Post by Grant on Dec 23, 2013 5:48:31 GMT 9.5
My clear impression is that no energy alternative or combination of alternatives are going to, by themselves, seriously impact our use of fossil fuel well into the future, short of some massive population die-off. That leaves one Hail Mary additional escape from suffering the disastrous consequences of global warming - carbon capture and sequestration. Not a lot of hope there but why not give it a try. Wikipedia has an extensive study of that technology. Let's start there.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
They mention a looping process that this fellow here thinks has tremendous potential for both sequestration and providing energy at relatively low cost. It involves using methane from brine for energy followed by combining captured CO2 with the brine and then sequestering it. Geothermal is also worked into the mix. I'll leave it to some more technically knowledgeable person to comment on the utility and feasibility of it all.
www.pge.utexas.edu/news/features/161-carbon-solution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
The IPCC estimates that the economic potential of CCS could be between 10% and 55% of the total carbon mitigation effort until year 2100.[4]
Capturing and compressing CO2 may increase the fuel needs of a coal-fired CCS plant by 25–40%.[4] These and other system costs are estimated to increase the cost of the energy produced by 21–91% for purpose built plants.[4] Applying the technology to existing plants would be more expensive especially if they are far from a sequestration site. Recent industry reports suggest that with successful research, development and deployment (RD&D), sequestered coal-based electricity generation in 2025 may cost less than unsequestered coal-based electricity generation today.[5]
Storage of the CO2 is envisaged either in deep geological formations, or in the form of mineral carbonates. Deep ocean storage is no longer considered feasible because it greatly increases the problem of ocean acidification.[6] Geological formations are currently considered the most promising sequestration sites. The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) reported that North America has enough storage capacity for more than 900 years worth of carbon dioxide at current production rates.[7] A general problem is that long term predictions about submarine or underground storage security are very difficult and uncertain, and there is still the risk that CO2 might leak into the atmosphere.
Capturing and compressing CO2 may increase the fuel needs of a coal-fired CCS plant by 25–40%.[4] These and other system costs are estimated to increase the cost of the energy produced by 21–91% for purpose built plants.[4] Applying the technology to existing plants would be more expensive especially if they are far from a sequestration site. Recent industry reports suggest that with successful research, development and deployment (RD&D), sequestered coal-based electricity generation in 2025 may cost less than unsequestered coal-based electricity generation today.[5]
Storage of the CO2 is envisaged either in deep geological formations, or in the form of mineral carbonates. Deep ocean storage is no longer considered feasible because it greatly increases the problem of ocean acidification.[6] Geological formations are currently considered the most promising sequestration sites. The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) reported that North America has enough storage capacity for more than 900 years worth of carbon dioxide at current production rates.[7] A general problem is that long term predictions about submarine or underground storage security are very difficult and uncertain, and there is still the risk that CO2 might leak into the atmosphere.
They mention a looping process that this fellow here thinks has tremendous potential for both sequestration and providing energy at relatively low cost. It involves using methane from brine for energy followed by combining captured CO2 with the brine and then sequestering it. Geothermal is also worked into the mix. I'll leave it to some more technically knowledgeable person to comment on the utility and feasibility of it all.
www.pge.utexas.edu/news/features/161-carbon-solution
what if a technology could economically do both: produce large amounts of energy and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions? And what if that technology fit seamlessly into the country’s existing industrial infrastructure? This scenario could become reality along the U.S. Gulf Coast. Because of a special geologic situation there, a huge amount of CO2 could be stored several kilometers underground in hot, salty fluid called brine, and the storage procedure itself would produce a vast amount of methane for fuel, as well as usable heat. Neither the storage nor the production of methane or of geothermal energy is economical on its own. Yet new calculations show that when the processes are combined in a closed-loop system, they could pay off handsomely in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Of course this is only a partial solution and only captures CO2 that is being burned, not already in the air and ocean. But you have to start somewhere.