Carbon Capture And Storage: Hope Or Hype In The Global Warming Debate?

What fixes nitrogen in the air?

What fixes nitrogin in the air?

How does mistletoe fix nitrogen from the air?

Mr Giblets wrote:

it is CO2 - NOT carbon. if there was "Carbon pollution", the air would be full of very fine black particles - SOOT is one name for it. get it right, or shut up.

Take the O2 out of CO2, and what have you got? Why, other than stupidity, would one try to sequester a bulky and hard to contain gas, rather than sequestering the much more compact and easy to store carbon extracted from that gas?

BloodyViking wrote:

<quoted text>
Take the O2 out of CO2, and what have you got? Why, other than stupidity, would one try to sequester a bulky and hard to contain gas, rather than sequestering the much more compact and easy to store carbon extracted from that gas?

The only problem is that it takes energy to break CO2 into carbon and O2. That requires more power plants, thus more CO2. We could, of course, dedicate renewable energy plants to breaking CO2 and get a leg-up on the process.

hetrevillion wrote:

<quoted text>
The only problem is that it takes energy to break CO2 into carbon and O2. That requires more power plants, thus more CO2. We could, of course, dedicate renewable energy plants to breaking CO2 and get a leg-up on the process.

That's why I suggested letting plants do the cracking, convert the plant material to charcoal (either using waste heat from some other process to drive the conversion or using the generated heat for something) then sequestering that. Or us it in the production of useful long lasting forms of carbon like carbon fiber or industrial diamonds.

In any case, it has Got to be cheaper than sequestering large quantities of CO2 for any length of time.

BloodyViking wrote:

<quoted text>
Take the O2 out of CO2, and what have you got? Why, other than stupidity, would one try to sequester a bulky and hard to contain gas, rather than sequestering the much more compact and easy to store carbon extracted from that gas?

take the C out , and you have oxygen. Only a complete idiot would fall for the idea that CO2 is harmful. Only a whole bunch of brainless oafs would want to "capture" CO2 and lock it up. get a life. And better , do some basic chemistry, like they once taught at school before "Climatology" became the craze.

BloodyViking wrote:

Why would anyone want to sequester CO2? If you want to sequester carbon, CO2 is a lousy way to do it. Grow plants (kudzu anyone?), cook it into charcoal (using the heat for power generation or something), and sequester That.

you have even less brain than Al Gore. What a numpty! where do you hippies get this stuff from?

Mr Giblets wrote:

<quoted text>you have even less brain than Al Gore. What a numpty! where do you hippies get this stuff from?

You might want to reread my posts with your brain engaged this time. Do you see me state anywhere that sequestering carbon is a good idea? No, you don't. You are welcome to tilt with that windmill (a particularly apt metaphor in this case) if you wish, but I don't right now.

What I Did say was that IF someone wants to sequester carbon, sequestering CO2 is a lousy way of doing it.

I think that Gore getting a Nobel Prize for his propaganda movie sunk the credibility of the Nobel Prize to a new low.

BloodyViking wrote:

<quoted text>
That's why I suggested letting plants do the cracking, convert the plant material to charcoal (either using waste heat from some other process to drive the conversion or using the generated heat for something) then sequestering that. Or us it in the production of useful long lasting forms of carbon like carbon fiber or industrial diamonds.
In any case, it has Got to be cheaper than sequestering large quantities of CO2 for any length of time.

The process of combustion releases carbon compounds as a product--not left behind, I mean it makes CO2 or, with less oxugen, carbon monoxide. So it would just wind up releasing even most of the captured carbon, possibly in an even more toxic form.

Rucin wrote:

<quoted text>
The process of combustion releases carbon compounds as a product--not left behind, I mean it makes CO2 or, with less oxugen, carbon monoxide. So it would just wind up releasing even most of the captured carbon, possibly in an even more toxic form.

The process of making charcoal releases mostly water. To make charcoal, you "burn" wood in the Absence of oxygen. Yes, it probably does release Some CO and/or CO2, but since the resulting charcoal is almost pure carbon, the amounts released are obviously trivial compared to the amounts of carbon retained in a convenient to handle and store form.

BloodyViking wrote:

<quoted text>
The process of making charcoal releases mostly water. To make charcoal, you "burn" wood in the Absence of oxygen. Yes, it probably does release Some CO and/or CO2, but since the resulting charcoal is almost pure carbon, the amounts released are obviously trivial compared to the amounts of carbon retained in a convenient to handle and store form.

