PDA

View Full Version : clean coal,,,but i like oxygen



dagwill
19th November 2006, 11:30 AM
clean coal is gaining support rapidly,where co2 is removed from the smoke stack and burryed underground.Sounds great, but for every carbon atom ther are TWO oxygen atoms locked away for amillion years :eek: HELLO

smokey2
20th November 2006, 06:57 AM
Seems alot easier to do away with need for the reaction in the first place.
Reduce usage and substitute alternatives where possible.

But then we are the ones buying those $700 Fujitsu airconditioners that consume 3.5HP as oppoased to a much cheaper evaporative model that uses a tenth of the power.
or
a top load washing machine that uses much more hot water than a front loader.

etc

zigparacingtadpole
20th November 2006, 09:51 AM
Burying the carbon also has some other consequences that noone has really put much thought into. By burying it all we are effectively doing is taking the problem out of the sky and putting it into the ground. Sounds good in theory but its not really the solution. The solution is as you have stated, reduce usage and supply demand from cleaner sources. Carbon trading is touted as a solution but it really doesnt solve anything apart from making the company that manages the trading a fairly substantial amount of money. Reduce, re-use, recycle, and convince our government that it is worthwhile investing in 'Green Energy' infrastructure.

Global warming is real and it is happening. Last week was a great example, Bushfires in NSW, Snow in Vic and Tas, and big chunks of Antarctica floating around off the coast of NZ. The time to do something about it was yesterday, we will now continually be playing catchup.

Regards
Adam

"Revolution never comes with a warning!"

Slippery
24th November 2006, 01:25 PM
I was just wondering if anyone had thought of another problem with pumping all that gas underground.

Baloons pop when you over inflate them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

Tony From West Oz
25th November 2006, 12:20 AM
It will leak out. the earth is not a sealed container. Especially since we have been drill ing holes to get oil out.

Any seismic activity could cause a fissure through which the CO2 could leak out unnoiticed. Then suddenly, we have a MORE rapid increase in CO2, the biosphere will shutdown.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Goodbye.

Jake
25th November 2006, 09:08 AM
Some thoughts..

Energy saving: If my calculations are correct, the average electricity consumption in Australian households is 2780 kWh per person per year. Anything less than that and you're on the right track.

Green electricity: Available from most power companies. Much cheaper than installing your own solar panels or wind turbines.

Carbon trading: If implemented correctly, it not only provides additional carbon sinks but also a pricing mechanism that encourages better fuel choices and energy saving. In economic terms: previously externalised costs are internalised.

CO2 sequestration: Interesting development work is being done on feeding CO2 from power stations to algae ponds. Subsequently, oil is extracted from the algae.

Biofuelsimon
4th December 2006, 10:24 PM
How much energy does it take to clean the coal up, or convert it to diesel or gasoline?
How geologically stable are the areas that the carbon dioxide is being pumped into. They've been pretty stable for a long time, but that doesn't mean that the formations will be stable in the future. :confused:


pip pip

Marc1
5th December 2006, 06:36 AM
I always wondered why not remove the two oxigen atoms and turn CO2 into plain carbon. How much energy would that need?
I agree that burying it is clearly not a solution by any stretch of the imgination.

geewizztoo
5th December 2006, 12:28 PM
I always wondered why not remove the two oxigen atoms and turn CO2 into plain carbon. How much energy would that need?

Just sunlight, and the equipment needed is called a tree.

Biofuelsimon
5th December 2006, 07:29 PM
Yup, chlorophyll is a pretty good catalyst! Carbon dioxide is so persisitant because it is so stable. It takes a lot of energy to break it up...

Slippery
6th December 2006, 08:54 AM
<<[quote=Tony From West Oz;9285]It will leak out. the earth is not a sealed container. Especially since we have been drill ing holes to get oil out.

Any seismic activity could cause a fissure through which the CO2 could leak out unnoiticed. Then suddenly, we have a MORE rapid increase in CO2, the biosphere will shutdown.>>

So then why pump the stuff underground if it will just escape again.

My earlier post was a little facetious, but, when you think about this, if an earthquake causes a fracture in the crust, resulting in a mass leakage of CO2, thousands, maybe even millions of people could be gassed.

