Germany Fired Up Over Clean Coal 385
MIT's Technology Review is reporting on the world's first coal-driven power plant designed to capture and store C02 emissions. "Vattenfall's small 30-megawatt plant burns the lignite in air from which nitrogen has been removed. Combustion in the resulting oxygen-rich atmosphere produces a waste stream of carbon dioxide and water vapor, three-quarters of which is recycled back into the boiler. By repeating this process, known as oxyfuel, it is possible to greatly concentrate the carbon dioxide. After particles and sulfur have been removed, and water vapor has been condensed out, the waste gas can be 98 percent carbon dioxide, according to Vattenfall. The separated carbon dioxide will be cooled down to -28 C and liquefied. Starting next year, the plan is to transport it by truck 150 miles northwest, to be injected 3,000 meters underground into a depleted inland gas field in Altmark. Ideally, in the future, the gas will be carried by pipeline to underground storage, says Vattenfall. "
how much power does it use (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
really, how much CO2 is generated in removing the nitrogen from the air used to combust the lignite ?
None. The carbon come from burning the lignite, which is predominantly carbon, not from the air. A minor difference but a crucial one. The atmosphere contains 0.01 to 0.1% CO2, so your question is reasonable. But that being so, one should look to the rest of the process for the source, the answer being a BGO (Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious). Almost pure carbon + almost pure oxygen = a lot of CO2.
I'm interested in knowing where the nitrogen goes. If dumped in the air as N2 one would hope precautions against
Re: (Score:2)
The you can compress the results and feed it back into the reactor.
- Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "breeder reactor".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It'd be more useful to grow plants that we can use the products from. For example, assume that a ton of coal contains 1 ton of carbon. Burning it will produce about 3.6 tons of carbon dioxide. That amount of carbon dioxide therefore contains 1 ton of carbon, and about 2.6 tons of oxygen.
Consider a cotton plant. When the cotton is picked from the plant, it contains carbon that the plant absorbed from the atmosphere. Let's assume that 4 tons of cotton contains 1 ton of carbon. That means that all the carbon
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If coal is made of plants, then coal is part of our environment. It's just part that has been turned into rock for a long time. Think about an atom of carbon in a hunk of coal. Imagine it being d
US should be fired up too. (Score:4, Insightful)
With the US being one of the leading producers of coal, they should be the biggest proponent of such technology. This is in light of US industry/Economy going to the crap yard.
http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=188 [worldcoal.org]
Re:US should be fired up too. (Score:5, Interesting)
The coal industry ni the US has gotten waiver after waiver for our cleaner plants.
I dont believe they will ever implement an expensive technology unless someone puts a gun to their head. But they can't becasue what do you do if they just decide not to operate?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My understanding is that both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been acting as independent, for-profit companies, which created part of the problem we have now.
I recall the power problems California had not existing until after the power companies were privatized, too.
Regardless, I believe that any utility or service that is basically required by the general populace and that uses public or government property should be maintained by the government and basic service offered to the public, while private compan
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:steps (Score:4, Insightful)
"What is the problem with putting the putting the emissions back in the ground?"
Because that would be a technological solution to the problem. One of reasons that there is still a lot of resistance to the Global Climate Change crowd is that there seems to be a "hair shirt" mentality about it - they aren't yelling because the Earth is going to melt down. Rather, they really want us using fewer resources because we are BAD for doing so. It is a behavior change they are looking for, not really a change in the percentage of CO2 put into the atmosphere. So a technological solution that allows the world to continue using energy like a drunken sailor uses his paycheck is unacceptable.
Re:steps (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh, I thought it was because the earth has a funny way of shifting around and things don't always stay buried for very long which could be problematic for pressurized gasses, but I guess it's because of anti-technology ecofascists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:steps (Score:5, Insightful)
There's certainly that, PLUS:
It does not reduce our dependence on a limited resource. We're gonna run out eventually and the sooner we find an alternative the better.
It just so happens that most, if not all of the truly "renewable" energy cycles we've found are also very eco-friendly. Kind of like a double-win.
=Smidge=
Re:steps (Score:5, Insightful)
somehow natural gas has stayed underground for millions of years.
Re:steps (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't bring logic and practical conclusions from science and real life observations into this discussion. What are you trying to do, be sane about these things?
Gosh, if there is one thing that pissed me off more then anything else is someone pointing out the obvious. If it wasn't for you, we could be completely over looking that aspect of reality and still have a reason for why this is bad.
Oh hell.. what happened, where am I? I feel like I was hit by a truck.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a difference between natural gas and CO2: the latter is heavier than oxigen or nitrogen (i.e. air) and will stay in the low areas, potentially suffocating aerobic animals.