We are currently digging up tons per hour of coal for use in power plants. You want to make artificial coal and bury it? I don't see much point to it. Make and use the artificial coal instead of real coal. Cycle and recycle the same CO2 over and over again. Although, I think cellulose to gas/fuel is a better cycle than cellulose to charcoal. We need to get off the fossil fuel wagon. Renewable fuels are the wave of the future.

Taxed Out wrote:

<quoted text>
Bless his little ole Green heart...I'm sure he will capitalize on this if it so suits him.

if someone says you can capture CO2, Al Gore will be selling you certificates for it. How everyone can't see though this fraud is beyond me.

BloodyViking wrote:

<quoted text>
You might want to reread my posts with your brain engaged this time. Do you see me state anywhere that sequestering carbon is a good idea? No, you don't. You are welcome to tilt with that windmill (a particularly apt metaphor in this case) if you wish, but I don't right now.
What I Did say was that IF someone wants to sequester carbon, sequestering CO2 is a lousy way of doing it.
I think that Gore getting a Nobel Prize for his propaganda movie sunk the credibility of the Nobel Prize to a new low.

I was commenting on your kudzu suggestion. I think that anyone who even considers any of these schemes is potty. There IS NO problem with CO2. Glad to see you think Gore is a fraud, though. Our High Court said so - " 9 errors of fact in the film".

hetrevillion wrote:

<quoted text>
We are currently digging up tons per hour of coal for use in power plants. You want to make artificial coal and bury it?

Not really. I was just trying to point out the ridiculousness of talking about sequestering CO2. Talking about sequestering huge quantities of something which is a gas at ambient temperatures and pressures always strikes me as stupid.

hetrevillion wrote:

I don't see much point to it. Make and use the artificial coal instead of real coal. Cycle and recycle the same CO2 over and over again. Although, I think cellulose to gas/fuel is a better cycle than cellulose to charcoal. We need to get off the fossil fuel wagon. Renewable fuels are the wave of the future.

I agree.

Mr Giblets wrote:

<quoted text>I was commenting on your kudzu suggestion. I think that anyone who even considers any of these schemes is potty. There IS NO problem with CO2. Glad to see you think Gore is a fraud, though. Our High Court said so - " 9 errors of fact in the film".

Given current oil prices, bio-fuels are worth persuing. Kudzu converts CO2 to bio-mass very quickly. If it suitable for production of bio-fuels (and I don't claim to know one way or the other) it seems a prime choice due to that growth rate.

BloodyViking wrote:

<quoted text>
Given current oil prices, bio-fuels are worth persuing. Kudzu converts CO2 to bio-mass very quickly. If it suitable for production of bio-fuels (and I don't claim to know one way or the other) it seems a prime choice due to that growth rate.

bio-ethanol is pure folly, unless something like sugar is used, as in Brazil. Bio-Diesel is a possibility, but will be rubbished by the Greenies, in the same way that any of their suggestions is once there is a chance it might be used. See how the Green movement first demand, then fight against, ALL and ANY alternative fuel schemes.

wind power - GREAT! until they try to build a wind farm near one.
wave or tide power - Wonderful! but the ducks and fish will not like it, so NO.
Bio-diesel - YES! but think of all the starving asians who could be eating Kudzu!

this planet would be a lot better without any greenies, for a start!

Mr Giblets wrote:

<quoted text>bio-ethanol is pure folly, unless something like sugar is used, as in Brazil.

Well, that will give the highest ethanol production per pound, but sugar cane is a long time growing. Other crops which grow faster may well yield less ethanol per pound, but more per acre per year. Better/tailored bacteria and yiest strains could also improve production from sub-optimal crops.

I also find it a bit troubling to use food crops for fuel.

Mr Giblets wrote:

Bio-Diesel is a possibility, but will be rubbished by the Greenies, in the same way that any of their suggestions is once there is a chance it might be used. See how the Green movement first demand, then fight against, ALL and ANY alternative fuel schemes.
wind power - GREAT! until they try to build a wind farm near one.
wave or tide power - Wonderful! but the ducks and fish will not like it, so NO.
Bio-diesel - YES! but think of all the starving asians who could be eating Kudzu!

Well it is supposed to be nutritious. ;-)

Mr Giblets wrote:

this planet would be a lot better without any greenies, for a start!

Nah. We need a few. Their views just need to be balanced by rationality (which is sorely lacking in all levels of our government).

I say global warming baloney. It does not look like global warming in Saint Paul today.

I know, i know, no they call it climate change.

good grief