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

Skip to comments.

Clean coal test traps 95 percent carbon: Norway firm (Won't be good enough for the eco-terrorist)
Reuters ^ | 11/16/2007 | Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

Posted on 11/16/2007 6:25:07 AM PST by tobyhill

OSLO (Reuters) - Tests of a new technology for capturing greenhouse gases from coal-fired power plants have achieved 95 percent cuts in a step towards new ways to fight climate change, a Norwegian company said on Friday.

"It's a breakthrough for us," Henrik Fleischer, chief executive of Sargas technology group, said of tests held since October of a prototype at the Vartan power plant, run by Finnish energy group Fortum (FUM1V.HE: Quote, Profile, Research) in Stockholm.

"A competitive coal-fired power plant with carbon dioxide capture could be built today with this technology," he told Reuters. "It could produce energy at competitive costs."

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 11/16/2007 6:25:09 AM PST by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Sweet! We should retrofit every coal fired plant in the nation with it and go electric car immediately.


2 posted on 11/16/2007 6:27:01 AM PST by domenad (In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Anyone with any brains knows this is the way to go...together with the drilling in Alaska and other areas.


3 posted on 11/16/2007 6:28:06 AM PST by Sacajaweau ("The Cracker" will be renamed "The Crapper")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Didn’t they just reject a new coal plant in Kansas that was shown to reduce a lot more CO2 emissions over standard coal plants?

You’re right, not good enough for the environ-whackos. And they’ll be the first ones blaming Bush for higher electric costs.


4 posted on 11/16/2007 6:30:16 AM PST by Slapshot68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Anyone with any brains knows this is the way to go...together with the drilling in Alaska and other areas.

Assuming the global warming alarmists scare-mongering is anywhere near true, but nuclear power would also make sense.

5 posted on 11/16/2007 6:31:29 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: domenad
The eco-terrorist will find something wrong with it the same way they’ve crapped on the nuclear energy market.
6 posted on 11/16/2007 6:31:39 AM PST by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68
They’ll challenge any attempts to build anywhere in the 9th Circuit and somehow connect it to that district even if it’s in Alabama.
7 posted on 11/16/2007 6:33:33 AM PST by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Curious...since plants use CO2, perhaps an infrastructure could be built similar to that of natural gas delivery where captured C02 is delivered to farms to improve food yields.

Would pumping C02 into the air in a cornfield, for example, improve growth and also process the C02 into O2?


8 posted on 11/16/2007 6:36:45 AM PST by chrisser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68

“You’re right, not good enough for the environ-whackos.”
You’re right. They’ll want it to be closer to 100%. And when you try to eke out those last few %points, things get fabulously expensive, essentially rendering the whole effort a useless waste of time and money. I know, because I have to deal with the EPA on a daily basis.


9 posted on 11/16/2007 6:40:50 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ("Don't touch that thing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
"Anyone with any brains knows this is the way to go."

I have a brain, and it sure isn't obvious to me. What do you do with millions of tons of pressurized C02 gas?

10 posted on 11/16/2007 6:41:01 AM PST by norwaypinesavage (Planting trees to offset carbon emissions is like drinking water to offset rising ocean levels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chrisser
Why yes it would. What you are describing is what every eco-idiot refuses to acknowledge, plants need CO2 to survive and in return we get Oxygen to survive then as we exhale the plants get more CO2. This is also why scientist believe talking to a plant actually helps it grow.
11 posted on 11/16/2007 6:44:07 AM PST by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
Chemical plants that make fertilizers would snatch it up.
12 posted on 11/16/2007 6:45:23 AM PST by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

Rising Carbon Dioxide Is Great for Plants

http://www.purgit.com/co2ok.html


13 posted on 11/16/2007 6:52:15 AM PST by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

Make dry ice ?


14 posted on 11/16/2007 6:53:30 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Go Hawks !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Very good idea. It can be sent to 3rd world nations as a refrigerant.
15 posted on 11/16/2007 6:54:50 AM PST by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Not to mention all the bars and taverns in the world where beer kegs are chilled with CO2 bottles. First shipments should be to the UK.


16 posted on 11/16/2007 6:57:42 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Go Hawks !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

You are on a roll.


17 posted on 11/16/2007 7:01:02 AM PST by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

CO2 is not used in fertilizer.


18 posted on 11/16/2007 7:06:53 AM PST by norwaypinesavage (Planting trees to offset carbon emissions is like drinking water to offset rising ocean levels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Not to mention all the bars and taverns in the world where beer kegs are chilled with CO2 bottles.

