Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Thundery wintry showers

Carbon Capture And Storage

Recommended Posts

Recent proposals for carbon capture and storage have come in, with proposals including planting artificial trees alongside motorways (which is something that I had suggested many years ago!)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/08/_in_order_to_see.html

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=284&storycode=3147480&c=0

What are people's thoughts?

Personally I think geo-engineering that involves generating negative climate forcing (like putting vast sheets over the land to block out the sun) should be used as last resorts as for starters we don't know how much human activity is affecting climate in the first place- and we'd be adding even more anthropogenic forcings putting us at risk of AGC instead of AGW. But when it concerns just removing the anthropogenic output of aerosols through capture and storage, then it essentially amounts to removing anthropogenic contributions to the climate system, and reducing atmospheric pollution- I don't see how it would do us any harm.

Of course these ideas are just a way of buying time in case AGW turns out to be a major problem- it won't take away the need to change to more sustainable forms of technology and development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this earlier, and anyway we can control the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, can only be a good thing. Of course this should be used in addition to other strategies to improve the environment and not instead of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recent proposals for carbon capture and storage have come in, with proposals including planting artificial trees alongside motorways (which is something that I had suggested many years ago!)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/08/_in_order_to_see.html

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=284&storycode=3147480&c=0

What are people's thoughts?

Personally I think geo-engineering that involves generating negative climate forcing (like putting vast sheets over the land to block out the sun) should be used as last resorts as for starters we don't know how much human activity is affecting climate in the first place- and we'd be adding even more anthropogenic forcings putting us at risk of AGC instead of AGW. But when it concerns just removing the anthropogenic output of aerosols through capture and storage, then it essentially amounts to removing anthropogenic contributions to the climate system, and reducing atmospheric pollution- I don't see how it would do us any harm.

Of course these ideas are just a way of buying time in case AGW turns out to be a major problem- it won't take away the need to change to more sustainable forms of technology and development.

Carbon capture and storage seems to me a bit like saying lets carry on throwing rubbish out of the window because someone will come along and pick it up. Besides, like such littering (or, tbh, any other dumping of our waste to the environment) the clearing up takes vast amounts of energy and effort.

It must make more sense to curb emissions rather than try to remove the CO2 that is there because we liberated it and grabbed the energy of it's entrapment - how much energy will it take to re trap it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carbon capture and storage seems to me a bit like saying lets carry on throwing rubbish out of the window because someone will come along and pick it up. Besides, like such littering (or, tbh, any other dumping of our waste to the environment) the clearing up takes vast amounts of energy and effort.

It must make more sense to curb emissions rather than try to remove the CO2 that is there because we liberated it and grabbed the energy of it's entrapment - how much energy will it take to re trap it?

Blimey...I agree with you,Dev! But y'know me,from a purely climate perspective I feel there's no reason to curb emissions in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, if we're going to carry on exploiting fossil fuels, it makes sense to use built-in carbon-capture technology??

And, in any case, if emissions don't matter anyway, then what harm can a few more do??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to use every means at our disposal and actually think they are a good idea, assuming that they are powered by Solar panels.

We need to look at carbon capture, carbon offset, even carbon trading (gasp), Carbon reduction at source is obviously the prefered method, but we have to be realistic and accept that this won't happen immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, if we're going to carry on exploiting fossil fuels, it makes sense to use built-in carbon-capture technology??

And, in any case, if emissions don't matter anyway, then what harm can a few more do??

I think we need to use every means at our disposal and actually think they are a good idea, assuming that they are powered by Solar panels.

We need to look at carbon capture, carbon offset, even carbon trading (gasp), Carbon reduction at source is obviously the prefered method, but we have to be realistic and accept that this won't happen immediately.

I agree with both these posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carbon capture and storage seems to me a bit like saying lets carry on throwing rubbish out of the window because someone will come along and pick it up. Besides, like such littering (or, tbh, any other dumping of our waste to the environment) the clearing up takes vast amounts of energy and effort.

I entirely agree. Homo Sapiens should make the effort to affect the the biosphere in as little a way as is possible. Of course, at one extreme end of the spectrum some people may suggest some sort of proxy to Tom and Barbera Good. I don't subscribe to that, but, it may well turn out that 'personal' energy generation may end up being the solution.

Whichever, or whatever. That we may disagree on the effect of Co2 (amonst other things) curbing the pollution of the biosphere, I think, is almost universally salient.

