ramapo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-27-06 03:09 PM
Response to Original message |
|
We've already ignored technology that drastically cuts emissions. You know...that old, "It is too expensive to implement and will hurt people and wreck the economy...." argument.
Of course, even removing carbon from the emission stream does nothing to negate the absolute destruction caused by strip mining. What about mercury and all the other bad stuff emitted by coal plants? Does that get stripped out too?
|
| -Should we ignore a technology that traps all the carbon emmissions of coal fired power plants? |
JohnWxy |
Nov-27-06 03:06 PM |
#0 |
 -
Sure...why not? |
ramapo |
Nov-27-06 03:09 PM |
#1 |
  -
according to the proponents all the pollutants can be pulled out. |
JohnWxy |
Nov-27-06 03:26 PM |
#6 |
| -
Now That's Something I Never Think of |
ribofunk |
Nov-27-06 03:59 PM |
#9 |
| -
Please note that IGCC goes far beyond scrubbed coal. the pollutants are |
JohnWxy |
Nov-27-06 07:43 PM |
#23 |
| -
If we can't get rid of the CO2 |
texastoast |
Nov-27-06 03:15 PM |
#2 |
| -
I agree, I don't think it's been absolutely proven CO2 can be stored indefinitely in the earth. |
JohnWxy |
Nov-27-06 03:32 PM |
#7 |
| -
My chem isn't up to this, but... |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-27-06 04:01 PM |
#10 |
| -
natural gas coming out of the ground has 30-40% CO2 in it already |
leftupnorth |
Nov-27-06 04:07 PM |
#12 |
| -
Define "large amounts" |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-27-06 09:31 PM |
#27 |
| -
¿Que? |
TheMadMonk |
Nov-27-06 04:12 PM |
#15 |
| -
Regarde: |
JohnWxy |
Nov-27-06 07:13 PM |
#20 |
| -
.. more on carbon sequestration: |
JohnWxy |
Nov-27-06 07:16 PM |
#21 |
| -
Yes |
stuckinlodi |
Nov-27-06 03:15 PM |
#3 |
| -
The real advantage of IGCE is efficiency, meaning less fuel use & hence less CO2 emissions |
TheBorealAvenger |
Nov-27-06 03:16 PM |
#4 |
| -
Maybe you haven't heard that Statoil is using the CO2 to push out oil. |
NNadir |
Nov-27-06 03:21 PM |
#5 |
| -
to quote the article: |
JohnWxy |
Nov-27-06 04:08 PM |
#13 |
| -
Note that the numbers say otherwise. "Could" is not "is." |
NNadir |
Nov-27-06 08:07 PM |
#25 |
| -
YOu are confussed |
JohnWxy |
Nov-28-06 02:50 PM |
#35 |
| -
Confussed (sic) indeed. |
NNadir |
Nov-28-06 08:00 PM |
#45 |
| -
"No technology to ignore"?? Your words: "Statoil is using the CO2 to push out oil." |
JohnWxy |
Nov-29-06 02:50 PM |
#52 |
| -
Um, pumping more fossil fuels is not sequestration. |
NNadir |
Nov-29-06 03:40 PM |
#58 |
| -
So let me get this straight: |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-27-06 09:39 PM |
#28 |
| -
You have mis-quoted Prof Ewing, let me repeat his statement: |
JohnWxy |
Nov-28-06 02:34 PM |
#34 |
| -
I guess it depends on your fuel cycle. |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-28-06 03:30 PM |
#36 |
| -
Reprocessing only increases the volume of high level waste from spent fuel |
jpak |
Nov-28-06 03:39 PM |
#37 |
| -
Got a cite for that 100,000 years? |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-28-06 04:12 PM |
#38 |
| -
Here ya go... |
jpak |
Nov-29-06 11:55 AM |
#47 |
| -
I think the GEOCARB models... |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-29-06 12:49 PM |
#48 |
| -
A most excellent reference book for homework |
jpak |
Nov-29-06 01:26 PM |
#49 |
| -
I refer to anyone who seems to know what he is talking about. I do not pretend to have |
JohnWxy |
Nov-28-06 07:09 PM |
#41 |
| -
An IGCC power plant with sequestration is a more difficult undertaking than a nuclear power plant. |
hunter |
Nov-28-06 07:44 PM |
#42 |
| -
Can you say "double standards"? |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-28-06 07:50 PM |
#43 |
| -
Carbon sequestration should only be necessary for 50 to 70 (maybe 100) years. |
JohnWxy |
Nov-29-06 02:40 PM |
#51 |
| -
You still don't get it, John. |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-29-06 03:04 PM |
#53 |
| -
