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

[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."

[Blue Highway]

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?

[Cold Heart]

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

[Old Professer]

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?

[Old Professer]

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.

[Old Professer]

Or any adsorbent used in the process?

[RAY]

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

[tobyhill]

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.

[tobyhill]

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.

[Ditto]

What do you do with millions of tons of pressurized C02 gas?

This technology could be the solution for that.

[kidd]

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.