Imagine an earthquake and CO2 escape in say Kobe or San Fran:eek: .

Not as far fetched as we might imagine.

Slippery
Small steps taken one at atime.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

dagwill
31st January 2007, 08:30 PM
the prob is not CO2 escaping the prob is reacting ALL the O2 to begin with. Sure you can capture all the CO2 and store it but whats the piont if we are left with NO OXYGEN left to breath

Captain Echidna
1st February 2007, 09:56 PM
If we grow a tree to capture the carbon, then the problem is how to put the tree underground? Perhaps we could grow trees, use them for paper then burry the paper underground, storing the carbon in the ground with it?

Did I just make a logical argument for not recycling paper, but to put it into landfill?

Mind you anything makes more sense than burrying gas. There is the point of no O2 left, but even if we only do it a bit, then you still have the scenario Tony has illustrated. The earth is not gastight its not even watertight!
Maybe little Johhny H is going senile.....

gwalker
2nd February 2007, 07:45 AM
When they build that elevator to the moon, why not use a hollow core cable and pump it up there?
George

zigparacingtadpole
2nd February 2007, 08:18 AM
There is a veritable goldmine of information about carbon sequestration available on the www.
The link below is a good starting place.

Carbon dioxide sink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration)

One of the great things about this forum is that it encourages me to think and research. I think it was one of this forums members (possibly Sauman) who said "the more I learn, the more there is to learn".

As I posted previously, I personally dont believe that carbon sequestration is the way forward, at least not in the long term. In the short term it may assist in slowing the rate of temperature rise until a better solution is found.

Sauman
2nd February 2007, 02:18 PM
Hi Folks
This is a subject that is very very close to my heart.My solutions for oz is very simple.

All the coal fired plants produce C02
All these can be then used as a feed for alage farming in raceway ponds.
Alage oil then extracted with sono chemistry techniques
the emulsion of oil and water seperated by Coalesers
Oil then can be used to make BD.Alage can have upto 60% oil content
the alage cake rich in nutrients can be used for cattle feed mixed with glycerine or used for pharma extracts.With advances in bio tech a lot of enzymatic value added end products can be generated.
The algae can also be used as a Bio Ethanol feedstock.The co2 released can be used to feed the race way ponds.In fact a total a pilot plant is under test which we all have been following around the world.Also nano carbon tube technology is nearly perfect so that co2 can be used as the feedsource for the tubes.

Sequestration is a short term solution I feel.Though there is some great work going on in IGSC technology which is combined cycle....lets see where that leads us.

So mate Skinner hwo are you going with the reactor.And do comment on coalasecers.They work.

Cheers
We can only do it together.
No end to learning.
LIFE,LONG,LEARNING....Most important sharing.

Captain Echidna
2nd February 2007, 02:50 PM
That is better than releasing the CO2 without capturing it, but it still causes a nett increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.:(

Alga
2nd February 2007, 04:19 PM
Fifty years ago, world politicians and scientists, promised us control of the weather, less working hours, more leisure time, lower costs, less stress. Endless cheap energy, free good health and a pristine controlled environment. How has this worked for you. For me and just about everyone I know, except for the to 5-10% who virtually do nothing but collect money. The rest of us are working more and getting less.

We sure took control of the weather, have achieved nothing but more greed, higher costs, destroyed environment, not one that may be, but one that has been destroyed. It's just like falling off a cliff, you feel nothing until the final last second when you hit the bottom. This planet is in that position, it fell of in the late 70's, from that point on nothing has changed, only got worse. So we fell of the cliff 30 years ago and we are about the hit the bottom.

The planet works on balance, not economics nor scientific knowledges, but simply balance. Sequencing of C02 will only exasperate the problem because the balance is so out of whack, the only way it can rebalance its self is to make drastic changes. We had the technology 30 years ago, no band aids will solve the inevitable outcome. Even if society stopped bombarding the planet with destructive pollutants, the coming changes would still occur. Heat water, it rises and falls many times before suddenly boiling over. Its the same with our seas, they are heating up and being added to with melting glaciers and ice shelf's.

