Posted on 01/04/2024 11:18:47 AM PST by vpintheak
With state and federal money, University of Alaska researchers plan to explore the viability of a new coal plant in the Susitna River valley that would inject its carbon emissions underground...
(Excerpt) Read more at alaskabeacon.com ...
3rd paragraph has a laughable statement by critics. “Proven” technology of wind and solar... LOL!
In their Green Utopia, plants just grow. They don’t need CO2.
Greenies always seem to show smoke in the air,which actually
water vapor,steam.
Is any other research being done to create clean coal technology? I’ve not heard of any.
Oh no. Where’s Greta? How dare they?
Why not inject CO2 into tanks that can then be taken away and turned into useful products, like tires or whatever?
If CO2 really was a problem, which I highly doubt, why would you want to simply delay the inevitable by injecting into the ground?
Yep!
CO2 is a great life giving gas. Why deprive the Earth of this resource?
“ CO2 is a great life giving gas. Why deprive the Earth of this resource?”
I remember in high school biology class when they taught us that CO2 was the “miracle molecule” and that life was impossible without it.
I remember in high school biology class when they taught us that CO2 was the “miracle molecule” and that life was impossible without it.
Yep. They also used to promote natural gas power generation (something we have LOTS of) as good for the environment.
Their agenda is destructive.
Ask yourself - if it is really about “CO2” and “helping the oppressed” why are Western nations not spending “green” money to help developing nations clean up their coal emissions instead of spending huge sums for minimal gains here? They need electricity and they have coal so that is what they burn.
However, it’s not really about CO2 is it?
“However, it’s not really about CO2 is it?”
Nope. It’s about controlling us and getting the ignorant masses to push their “climate change” agenda to destroy modern civilization.
Same reason Bill Gates wants to bulldoze & bury forests.
“If CO2 really was a problem, which I highly doubt, why would you want to simply delay the inevitable by injecting into the ground?”
CO2 is interchangeable on a molecule for molecule basis for methane. Any natural gas reservoir that has held gas under pressure for millions of years will hold co2 for millions more. It’s not hard to find geologically stable sediments that have a caprock and miles of overlying sediments. Humans inject much nastier stuff down disposal wells every day in 50,000 barrel per day volumes in each well. Nasty as in salty, carcinogen contaminated, radioactive water from flow back of every oil well in the Midland or any other basin. Every oil well is a contaminated water well the oil/water split is almost always more water than oil in Midland it’s 1 oil to 6 water on average. This water must be isolated from th biosphere forever it’s far to contaminate to be allowed to mix with surface waters or worse in the fresh aquifers.
The point is humans have the technical knowledge to store gases and liquids underground for geological time scales. Nuclear wastes are also going to eventually be stored in deep bore holes it’s the way to be sure it’s isolated for millions of years. I personally developed,planned and supervised the drilling of over 75 deep salt water disposal wells one of my masters degrees is in Hydrogeology.
I don’t think it needs to be stored at all, but shipped out and re-used. Also, we know have the know-how to reduce nuclear storage to almost nothing. The new nuclear plants that are coming online are capable of recycling nuclear waste until it is nearly inert or inert. Nuclear storage is now potentially a thing of the past, or at least much reduced.
remember in high school biology class when they taught us that CO2 was the “miracle molecule” and that life was impossible without it.
___________________
Yes.
The main effect of rising the CO2 levels is the GREENING of the Earth. Well observed from the satellites, the deserts are shrinking and all over the Earth, the plants are growing a lot better.
It is actually an easy biology project to check how plants grow under different CO2 levels (many different publications) and the optimum is about double what we have now!
We need more CO2, not less!
Agreed, CO2 is a valuable industrial chemical. My point was that humans have all the tech we need to store it underground indefinitely if we needed too. We don’t we should use any bulk captured CO2 to make polymers (plastics,glues,resins), carbon based chemicals,synthetic liquid/gaseous fuels, enhanced oil recovery, enhanced greenhouse plant growth...Ect.
Science has already figured out how to turn CO2 directly into food(sugars,acetic as well using nothing but CO2 electricity and water.
Acetic acid is not only industrial a keychemical it’s also the primary energy source in a cow’s gut tract you can feed acetic acid directly to cattle in pellet form. The whole fermentation process of the cow’s four chamber stomach is for it’s symbiotic bacterial colonies to turn cellulose into acetic acid one of the three key fatty acids that literally power the cow.
Acetic acid corresponding base molecule also can be made directly from CO2. You can grow in vats huge quantities of high quality nutritionally complete protein read animal feed for monogastrics(chickens,pigs,fish,shellfish) even humans think protein bars or powder for body builders or elderly ensure type drinks. You also can grow plants directly on a hydroponic feed of acetate in the dark the plants will use the chemical energy in the acetate for growth rather than photosynthesis. This allows massive stack and pack warehouse style plant growth no sunlight needed. Think space travel food sources.