The CO2 is released into the keg to force out the beer. It is better than pushing in air, because they air will allow the beer to go flat, the CO2 will not.

It really isn't used to keep the beer cold, although it dies cool as it expands into a gas, so it does have some cooling effect.

19 posted on 11/16/2007 7:09:09 AM PST by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
"Rising Carbon Dioxide Is Great for Plants"

You have millions of tons of it, it is pressurized, it is located at powerplants, and you can't release it into the air. How do you inject it into the plants, and then prevent the plants from decomposing, which releases the CO2 back into the air?

20 posted on 11/16/2007 7:09:51 AM PST by norwaypinesavage (Planting trees to offset carbon emissions is like drinking water to offset rising ocean levels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

I was always told that it propelled and chilled beer. But beverage expert hardly, I.


21 posted on 11/16/2007 7:21:49 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Go Hawks !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: chrisser

Not sure how a system like that would work, but maybe in a contained environment like greenhouses might benefit.


22 posted on 11/16/2007 7:22:48 AM PST by Blue Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: domenad

No, they are too busy building old style, inefficient plants all over Texas. There seems to be zero interest.


23 posted on 11/16/2007 7:25:03 AM PST by Unassuaged (I have shocking data relevant to the conversation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Blue Highway
"Not sure how a system like that would work, but maybe in a contained environment like greenhouses might benefit."

I agree, I'm not sure how it would work, either. There are millions of tons, annually, its pressurized, and it can't be released into the air. Plants in a greenhouse would use just a few pounds of it. The logistics just aren't there.

24 posted on 11/16/2007 7:30:07 AM PST by norwaypinesavage (Planting trees to offset carbon emissions is like drinking water to offset rising ocean levels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68

The enviro-weenies won’t be satisfied until we’re living in mud huts and eating bugs.


25 posted on 11/16/2007 7:37:57 AM PST by reagan_fanatic (Ron Paul put the cuckoo in my Cocoa Puffs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic

Yeah while they live in their Park Avenue Penthouse sipping Perrier telling the masses to keep eating roots and grubs, and enjoy their mud huts provided by Jimmy Carter and Habitat For Humanity, which was made possible through HUD.


26 posted on 11/16/2007 7:42:36 AM PST by Blue Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Well, every time you drink a carbonated beverage, you release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Fermentation creates CO2.

Maybe what we need to do in order to expose they whole man-made global warming myth is to personalize the issue for millions of Americans and tell them that they are coming for their beer next. (girlie malt beverages as well)

Then when snobbish people say it doesn't effect them, remind them that wine is fermented too.

27 posted on 11/16/2007 7:48:27 AM PST by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

When the time comes that humans cannot pass gas legally, we know we are near the end.


28 posted on 11/16/2007 7:53:12 AM PST by Blue Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

This assumes that CO2 is “dirty”

It is not.

It is not a pollutant.

There is nothing new about CO2 scrubbers (I designed one in college 25 years ago). It is an expensive piece of equipment, whose cost, if implemented, would be passed down to the consumer. The added cost would provide an insignificant contribution to not solving a non-problem.


29 posted on 11/16/2007 7:59:10 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

CO2 is half the equation in the production of urea fertilizer.


30 posted on 11/16/2007 8:00:37 AM PST by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

CO2 is half the equation in the production of urea fertilizer.


31 posted on 11/16/2007 8:00:54 AM PST by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heart

Double posting does not indicate an increase in percentage of CO2


32 posted on 11/16/2007 8:01:50 AM PST by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

So ... whats the problem with atmospheric CO2?


33 posted on 11/16/2007 8:07:44 AM PST by agere_contra (Do not confuse the wealth of nations with the wealth of government - FDT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
When I worked at a refinery, one of the sales reps wanted to sell our CO2 to a Kosher pickle bottler. We couldn’t make the sale unless our CO2 unit was dubbed officially Kosher. The bottler was Jewish and he was able to arrange for a rabbi to come by and inspect the unit. We explained how the system worked and the rabbi was of good humor and approved our CO2.
34 posted on 11/16/2007 8:12:48 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Go Hawks !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heart
"CO2 is half the equation in the production of urea fertilizer."

Yes, but CO2 is a waste product in the production of ammonia and is used for the production of urea in the same production plants. CO2 is not imported to the production plant, particularly, in large quantities of pressurized CO2 gas.

35 posted on 11/16/2007 8:30:55 AM PST by norwaypinesavage (Planting trees to offset carbon emissions is like drinking water to offset rising ocean levels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
"So ... whats the problem with atmospheric CO2?"