Indeed, we are hard-wired to find it abhorrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I entirely agree. Homo Sapiens should make the effort to affect the the biosphere in as little a way as is possible. Of course, at one extreme end of the spectrum some people may suggest some sort of proxy to Tom and Barbera Good. I don't subscribe to that, but, it may well turn out that 'personal' energy generation may end up being the solution.

This is something I don't get.

How is neutralising the output of anthropogenic CO2 (which is basically what capture and storage is about) increasing our input on the biosphere? It seems that the idea of capture & storage gets automatically lumped together with artificial ways of generating anthropogenic global cooling- where in the latter case I would agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something I don't get.

How is neutralising the output of anthropogenic CO2 (which is basically what capture and storage is about) increasing our input on the biosphere? It seems that the idea of capture & storage gets automatically lumped together with artificial ways of generating anthropogenic global cooling- where in the latter case I would agree.

Well, I think it is better to correct the source than it is to correct the problem. If the planet continues to warm-up, very simple changes such as leaving rain-forests alone should result in a mass of vegetative cover that'll soak it up - over time.

CC, is, of course, a means of preventing (co2) pollution from, say, coal burning, to expediate, extend, our energy excess ways. Better to simply find non-carbon sources of fuel - if, indeed, that is the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, if we learn to eliminate carbon emissions by utilizing renewable-energy sources, isn't that going a long way towards carbon neutrality? And, if the resultant silicates/carbonates can be put below ground where they can (safely?) stay for millions of years; isn't that better still?

It'll take many years, IMO, before we are able to provide all of humanity's energy-requirements via renewables. In the mean time..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are people's thoughts?

What happens when the artificial trees are full? Where will the CO2 be moved to then? Oh, it's all so annoying......it's just tinkering around with things when all of the brain power used in all of these silly ideas would be much better utilised by developing an alternative fuel. I have been saying this for years.

My local Sainsburys installed a wind turbine in it's car park last year. I (stupidly, it turned out) envisaged that it would be supplying the entire store with power, but no, it supplies enough energy to power half of the lights in the store's cafe. :) It would take hundreds of the darned things to power the whole store and there isn't anywhere near enough space in the car park for that....it would take a wind farm half the size of the county! I cannot for the life of me see that wind power via this sort of a turbine is a viable option. Add to this the terror factor....the thing goes round and round, whirring and whining and I am concerned that one day the blades will fly off and people will die horrible deaths. Really, it is a concern and a worry to me. :) I have seen video footage of blades flying off and have read of huge chunks of ice being flung from them too. I don't like them, I really don't.

Harnessing wind power and solar power are both excellent ideas in theory IMHO but we are so far away from these being practical solutions. It's time to think of something else. Anyone got any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens when the artificial trees are full? Where will the CO2 be moved to then?

I thought that was made clear enough in the article- the CO2 is to be captured and stored underground?

Some good points elsewhere in the post re. turbines, which are often less efficient than they are made out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that was made clear enough in the article- the CO2 is to be captured and stored underground?

Some good points elsewhere in the post re. turbines, which are often less efficient than they are made out to be.

I agree TWS. If 'natural' carbonates/silicates are safe, then, so are artificial ones?

Afterall, no-one can claim that said carbonates/silicates can be anywhere near as dangerous as nuclear waste...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add to this the terror factor....the thing goes round and round, whirring and whining and I am concerned that one day the blades will fly off and people will die horrible deaths. Really, it is a concern and a worry to me. sad.gif I have seen video footage of blades flying off and have read of huge chunks of ice being flung from them too. I don't like them, I really don't.

What,you mean like this...?

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

The CO2 is safer,not that it was ever a problem anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Storing it underground, eh? More like "sweeping it under the carpet" is what I think!

Not necessarily, nog? There are many silicate/carbonate minerals already. But, unlike nuclear-waste, they are not radioactive??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that was made clear enough in the article- the CO2 is to be captured and stored underground?

Some good points elsewhere in the post re. turbines, which are often less efficient than they are made out to be.

Doesn't it need energy to capture Carbon Dioxide - the carbon footprint cost of laying pipelines to processing plants, pumps to move the gas, reactors to make the carbon dioxide inert, raw materials to react the gas with?

Even bioreactors require sterile, purified reagents, and sterile water unless they are going to become infected with unwanted bacteria or other putrefying organisms. That includes the harvested Carbon Dioxide - will it be separated from the other atmospheric gases chemically - by reaction with alkalis to carbonates, perhaps, or by cryoseparation at low temperatures?

All of these stages take energy - supplied by what? The hard shoulder wind farms, perhaps? During periods of calm weather?

The dream sounds great, the reality is just not economically viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What,you mean like this...?

Yes, just like that. There is a constant stream of cars and pedestrians going past it and I am adamant that it's an accident waiting to happen. It would be carnage. I now use a different approach to the store if I am going there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't it need energy to capture Carbon Dioxide

Yes, of course it does. But, if said 'energy' is renewable, what's the problem??

Doesn't it need energy to capture Carbon Dioxide - the carbon footprint cost of laying pipelines to processing plants, pumps to move the gas, reactors to make the carbon dioxide inert, raw materials to react the gas with?

Even bioreactors require sterile, purified reagents, and sterile water unless they are going to become infected with unwanted bacteria or other putrefying organisms. That includes the harvested Carbon Dioxide - will it be separated from the other atmospheric gases chemically - by reaction with alkalis to carbonates, perhaps, or by cryoseparation at low temperatures?

All of these stages take energy - supplied by what? The hard shoulder wind farms, perhaps? During periods of calm weather?

The dream sounds great, the reality is just not economically viable.

Maybe not perfection, Chris? But, surely, better than nothing at all???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, of course it does. But, if said 'energy' is renewable, what's the problem??

Maybe not perfection, Chris? But, surely, better than nothing at all???

Not when we have legislated ourselves into a position where we have to use all the renewable energy we can generate to supply our everyday energy needs - it will be an unaffordable luxury to reclaim fossil carbon emissions. The expenditure is greater than the return. Plant hardwood coppices and fast growing evergreen softwood as firewood by all means, but artificial trees have nothing going for them. Pipedream! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oK then, we shall capture all our carbon burps and try to store them under our beds... in the mean time china is opening a coal fired power station at the rate of ............. 1 a weak, so our little 0.000000001% contribution is ..............

So any eco warriors i suggest you go to china or india or......... Because our little islands make little diff to any climate change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oK then, we shall capture all our carbon burps and try to store them under our beds... in the mean time china is opening a coal fired power station at the rate of ............. 1 a weak, so our little 0.000000001% contribution is ..............

So any eco warriors i suggest you go to china or india or......... Because our little islands make little diff to any climate change

Ah but if we set a good enough example to the developing world,they'll be overcome by guilt and decide to stop their wicked ways. Or so I'm told. Yeah,right. We're stuck with the eco-warriors,I'm afraid - China won't give them any benefits. You'd think there'd be plenty of work for them at all those new power plants,though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 'natural' carbonates/silicates are safe, then, so are artificial ones?

The risks are generally unquantifiable and possibly unknowable.

This reminds me of the natural foods vs man-made food debate It has been found (I can't recall the source) that at least half of the natural products that humans consume cause cancer in the lab. In sufficient doses. Indeed, any toxicologist will tell you that everything is a poison, and that it just depends on how much. Even life given water in sufficient doses is enough to deplete potassium and sodium levels in your body and cause you to fall into a coma. In the respect of human consumption the man-made stuff is likely to be better for you because at least it's been tested.

(and by the way, yes, if you've been buying 'organic' food - you've been done. Even the 'natural' fertilizers used in the product of these foods (which incidentally has the same chemical composition as the manmade stuff) either hasn't been tested, or if it has, it produces the same level of cancer in rats in a lab - in sufficient doses)

Human beings have an aversion to anything that sounds like, looks like, feels like, or otherwise reminds them of the word 'chemical' Dupont realsied this when they changed their marketing campaign which used to go something along the lines 'Making a better world with chemistry' They dropped the last bit. And, you can see it all over the AGW debate. It's a chemical, we made it, it must be evil, therefore we must stop it. It's just the way we are all made. It's wired in, and we can't help it.

And whilst we're talking about nuclear - have you stopped to think about all that uranium running around in your system? It's a natural occuring product in the soil all over the world. It's not sufficiently minable in most places, which is why you don't hear about it. But it's in the soil that your veggies grow in - and it's in you. Whilst we're at it have you considered the risks about radon. Another naturally occuring gas. It kills more people, per annum, than terrorism does - all you need is to be in the right place at the right time with the windows closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some say that it isn't economically viable.

Where's the evidence- and if so, where's the evidence that it will stay that way in the future?

If it were economically viable to capture carbon, we would not be recycling plastics - we would be increasing our burial of them in landfill, or dumping them in the deep ocean - after all, they are predominantly carbon-based, long-lived, mostly inert materials (we package our food in them).

Ideal for capturing fossil carbon, and returning it to a quasi-fossilised state.

That would buy us time for several million years, with luck, until our dumps get subducted, and get recycled through vulcanism, or some clever bacterium, fungus or arthropod evolves the capacity to turn them into biomass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×