CO2 plus electricity equals an myriad of products CO2 is to valuable to bury it underground indefinitely. That electricity can come from nuclear power <<< this is the way with fast reactors and virtually zero wastes. Or if you foolishly built out massive over capacity with wind and solar instead of curtailing the production when the grid cannot handle the electricity you dump it into electosynthesis of chemicals that then can be used industrially.
I’m a huge fan of the integral fast reactor that Jimmy Fing Carter shut down for communist reasons. That IFR recycled every bit of it’s spent fuel except for it’s.fission products that were turned into glass and could be stored down deep bore holes for a few thousand years not millions before it decayed to safe levels.
Even without IRF tech the modern once through fuel cycles waste stream is still so dense deep bore holes make economical sense. It is hugely wasteful to dump 96% perfectly good fuel down a borehole because Jimmy Carter killed our reprocessing program. To put it into perspective the LIFETIME electricity consumption of the average American if powered solely by once through nuclear power waste volume would fit into a 12 ounce soup can. It works out to about 34 grams per year of spent fuel wastes. At 10 grams per cubic cm density 77 years fits into ~300cm^3 or 10 US ounces of volume. <<< read this again and then think about how much ash waste a coal plant makes per kWh per year for an annual 12,000kWh over 77 years. Then think about if we had fast reactors that waste volume would be 6% of a 12 ounce coke can for the lifetime electricity consumption of the average American that alone should mean nuclear power is the future for any long term industrialized society.
As always a slew of reference materials to support the above statements.
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2023/05/catalyst-transforms-carbon-dioxide/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021925818517518/pdf
https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202308/24/WS64e697a9a31035260b81de21.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435122004081
https://netl.doe.gov/node/12678
https://whatisnuclear.com/calcs/how-much-nuclear-waste-per-capita.html
Just for grins I looked up how much ash a coal plant puts out on average per megawatt hour...
“Coal ash is the solid byproduct left over after coal is burned. Every megawatt hour generated in a coal plant leaves behind 185 pounds of ash.”
The average American uses 12,000kWh per year in electricity that’s 2,220lbs per year or 170,940lbs over a 77 year lifetime. Compare that to 2.281kg = 5.02lbs of spent fuel which is still 96% useable fuel. 170,940lbs vs 5 the choice for a modern civilization could not be more clear. Remember coal ash is chemically toxic, full of heavy metals including radioactive uranium and thorium so.much so that the coal plant releases 10,000 times more radiation into the environment via it’s ash and stack gasses than a nuclear power plant does on a megawatt to megawatt basis. It should be a crime against humanity to burn coal in the open air while denying nuclear power building permits.
Coal ash must also be entombed for all of eternity it’s chemical toxicity never wanes and it’s radioactivity is all long lived heavy metal isotopes with very long half life’s but they are gamma emitters so once inside the body they bioaccumulate and keep emitting gamma rays damaging DNA for the life of the person.
Coal should be put in the dust bin of history at least for open air burn to the sky uses. Underground coal gasification is a entirely different animal and keeps the ash,toxic metals and radioactive metals right where they belong thousands of feet underground while allowing the extraction of 85% of the coals energy. Bonus of UCG is only 1/6 of the world’s coals are mineable UCG opens up six times more resources. These include Coal to deep to mine, offshore coals on the continental shelf, thin seam coals, steeply inclined bed coals the number is staggering over ten trillion metric tonnes worth. Other than methane hydrates which dwarfs all other hydrocarbons coal is second oil is far far behind both. Thousands of years worth of each where as light crude oils have 47 years left at 2021 consumption levels. We need nuclear with fast reactors and UCG plus Arctic/offshore methane hydrates post haste.
https://www.freeingenergy.com/environmental-impact-coal-water-co2-so2-mercury-pollution/
That may all be true, but I suspect it’s because we haven’t figured out how to turn it into a resource. Once we do that, it becomes an asset.
Methane hydrates have had two successful tests offshore and one in the Arctic onshore over permafrost. The reason right now is it’s cheaper to frac in Midland, and the East Coast than to go after deep water hydrates.
UCG is old technology the Soviets ran a number of sites for years and years during the 1980s ran power plants off the produced gases and also made synthetic fuels. Here again it’s cheaper to pay the Saudi’s for crude than to turn syngas into liquid fuels.
The fact is at 2021 consumption levels not counting on China’s massively growing middle class nor India’s growing middle class the supply of liquid hydrocarbons runs out in 47 to 40 years that’s with EOR, and tertiary recovery technologies at any price per bbl that’s technically recoverable oil not economically.
I have spent the better part of nearly two decades as a Geologist in this very industry. We need to move to other energy sources even if they are are expensive sooner than later to keep the world’s economy going and also feed 8+-billon mouths. Oil won’t end at $300+ bbl there will always be some out there even synthetic oils at that prices but the age of $100 and under will be over and if humans do not have other energy sources in use on a grand scale the collapse of the global energy system and its associated food system will be biblical in nature.
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.