Could the CO2 escape in a massive way from these underground layers? It depends from case to case, but I am sure that I would feel much safer living on top of a deposit of natural gas, rather than CO2.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, Natural gas is explosive too because it is primarily methane (90% CH4 or better) with a few other gasses mixed together with it. Now, before processing, natural gas has a lot of water in it too which would make it closer to as heavy as Co2. But either will dissipate well in the atmosphere unless conditions are just right for them not to (a small window). There isn't much to worry about because the atmosphere isn't really vacuum tube and has wind currents and all to move the Co2 around. This is how you
Re:steps (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the natural tendency is for it to percolate out of the ground. We only find natural gas (and oil) in lens-shaped non-porous rock formations which trap the rising gas before it reaches the surface. This is called an anticline [wikipedia.org]. Luckily, the most economical use for the CO2 produced is to pump it back down into the trap, where it will presumably remain for another million years.
Re:steps (Score:4, Informative)
Huh, I thought it was because the earth has a funny way of shifting around and things don't always stay buried for very long which could be problematic for pressurized gasses, but I guess it's because of anti-technology ecofascists.
It's being done, it's being studied, and so far the science indicates it is pretty safe [wikipedia.org]. Pressurized gasses - like natural gas - have existed underground for ages and we've managed to deal with them.
Re:steps (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, then we'd be burning trees much, much faster than they could replenish. That's why they aren't really renewable.
Nuclear is really the only way to go. Reprocess and re-use the fuel in breeder reactors, and we'll have enough energy for a long time, and little dangerous waste.
Re:steps (Score:4, Interesting)
Not a popular solution, but we never heard the Roman Empire or ancient C'hin Empire worry about fuel shortages or melting ice caps. That's because there were only 1/2 billion people..... lots of room and fuel for everybody. Nature wasn't impacted.
You're referring to an empire (Rome) that depopulated the gamestock of northern Africa in order to stock its coliseums.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's really awesome how you trivialized, misrepresented, AND over-generalized climate change arguments all in one single post! You should win an award for the best straw man of the day!
Just a few specifics on why your post was stupid:
1. There are many people in this world with an opinion about global warming. Grouping everyone together into one 'they', and calling them a 'Global Climate Change crowd' both misrepresents a position as if it is held by everyone with an opinion about global climate change (
Re:steps (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:steps (Score:4, Informative)
Ask the folks in Lake Nyos [wikipedia.org]. Natural CO2 escaped from a lake and killed something like 2,000 people.
Gonna be mighty hard to ask them about it, then.
That CO2 needs to be stored very securely and away from centers of population.
I believe that was exactly the idea behind burying it "3,000 meters underground into a depleted inland gas field in Altmark."
And the article doesn't mention it, but IIRC the reason for burying the waste CO2 is that it gets absorbed by the surrounding rocks and converted into harmless minerals, rather than letting it escape into the atmosphere again. Someone with more geological expertise than I have will have to explain that, though.
Re:steps (Score:5, Insightful)
IIRC the reason for burying the waste CO2 is that it gets absorbed by the surrounding rocks and converted into harmless minerals.... Someone with more geological expertise than I have will have to explain that, though.
Geological? Try alchemical. Carbon doesn't transmute to other elements to form new non-carbon minerals. Mineralize carbon and you get slate, coal, or diamond.
Better to have a living process rebind that carbon with hydrogen into useful biochemicals and free up the oxygen for later recombustion.
Underground Storage of Gas is Common! (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies in the United States currently have billions of cubic feet of natural gas and other gases into long-term underground storage facilities. In fact, anyone familiar with the working end of the natural gas business will be happy to spend hours explaining how it works. The Department of Energy -- http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngcapacity/ngcapacity.pdf [doe.gov] has some info on the practice.
Put simply: gas underground moves very, very slowly. The diffusion rate can be measured, and while some gas will inevitably escape, the amount lost can be measured very precisely (and accurately).
Unless we as a society are willing to suffer blackouts, coal and other fossil fuel power plants will be around for years. Heck, even Al Gore says a minimum of 10 years, and I personally (as an energy industry guy) think it's going to be a lot longer than that.
If you accept that there is a man-made climate crisis coming, then storage of CO2 is an excellent short term fix to reducing emissions as we move away from a carbon-based economy. Whether you think of this as "short term" storage or "long-term" storage depends on your outlook. Is 100 years long or short? Seen from a geological timeline, it's laughably short. Looked at as a means of reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere starting today -- it's a great first step.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The separated carbon dioxide will be cooled down to -28 C and liquefied.
And exactly how much energy are you spending on liquefying the CO2?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I actually have experience with this type of combustion. There is approximately a ~30-35% "penalty" for running the ancillary equipment. The ancillary stuff would be the on-site oxygen separation plant and the CO2 liquefaction.
With the penalty, a 30 MWe* plant would only be putting out ~20 MWe. This is potentially a huge loss of revenue for a generator. Though in the case of regulated utilities, the question becomes how much would YOU be willing to pay for this type of control (because they'll raise you
Re: (Score:2)
That is what happends with plants.