there are those who are convinced it will work. Natural gas contained underground for millions of |
JohnWxy |
Nov-29-06 07:07 PM |
#61 |
| -
So long as they agree with you, for a guess. |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-29-06 08:43 PM |
#66 |
| -
Eek! |
Nihil |
Nov-30-06 03:58 AM |
#67 |
| -
Eek, indeed! |
hunter |
Nov-30-06 11:36 AM |
#68 |
| -
NO, not "so long as they agree with me". I am interested in legitimate, well founded investigations |
JohnWxy |
Nov-30-06 12:32 PM |
#69 |
| -
If they have... |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-30-06 08:41 PM |
#72 |
| -
some information on carbon sequestration and work done by Geochemist James Johnson, Lawrence |
JohnWxy |
Nov-29-06 07:31 PM |
#63 |
| -
a better article on Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's research on carbon sequestration. |
JohnWxy |
Nov-29-06 07:41 PM |
#64 |
| -
BTW Carbon sequestration of CO2 from IGCC should only be necessary for 50 to 100 (max) yrs |
JohnWxy |
Nov-29-06 02:37 PM |
#50 |
| -
If you are going to criticise my ability to think |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-29-06 03:09 PM |
#54 |
| -
May I quote you (just once)?: "happy with burying 2 trillion tons" |
JohnWxy |
Nov-29-06 03:39 PM |
#57 |
| -
If there was a point to that post, I missed it. nt |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-29-06 03:47 PM |
#59 |
| -
okay, what the hell. I'll give it another try. I responded to your post: |
JohnWxy |
Nov-29-06 07:00 PM |
#60 |
| -
Oh, for pity's sake. |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-29-06 07:18 PM |
#62 |
| -
OH my, you are quite the thespian? LOL |
JohnWxy |
Nov-29-06 07:50 PM |
#65 |
| -
The pity is you still haven't told me why you said: |
JohnWxy |
Nov-30-06 01:25 PM |
#70 |
| -
Sorry if I was a little tetchy... |
Dead_Parrot |
Nov-30-06 07:54 PM |
#71 |
| -
Sequestration is very viable and will happen. |
XemaSab |
Nov-27-06 08:02 PM |
#24 |
| -
I'm sorry, but I don't believe it. |
NNadir |
Nov-27-06 09:14 PM |
#26 |
| -
It's like any other alternative technology |
XemaSab |
Nov-27-06 10:33 PM |
#29 |
| -
I think it is dangerous to use fossil fuels under all scenarios. |
NNadir |
Nov-28-06 08:45 AM |
#30 |
| -
All that coal is already sequestered. Leave it be. |
hunter |
Nov-27-06 03:42 PM |
#8 |
| -
Absolutely...... |
ClintonTyree |
Nov-27-06 04:10 PM |
#14 |
| -
Hey, I've got a radical idea. |
TheMadMonk |
Nov-27-06 07:29 PM |
#22 |
| -
please provide some links. IF IGCC is not for real I would appreciate some substantive |
JohnWxy |
Nov-27-06 04:14 PM |
#16 |
| -
I think the burden of proof is on you. |
hunter |
Nov-27-06 05:07 PM |
#17 |
| -
Here is some more info f rom Chemical and Engineering News: |
JohnWxy |
Nov-27-06 06:59 PM |
#18 |
| -
Here is some info on carbon sequestration currently being done: |
JohnWxy |
Nov-27-06 07:04 PM |
#19 |
| -
A coalition of utilities and the DOE built the first IGCC plant in CA back in the '90's |
jpak |
Nov-28-06 12:34 PM |
#32 |
| -
Really GOOD links. Informative. good reads! anyone really interested in understanding this |
JohnWxy |
Nov-28-06 01:15 PM |
#33 |
| -
Cough, cough, gasp-no... |
acmejack |
Nov-27-06 04:01 PM |
#11 |
| -
"...so far no leakage has been detected." Until, of course, it is. |
eppur_se_muova |
Nov-28-06 12:07 PM |
#31 |
| -
Oh yeah, this sounds just GREAT: |
kestrel91316 |
Nov-28-06 05:43 PM |
#39 |
| -
Holy shit Batman |
FogerRox |
Nov-28-06 06:53 PM |
#40 |
| -
If I were them I wouldn't use TECO as an example of Clean Coal |
seasat |
Nov-28-06 07:56 PM |
#44 |
| -
My interest is the IGCC technology. Industry practices in energy and in mining are unacceptable. |
JohnWxy |
Nov-29-06 03:29 PM |
#56 |
| -
Reading the article, it states that each plant costs $1 billion or more to build |
NickB79 |
Nov-28-06 09:32 PM |
#46 |
| -
I'm glad you at least read the article before commenting. Did you notice that operating costs are |
JohnWxy |
Nov-29-06 03:16 PM |
#55 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread