Carbon capture plan

  Quickbeam 05:21 20 Nov 2009

click here
This was on our local new yesterday as it's only a few miles from me.

Will they really think in generations to come that it was money well spent, or is it an enormous hoodwink to bring EU money into a recovering area that needs regenerating, on the back of current climate change paranoia?

My tone should give the clue as to what my opinion is...

  PalaeoBill 08:44 20 Nov 2009

This is something we have been working on for some time. There is space under the North Sea where the gas was; gas that we have now extracted and burned. We can put CO2 into the space and it is just as secure as the gas was.
There are other alternatives to under sea storage, the CO2 that has been sequestered when the coal was burned can be used to make gypsum (for plaster board).
The government have left things far too late. We need new power stations, we need them now and its either this or nuclear.
We have wasted an enormous amount of money on wind farms that will not remove the need for a single conventional power station. When the wind doesn't blow conventional power stations need to be used; it is incredibly inefficient to operate them in this way. If a fraction of the wind farm investment had been directed to carbon capture we would be world leaders. We are sitting on massive coal reserves and yet face the start reality that in a few years we will have to import electricity from France.

  morddwyd 09:13 20 Nov 2009

Which will probably be from nuclear power stations!

  Quickbeam 09:26 20 Nov 2009

I did read somewhere, but I can't now find it, that re-forestation of the rainforests, in the way of long term farming of them (i.e. a century long crop rotaion period) would be a much cheaper and natural way for the CO2 to be reclycled without huge expense, and once in place, would leave nature to manage the CO2 recycling.

I rather think that the empty voids left by the North Sea oil and gas fields would be better used to direct the copious hot air produced by various think tanks, for safe storage out of the way from common sense...

  PalaeoBill 13:08 20 Nov 2009

I couldn't agree more Quickbeam. As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as safe storage. The very best thing is to not produce nuclear waste in the first place.
Lets plant trees on a massive scale and whilst were out and about planting lets have some oilseed rape and sunflowers; bio diesel is carbon neutral unlike the madness of turning corn into ethanol to replace petrol, which isn't.

  Pineman100 18:47 20 Nov 2009

Nuclear waste and carbon emission are two different things. Carbon is emitted by power stations that burn fossil fuels; nuclear waste is spent radioactive fuel from nuclear power stations.

  Input Overload 19:19 20 Nov 2009

As an ex coal face worker I dread to think what my total carbon footprint must be. Having been personal responsible for cutting 5,000 tonnes of carbon a week, which was then burnt at the rate of 10,000 tonnes a day on each of the Trent-side power stations. The fallout then damaged the Norwegian forests & much more.

  spuds 14:07 21 Nov 2009

Reading in one of todays papers, it would appear to suggest that some of the experts are raising a mountain out of a molehill, and are probably doing more harm in scaremongering than anything else.

I recall a number of years ago, when I was a regular to South East Asia and that part of the world in general, and all the untouched and unspoiled forest areas that were helping nature. Then the increase of cutting down forest areas came into being, either for the timber or planting of more 'wanted' crops, and then seeing the black fire grazed soil for literally miles and miles was an heart rendering sight, something that I will always remember till my dying day.

  PalaeoBill 16:25 21 Nov 2009

There is no need to point out the obvious; Or are you intentionally attempting to wind me up?
The initial point raised by Quickbeam, is about carbon capture. I know what this is as I am involved in teaching undergraduates about it.
Since the renewable systems cannot stand on their own, the only real alternative to burning coal is nuclear power. I thought that I had pointed this out.
Quickbeam then talks about re-forestation, something that will definitley work and would make a dam site more sense than wind farms, and he then jokes about hot air and safe storage. 'Safe storage' is the misnomer on dealing with nuclear waste. Its the problem with nuclear power and the very reason why we shouldn't be using it.
Are we clear now?

  Quickbeam 17:18 21 Nov 2009

Regarding the CO2 storage, can it really be stored for centuries without leaking back into the atmosphere? What would happen if there was a ground movement in a century or so that instantly sent billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere? Would they say it was as an irresponsible act as burying nuclear waste in the salt mines that might become leak ridden also?

Tying the CO2 into trees is a much safer way to store it, but the rain forest areas will have to have financial help to keep them as forests.

The natural way has to be the best for the long term. The money spent on this project was to create jobs in a depressed area now, not to safeguard the long term quality of the world's atmosphere.

  Pineman100 17:33 21 Nov 2009

Oops - a bit tetchy, aren't we?

If you're involved in CCS education, then I'm surprised that your earlier post didn't make clear why you were introducing the matter of nuclear waste into the argument.

Still, moving on....

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

WPA2 hack: How secure is your Wi-Fi?

Add Depth Of Field to a photo using Tilt Shift Blur in Photoshop

iPhone tips & tricks

Comment afficher des fichiers cachés sur Mac ?