You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #71: Sorry if I was a little tetchy... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. Sorry if I was a little tetchy...
...I thought I'd made it clear in #53, but I know what it's like when you get a brain worm. This is future perfect continuous* 'burying', as in "we will to need to bury the CO2, and we will have to leave it a buried state forever".

Hope this clears it up. :)

(*I think. It's been a while since I did grammar!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -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 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC