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 ...
Sweet! We should retrofit every coal fired plant in the nation with it and go electric car immediately.
Anyone with any brains knows this is the way to go...together with the drilling in Alaska and other areas.
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.
Assuming the global warming alarmists scare-mongering is anywhere near true, but nuclear power would also make sense.
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?
“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.
I have a brain, and it sure isn't obvious to me. What do you do with millions of tons of pressurized C02 gas?
Make dry ice ?
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.
You are on a roll.
CO2 is not used in fertilizer.
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.
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?
I was always told that it propelled and chilled beer. But beverage expert hardly, I.
Not sure how a system like that would work, but maybe in a contained environment like greenhouses might benefit.
No, they are too busy building old style, inefficient plants all over Texas. There seems to be zero interest.
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.
The enviro-weenies won’t be satisfied until we’re living in mud huts and eating bugs.
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.
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.
When the time comes that humans cannot pass gas legally, we know we are near the end.
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.
CO2 is half the equation in the production of urea fertilizer.
CO2 is half the equation in the production of urea fertilizer.
Double posting does not indicate an increase in percentage of CO2
So ... whats the problem with atmospheric CO2?
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.
Algore doesn't like it. Besides, he served in Vietnam, and won the Nobel Peace Prize.
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.
It gives me a headache.
“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.
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?
I am just going to assume your answer to my double post is the same:)
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?
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.
Or any adsorbent used in the process?
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.
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.
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.