The facts are, we are increasing dramatically our output of CO2 and other pollutants, in 5 years they may be double. As it is since 1980 they have increased more than 20 and are still increasing. The wildlife of the world is disappearing rapidly. Marine life almost fished out, the barrier reef gone in 20 years completely. And yet people still think science and politicians will help fix what they have created. I love science and technology, but we use it all totally the opposite for the benefit of the planet and us. All we do is slave for a small ideological elite, who now control the world economically.

Look at our political system, no party or candidate is any good. They are completely controlled by their vested supporting interests. You can see the by the outcomes of privatisation, globalisation. The need to work constantly nearly seven days a week to just stay afloat. Did you realise that back in the late 50-60's, more than 90% of the working population worked a 40 hour 5 day a week job. Now part time casual work of less than 30 hours over 7 days a week, make up the rest of the jobs. To be employed in polticians eyes, you only need to work 2 hours a fortnight, to be clased as fully employed. And people still vote for these morons and listen to their continuing lies about they have it together and life is getting better and better, whilst we all know that's the total opposite to reality.

We could all have electricity for almost free, non-polluting fuels at almost zero cost, brilliant vehicles and self sustaining homes and businesses. Forest covering the land and an environment that was just like it was 5000 years ago, with all and better comforts we have now. That's what should be our aim, not the opposite and we have the technology to do it cheaply and to benefit the whole planet and not just a very few who seem to get everyone voting for them, and they just keep destroying our lives and the planet.

Look at the water crisis, they've neglected it for 30 years, now they are saying its not their fault and they will fix it. They've put a multi millionaire polluter in control of water, how brain dead is that. Money will not make it rain, only trees and a clean atmosphere.

Well had my grandstand for the year, just been out on the boat getting her ready to test out blending and WVO in the GM671. It will be different, as heating of marine engines takes a lot longer the cars, as they already use heat exchangers.

Marc1
3rd February 2007, 11:21 AM
Wow, the sky is falling on our heads... :rolleyes:
Anyway...

However I do agree with some of your concepts. Science will not solve the problems we create, but only not because there is no political will. Science can and will when there is a political will to use science to fix and reverse the problem created.

To "solve" a problem, causes a series of others.
The more obvious one is the responsibility that identifying a problem creates. If indeed we have a problem and it costs X to fix, the culprit must pay. Its the system.
Another even more problematic is that almost all the solutions offered by scientific research are long term and need long term planing and investing. No politician in a democratic system of government will be so stupid as to kick start a project risking an electoral backlash for another politician to reap the reward of accomplishment. Anything that goes beyond 3 years will not even be contemplated since it equates to risk for no benefit.

Just watch the NSW government, that in true Mafia style squanders millions to tell us how good they are when it is wrestling with a desalination plant that should have been built 10 years ago, and at the same time sweeps under the carpet hundred of plans for their own departments to even start contemplating a reduction in the waste of millions of m3 of water.

And...if I am not mistaken the opposition who I will gladly vote just to see little Mafioso gone, is now announcing they oppose the building of the plant since their spin doctors have detected that saying so, will capture more votes than saying yes to the project.

This is a game that has only losers and no winners. Until politicians are allowed to be re-elected they will only work with our money towards their
re-election.
Re-election should be illegal. And the building of essentials for the humans existence should be totally apolitical. We have a central bank, and so we should have central essential systems that are above and out of reach of little mongrels who, having failed in the real world, have grasped at the band wagon of our civilisation to suck our tax money and pretend they know how we should run our life.

zigparacingtadpole
3rd February 2007, 12:22 PM
Vote for me then. If risking a voter backlash meant that my children would have a better environment in which to bring up the children they will no doubt have then I would be more than happy to take this risk. A lot of good can be done by someone on a mission in 3 years. It shouldnt be about who gets credit, and who doesn't. It should be about bringing on change because a: it is needed and, b: it is for the collective good.
Science has the power to help, but education should be the starting point.
Unfortunately, I am unlikely to get elected to power as the process of election is fundamentally and systemically flawed (and a very large percentage of Australians would not vote 'Green' as they see it will impinge on the consumerist lifestyle they currently enjoy).
Provide tax-breaks for companies working toward emission reductions voluntarily and companies providing clean fuel and energy products whilst at the same time provide taxation penalties for those who refuse to do so will soon change corporate thinking (particularly if the penalties are harsh). Yes it would make the instigator of such policies very unpopular, but it would be doing good for the collective. All it needs is someone who recognises this and has the balls to get on with it regardless! Who knows, you might even see a turnaround in voter opinion in that three years.
It will happen, and noone will see it coming! Lets hope its sooner rather than later.

