Maybe coal is here to stay, yet

[dmytryp]

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/oxyfuel-coal.html
Researchers at MIT have shown the benefits of a new approach toward eliminating carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions at coal-burning power plants.

Their system, called pressurized oxy-fuel combustion, provides a way of separating all of the carbon-dioxide emissions produced by the burning of coal, in the form of a concentrated, pressurized liquid stream. This allows for carbon dioxide sequestration: the liquid CO2 stream can be injected into geological formations deep enough to prevent their escape into the atmosphere

[Zoombie]

Huh.

But what about when the coal runs out?

Coal can run out, right?

[Bartholomew]

Huh.

But what about when the coal runs out?

Coal can run out, right?

We'll burn that bridge as we cross it.

Or something like that.

I don't object to cleaner coal, mind you. We might even be able to find some use for the new emission.

[Cassiopeia]

but...but...like what happens INSIDE the earth with the added CO2? Or am I just not getting it?

[dmytryp]

Huh.

But what about when the coal runs out?

Coal can run out, right?
US coal capacity is predicted to be couple of hundred years, at least. In the world -- even more. Such a solution would solve Africa's energy problems, for example.

[dmytryp]

but...but...like what happens INSIDE the earth with the added CO2? Or am I just not getting it?
CO2 is pretty inert, so not much happens. You have gasses inside earth already -- plenty of them. I am not saying this solution is the best possible one, but it is a solution (at least to those who believ the CO2 emissions to be crucial).

[Cassiopeia]

CO2 is pretty inert, so not much happens. You have gasses inside earth already -- plenty of them. I am not saying this solution is the best possible one, but it is a solution (at least to those who believ the CO2 emissions to be crucial).

I've got a very good imagination and I thought, oh GREAT, now there will be a build up of all this gas, a volcano will erupt and release it all at once into our atmosphere and kill us all in one fell swoop.

:)

Yeah I'm a writer. :)

[dgiharris]

but...but...like what happens INSIDE the earth with the added CO2? Or am I just not getting it?

Basically, we are replacing one 'perceived' problem with another.

The jury is still out on whether CO2 emissions result in global warming as the simplistic models show.

But liquifying CO2 and trapping it in deep within the Earth???

I'd be interested in models of Tectonic plates and Tectonic shifts. I'm completely reaching here, but I wonder how deep they were thinking about going, and if this would result in Earthquakes or pressure build ups? Essentially, we are talking about trapping gas in liquid form, and then trapping that in the Earth.

This would lead to pressure pockets and pressure gradients. Pressure would keep building and that 'force' will be omnidirectional, pushing in every direction.

I'd be interested in theoritical models of big pressure pockets deep within the Earth and how they would possibly interact with Tectonic plates, fault lines, and things of that sort.

I love how we love to replace one problem with another :D

Mel...

[Cassiopeia]

Basically, we are replacing one 'perceived' problem with another.

The jury is still out on whether CO2 emissions result in global warming as the simplistic models show.

But liquifying CO2 and trapping it in deep within the Earth???

I'd be interested in models of Tectonic plates and Tectonic shifts. I'm completely reaching here, but I wonder how deep they were thinking about going, and if this would result in Earthquakes or pressure build ups? Essentially, we are talking about trapping gas in liquid form, and then trapping that in the Earth.

This would lead to pressure pockets and pressure gradients. Pressure would keep building and that 'force' will be omnidirectional, pushing in every direction.

I'd be interested in theoritical models of big pressure pockets deep within the Earth and how they would possibly interact with Tectonic plates, fault lines, and things of that sort.

I love how we love to replace one problem with another :D

Mel...

THIS ^^^

I didn't want to say anything because well, I wasn't sure how to word it but I just took Geology 1010 six semesters ago and it has stuck with me. The earth is a delicate balance of factors. Go messing around with one of them too much and kaplooey. I think the idea is BAD. Not just a little bad, BAD BAD. There's no doubt that it will affect fault lines and the tectonic plates. All that pressure has to go somewhere unless, they can show it some how is absorbed BACK into the pockets where coal is formed in the first place. And that doesn't seem likely.

[Albedo]

Tectonics operates on a scale so vast and slow that I doubt anything we could put into the crust would make a difference, in earthquakes per year or rate of progression. I would worry, however, that any geological action could liberate in an instant all that CO2 we've so delicately stored over the years. Bad news for us atmosphere dwellers, but the Earth itself probably won't even notice.

[Zoombie]

Sweeeeeeeeeeet

[Cassiopeia]

Tectonics operates on a scale so vast and slow that I doubt anything we could put into the crust would make a difference, in earthquakes per year or rate of progression. I would worry, however, that any geological action could liberate in an instant all that CO2 we've so delicately stored over the years. Bad news for us atmosphere dwellers, but the Earth itself probably won't even notice.The plates move a lot faster than people realize, they just have a lot of distance to cover. :D

And that's my concern as well. We would be wiped out in an a flash if it all made it's way back to the surface.

[Zoombie]

Actually, the problem with CO2 emissions is not the scale, but rahter the locality.