Algore doesn't like it. Besides, he served in Vietnam, and won the Nobel Peace Prize.

36 posted on 11/16/2007 8:32:49 AM PST by norwaypinesavage (Planting trees to offset carbon emissions is like drinking water to offset rising ocean levels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Blue Highway
Not sure how a system like that would work, but maybe in a contained environment like greenhouses might benefit

Maybe dovetailing it onto the irrigation systems? How about just running inflatable "pipes" down the rows and releasing a steady stream of CO2 at ground level whenever the sun is shining (I'm under the assumption that CO2 is primarily used during photosynthesis...). I'm sure with some simple monitors, the air above the crops could be checked for excess C02 from ambient and the levels adjusted to only supply what the crop can utilize.

Personally, I don't really care if extra goes into the air - I don't subscribe to the quackery of anthropogenic global warming. I'm more interested in increasing crop yields with something that would otherwise be a waste product...
37 posted on 11/16/2007 8:35:35 AM PST by chrisser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: All

Sure, store 50 years of carbon dioxide under the ground and pray an earthquake doesn’t release it all at once.

The only solution the eco-terrorists, greens and democrats will be happy with is to kill 4 billion humans. But that is Politically Incorrect. Doublethink.


38 posted on 11/16/2007 8:35:47 AM PST by Hunterite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

It gives me a headache.


39 posted on 11/16/2007 8:43:24 AM PST by Always Independent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: chrisser

“Maybe dovetailing it onto the irrigation systems? How about just running inflatable “pipes” down the rows and releasing a steady stream of CO2 at ground level whenever the sun is shining (I’m under the assumption that CO2 is primarily used during photosynthesis...). I’m sure with some simple monitors, the air above the crops could be checked for excess C02 from ambient and the levels adjusted to only supply what the crop can utilize.

Personally, I don’t really care if extra goes into the air - I don’t subscribe to the quackery of anthropogenic global warming. I’m more interested in increasing crop yields with something that would otherwise be a waste product...”

You know how fast air molecules mix.


40 posted on 11/16/2007 8:43:27 AM PST by Hunterite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: chrisser
I agree, I'd be more interested in the benefit to crop yields. Looks like I will be talking to my plants more often now hehe.

As a side note how harmful is cigarette smoke to plants? I know there are other pollutants like carbon monoxide, but would the extra carbon dioxide counter that?

41 posted on 11/16/2007 9:05:36 AM PST by Blue Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

I am just going to assume your answer to my double post is the same:)


42 posted on 11/16/2007 10:04:42 AM PST by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: domenad

I work on mowers; when I change the oil I store the 2/3 quart in a five gallon bucket until full.

I then am forced to get in the car and drive two miles to the auto parts store where they will let me dump the bucket in the approved waste tank - once each day by law.

What’s it going to cost to dump all these “buckets” of waste CO2, transport them to another site, pump them into the ground or oil fields, etc?


43 posted on 11/16/2007 10:17:14 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chrisser

It would be viewed as dumping a few million gallons of used oil on your gravel or dirt roads on the south forty with the notion of allowing it to eventually make its way back to the local oil deposit from whence it came.


44 posted on 11/16/2007 10:19:40 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

Or any adsorbent used in the process?


45 posted on 11/16/2007 10:20:31 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/CO2%20Retrofit%20From%20Existing%20Plants%20Revised%20November%202007.pdf


46 posted on 11/16/2007 10:27:17 AM PST by RAY (God Bless the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kidd
I’m not assuming CO2 is a pollutant, the story is and what the story implies is that eco-terrorist would be satisfied with 95% of the non-pollutant being trapped for us to finally get to use more coal. The cost will be more but we can get away from the terrorist crude if that’s what people want and are willing to pay for.
47 posted on 11/16/2007 10:42:40 AM PST by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

Scientist have their work cut out for them. It will eventually go back in the air but the question is, can it be of use with a combination of nitrogen, keeping it green, prior to release.


48 posted on 11/16/2007 10:52:21 AM PST by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
What do you do with millions of tons of pressurized C02 gas?

This technology could be the solution for that.

49 posted on 11/16/2007 11:05:06 AM PST by Ditto (Global Warming: The 21st Century's Snake Oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
I’m not assuming CO2 is a pollutant, the story is

Of course. I was adressing the story. I apologize for any confusion. The cost will be more but we can get away from the terrorist crude if that’s what people want and are willing to pay for.

Yes. I would willingly pay more for gasoline or electricity if we could eliminate mideast and Venezuellan oil.

50 posted on 11/16/2007 3:34:37 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | 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