Sauman
3rd February 2007, 03:11 PM
Hi Folks
Just do a google on 2012.Scary right.But true.Fact is stranger then fiction.The Dawn of the Aquarius.But then to the world we are then fringe dwellers living in caves around the world.Subjected to all kinds of trauma and retaliation for just telling the truth and trying to share it with the world.Being involved in world politics and war on povert with greening the world mission and looking at the globe holistically.
We do need to see the radical change.And the change is in the mindset of going out there and challanging the system.Folks not only are the bastards playing with our lives ,but most importantly the lives of our kids.Lets do our bit ,seek out,reach out and do our bit to stop the baddies.These guys are way wacky even without weed.No wander they dont want hemp to be planted.:confused: :confused: :confused: .
We need changemakers.And every consious individual is the chain maker in the honey comb network.We need ignited minds and role models to represent the mass on a coolective basis.Be the change that you wann a see...and we can only do it together.Come the "Revolution"???.In fact I hate the word revolution as the gory images of the past and violence flash backs.But then "revolution comes with a warning".
We all are living in very interesting times.It is a small world now and we have the knowledge ticket to question and rationalise.Every individual can make that small difference.Collective and productive networking.
Keep the ideas flowing and in all your action do what you wanna see changed.Be the change.Teamwork,focus and attitude.

Knowledge is Power
Cheers
Sauman

The future is for us to shape.Let do it together.!!!

Slippery
4th February 2007, 06:31 AM
[quote=Sauman;11555]Hi Folks
So mate Skinner hwo are you going with the reactor.And do comment on coalasecers.They work.
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Skinner or Slippery:confused:

Sauman
4th February 2007, 08:38 PM
Hi Skinner
Sorry mate.I was refering to the reactor that you are building.Wanted to know how you were going.
The reference to coaleasers is just to through around an idea with regards to seperation of oil water emulsion after extraction.
I have been flat out,Catch up later.

Cheers
Sauman

Slippery
5th February 2007, 01:18 PM
Hi Skinner
Sorry mate.I was refering to the reactor that you are building.Wanted to know how you were going.
The reference to coaleasers is just to through around an idea with regards to seperation of oil water emulsion after extraction.
I have been flat out,Catch up later.

Cheers
Sauman

The names Slippery. Slippery not Skinner. I hope that stuff u r smoking is not affecting u permanently;) .

And isn't coal essence what you get when you squash coal?

W123 x 2
5th February 2007, 03:43 PM
Hi Sauman,

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of you arguments I have to correct your "knowledge is power" statement. Knowledge is nothing until it is applied. You may be a walking wiki, but until you take action all that knowledge is benign.

Also "the future is ours to shape.......", in fact whatever we (humanity) collectively do (applied knowledge) creates the future of this planet as our impact is so great.

If you haven't read it already, I commend a book to you, "Hope in the Dark" by Rebecca Solnit, I think you'll enjoy it.

All the best, Michael

Sauman
6th February 2007, 12:50 AM
The names Slippery. Slippery not Skinner. I hope that stuff u r smoking is not affecting u permanently;) .

And isn't coal essence what you get when you squash coal?

SoRry mate:o :o :o .I speed read a lot and this one slipped past the haze.
Ah the stuff me smokes does let me actually get away from the mind;) .

Sorry about that mate.
Cheers
Sauman

Sauman
6th February 2007, 12:53 AM
Hi Sauman,


I commend a book to you, "Hope in the Dark" by Rebecca Solnit, I think you'll enjoy it.

All the best, Michael

Thanks mate.Will make it an effort to get hold of it.

Cheers
Sauman