If we could store then distribute it more globally, we'd see less of an issue.

I think.

[icerose]

I'm surprised we don't simply distribute the CO2 to plants. Give them a boost.

[Romantic Heretic]

The problem is that the CO2 isn't the only pollutant. The others are just as bog a problem.

[dmytryp]

The problem is that the CO2 isn't the only pollutant. The others are just as bog a problem.
The problem is that CO2 is not a pollutant in the strict sense of the word. other than that, there are other ways to deal with pollutants, while still emitting CO2.

[Sheryl Nantus]

I'm very surprised that no fart jokes have made their way into this thread yet.

carry on.

:D

[tjwriter]

I'm surprised we don't simply distribute the CO2 to plants. Give them a boost.

I've always wondered why we bitch and moan about all the CO2 while we chop down all sorts of plant life to make way for vacant urban jungles (insert local rant here). Biology 101, hello-w?

I know it probably wouldn't be enough to make a huge difference, but it sure couldn't hurt. We chop down our natural, CO2-intaking, O2-producing, natural air conditioning-creating plant life and complain that the world is filling up with heat and gas.

I'm done now, thanks.

:Soapbox:

[semilargeintestine]

A professor of mine said that thinking this will work is pretty much equivalent to believing in unicorns. He gave (what seemed like) legitimate reasons, but I forget what they were.

[tjwriter]

I wish I could retake that environmental geology class every year with this kick ass professor we had. He was awesome and we'd be talking about stuff like this right now.

I miss school.

[dgiharris]

Tectonics operates on a scale so vast and slow that I doubt anything we could put into the crust would make a difference, in earthquakes per year or rate of progression. I would worry, however, that any geological action could liberate in an instant all that CO2 we've so delicately stored over the years. Bad news for us atmosphere dwellers, but the Earth itself probably won't even notice.

Actually, I think you may be off here.

Even though the scale is vast, it should be possible to impact tectonics on a localized level. Remember, we produces MILLIONS OF TONS of pollutants. So, imagine millions of tons of trapped CO2 near a fault line. It is not out of the realms of possibility that the pressure may impact that fault line and cause a localized earthquake.

*some google fu*

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/top-5-ways-that/

Looks like we humans can cause earthquakes. So my theory wasn't too far off the mark :)

A professor of mine said that thinking this will work is pretty much equivalent to believing in unicorns. He gave (what seemed like) legitimate reasons, but I forget what they were.

Your professor is sorta right sorta wrong. You need to define 'work'. Can you liquify CO2? Absolutely. Can this setup be economically feasible. IMHO No.

So yes, it can work, you can do it. But the problem is that you pay an energy penalty, and as the article mentions you end up wasting around 30% of your output energy in converting the CO2 into liquid CO2.

From an economic standpoint, this equates to roughly 50% of your profit being wasted in converting CO2 into a liquid. And as I said above, there is sufficient scientific disaggrement over Global Warming for many coal burning plants to balk at this and say, "To hell with that".

Sorry, but if I were in charge of coal plant, no way I would cut 50% of my profit for a theory that is not universally accepted nor proven.

Mel...

[dclary]

We'll burn that bridge as we cross it.


Only as long as the bridge is actually constructed OF coal.

[dclary]

I'm very surprised that no fart jokes have made their way into this thread yet.

carry on.

:D

/enters room a la Lenny and Squiggy.

Hello!

[Dommo]

Might as well go for the low hanging fruit first.

The reality is that switching over to a realistic nuclear/renewable infrastructure will take at least 50+ years, and will cost trillions of dollars. The best thing we can do is try to make what we have less polluting, and then over time gradually shift over.

It's just a plain reality that almost 2/3 of our electricity is sourced from coal. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't feel like volunteering to go without electricity just because something pollutes. At the end of the day every single technology is compromise, and with the pluses, come the minuses.

[dgiharris]

Might as well go for the low hanging fruit first.

The reality is that switching over to a realistic nuclear/renewable infrastructure will take at least 50+ years, and will cost trillions of dollars. The best thing we can do is try to make what we have less polluting, and then over time gradually shift over.

It's just a plain reality that almost 2/3 of our electricity is sourced from coal. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't feel like volunteering to go without electricity just because something pollutes. At the end of the day every single technology is compromise, and with the pluses, come the minuses.

I'm not so sure. I think if we were serious about it, we could change over in less than 30 yrs.

But the main impediment in my opinion is just simple economics. It is just too cheap to use coal. that is the significant hurdle. And Global Warming is not a viable enough theory yet to warrant the massive costs/burdens of that changeover.

I think what will happen is just a piecemeal onesy twosy switchover to nuclear/renewable. Enough so that a few politicians can get credit and some nice photo-ops, but not enough to be significant.

Mel...

[Zoombie]

Another hurdle in the way is people keep on panicking and screaming when they hear the word 'nuclear'.

[dclary]

Another hurdle in the way is people keep on panicking and screaming when they hear the word 'nuclear'.

To be honest, more people panicked at the word "nukulear"

[Zoombie]

FUCKINGSHIT, RUN!