SO2, not mercury, not soot, removal of which would at least produce some health benefit to those downwind, but CO2. And it’s “near collapse”? In economic terms it was collapsed from the very conception since it produces no benefit to anyone and is thus economically unsupportable. But then again “green” policies never seem to be subjected to cost-benefit analyses.


12 posted on 10/10/2011 6:43:17 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

I can’t wait for history to look back at the loons impacting our energy policies for the last 25 years and marvel at the sheer magnitude of stupid.


13 posted on 10/10/2011 6:47:05 AM PDT by listenhillary (Look your representatives in the eye and ask if they intend to pay off the debt. They will look away)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

At least pyramid building was good for tourism.


14 posted on 10/10/2011 6:56:52 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

The old saw about a fool and his money applies to entire nations as well.


15 posted on 10/10/2011 7:00:24 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
If you release the energy from the coal, and then use even more energy to capture the byproduct of that coal energy release you will go broke...........

You might have to say that slower for members of the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

16 posted on 10/10/2011 7:06:18 AM PDT by Rinnwald
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
A £1bn (and remember that’s a British billion, meaning what we call a trillion

I assure you that a British billion is the same as an American billion. What we call a trillion, they call a thousand billion (still the same number, though).

17 posted on 10/10/2011 7:07:33 AM PDT by BfloGuy (Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark
...which hoped to bury carbon emissions from the coal power station in the North Sea.

And inadvertently create giant CO2 bubbles out in the North Sea, releasing the CO2 back in the atmosphere anyway, perhaps topple some fishing boats or naval vessels, then kill the survivors in the water's surface where the CO2 would settle and slowly dissipate - killing any animal in its path.

FAIL

18 posted on 10/10/2011 7:30:05 AM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

When did that happen? They’ve gone provincial on the other side of the Pond and adopted our way of dealing with large numbers? That was always one of the notable differences between the American and British dialects, more notable than bonnet v. hood, boot v. trunk, or lift v. elevator.


19 posted on 10/10/2011 10:09:08 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
I think it changed by UK govt. edict in the 70’s - from the Oxford dickshionery -

In British English, a billion used to be equivalent to a million million (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000), while in American English it has always equated to a thousand million (i.e. 1,000,000,000). British English has now adopted the American figure, though, so that a billion equals a thousand million in both varieties of English.

The same sort of change has taken place with the meaning of trillion. In British English, a trillion used to mean a million million million (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000,000,000). Nowadays, it's generally held to be equivalent to a million million (1,000,000,000,000), as it is in American English.

20 posted on 10/10/2011 11:05:11 AM PDT by az_gila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; ...
DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

21 posted on 10/10/2011 1:10:25 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy Atlanta General Assembly: We are worthless losers. WE ARE WORTHLESS LOSERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

Why don’t they just plant a forest around the plant? Trees will “capture carbon” without costing the taxpayers a dime.

Give me one tenth of that billion, and I’ll go Johnny Appleseed on their carbon problem :)


22 posted on 10/10/2011 2:27:52 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Give me one tenth of that billion, and I’ll go Johnny Appleseed on their carbon problem :)

Dang it man! Now I need another keyboard. Where did I put the spare - the one WITHOUT all the coffee sprayed on it?

23 posted on 10/10/2011 2:38:29 PM PDT by RobertClark (It's better to look goofy with a rifle, than civilized with an exit wound.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

Carbon capture - How can such smart people be so stupid?

It shows how powerful an ideology can be.


24 posted on 10/10/2011 3:38:13 PM PDT by Rocky (REPEAL IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

Here is my idea for5 carbon capture...

Build a freeking series of greenhouses next to any coal or natural gas fired power stations and pipe in the CO2 into those greenhouses growing hydroponic tomatoes and other vegetables.

Use the power and steam generated during off peak hours to power the extra lighting and heating the greenhouses need.

We could both capture the “oh so deadly CO2” and use the excess energy and put it to good use making food. Rather than just shoving it into the ground like how government money is spent....

Plus we wouldn’t have to rely on foreign countries as much for food, oh the horror....


25 posted on 10/11/2011 8:14:10 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson