JohnWxy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-28-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
|
YOu are confused: YOu stated i said"
"nonsensical crap about "all" of Europe's carbon dioxide when if fact the actual number is 0.05% of "all" of Europe's carbon dioxide if the system ever functions."
My post included a quote from a Statoil representative abaout the potential of the entire sandstone formation under the NOrth Sea. NOte that he refers to "all the CO2 emmissions from every poewr plant in Europe" that is NOT the same as all the CO2 emmissions from ALL Sources in Europe.
"Statoil estimates that all the carbon dioxide emissions of from every power plant in Europe for the next 600 years could be stored in the (sandstone) formation."
the "crap" you attribute to me is from a Statoil representative and you didn't understand that he was referring to the potential of the entire sandstone formation and only the CO2 emmissions for powerplants - not form all sources.
YOur statement that Statoil says it can store 2.5 million tons per year - refers to a project where they are storing CO2 eleases from 2 specific sources only
"The project consists of a gas-fired power plant and methanol production facility at Tjeldbergodden in Mid-Norway, providing CO2 to the Draugen and Heidrun offshore oil and gas fields."
"Shell and Statoil have signed an agreement to work towards developing the world's largest project using carbon dioxide (CO2) for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) offshore. The concept involves capturing CO2 from power generation and utilizing it to enhance oil recovery, resulting in increased energy production with lower CO2 impact. ~~ ~~ " The project could potentially store approximately 2- 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 annually in two different fields."
This is entirely different matter than the question of the capacity of the entire sandstone formation under the North Sea.
|
| -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 |