Plants take the C02 convert it to O2. And when they die all the carbon goes underground. There are huge amounts of C02 underground natually anyways, there isn't much of negative from it. Heck we may go and use it in the future to keep our soda fizzy.
How much does it cost? (Score:5, Interesting)
What is the final cost of the generated electricity?
In $/KW-Hr?
Solve the problem, for pete's sake (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not the solution to the waste by-product problem. It only pushes it another decade, maybe two away. Storing waste CO2 underneath the surface is just asking for more problems. What happens if that gas is suddenly injected into the atmosphere? What happens is we all start living on, or maybe a couple of mile over, the ticking bomb?
Every energy production that has such a dangerous by-product is not the solution to our problem. Then again, we should think whether the hydrogen is. Don't want to sound like an asshole, but that water vapor those hydrogen-fueled cars produce is not going to vanish either.
Re:Solve the problem, for pete's sake (Score:5, Funny)
yeah, why the heck don't they convert the CO2 into something usable, like C and O2?
Maybe build another generating plant next door that supplies the energy required to break the molocules...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
yeah, why the heck don't they convert the CO2 into something usable, like C and O2?
Maybe build another generating plant next door that supplies the energy required to break the molocules...
CO2 is a extremely stable molecule and it would take a great deal of energy to separate the two. The amount of energy it would be take would be counter-productive to the initial problem you are trying to solve.
Until we can figure out how to simulate photosynthesis or just go ahead and the let the trees do it, this just isn't the best solution available.
However, neither is pumping it in to the ground in my opinion. ...since no one is asking, I guess it doesn't really matter though.
Re:Solve the problem, for pete's sake (Score:5, Funny)
Until we can figure out how to simulate good joke telling or just go ahead and let Monty Python do it, this just ins't the best solution available.
However, neither is beating it into your head in my opinion.
Energy used to convert CO2 to C and O2 (Score:2)
You are essentially correct! The catch is that the energy needed would be at the minimum equal to the amount of energy produced by the burning. Add to that the energy used in maintaining the process and you would actually consume more energy than the original burning of oil, gas or coal produced.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Solve the problem, for pete's sake (Score:5, Funny)
Don't want to sound like an asshole, but that water vapor those hydrogen-fueled cars produce is not going to vanish either.
If only there was a way of controlling the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and pumping the excess into a vast transportation network that carries it to the ocean.
Re:Solve the problem, for pete's sake (Score:4, Insightful)
SAME concept as the article...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uhh? Why not just use nuclear power, store it into Yucca Mountain (as was planned, until people complained) opposed to storing the nuclear waste in the nuclear plant itself.
SAME concept as the article...
Same concept?
Situation 1: "Sorry, folks, the storage facility leaked into the local groundwater. You'll find a little bit of carbonation in your water supply."
Situation 2: "Sorry, folks, the storage facility leaked into the local groundwater. You'll find a little bit of Cesium-137 [wikipedia.org] in your water supply."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Same concept? Situation 1: "Sorry, folks, the storage facility leaked into the local groundwater. You'll find a little bit of carbonation in your water supply." Situation 2: "Sorry, folks, the storage facility leaked into the local groundwater. You'll find a little bit of Cesium-137 [wikipedia.org] in your water supply."
More like... "Sorry, folks, its in fucking Yucca Mountain underneath layers of concrete, where no seismic activity occurs, deep underground , nowhere near civilization.
Whereas, people push against storing underground are currently forcing them to store nuclear waste on site at the power plants which are near civilization.
The nuclear option (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Solve the problem, for pete's sake (Score:4, Insightful)
How about we stop using retarded 50 year old nuclear technology that only extracts 10% of the usable energy from nuclear fuel and throwing the rest away?
We could feed all our energy needs for centuries on feeder-breeder reactors. Not only this, but the final waste products of this process remain radioactive for only a few centuries vs thousands of years that conventional nuclear "waste" lasts. That makes the issue of disposing of nuclear waste vastly more simple.
I don't really promote 100% nuclear, closer to 50/50 feeder reactors and solar thermal power production. We don't really need to use any coal, gas or oil to power the grid at all. Hell we could even rid ourselves of fossil fuels for most transport as well if we invested in grid powered train tracks and charging rails for electric vehicles on the interstates and major highways.
This is all available on current technology, and it would cost vastly less than the mining, pumping, refining and foreign entanglement costs associated with limited fossil fuels. Why not take this step now? Instead of a hundred years from now when there will not be enough fossil fuels left to fight over. America and Europe were some of the first nations to go through the industrial revolution. Its time to pass the torch to the third world. Its time for us to move beyond industrialization. Its not just good for America, or Europe, its good for the entire world.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a bit confused as to why sticking a small quantity of vitrified radioactive material under ground is a huge problem for the tree-huggers, but sticking vast amounts of liquefied CO2 in the ground is ok...
I'm all for diversification of energy sources, but I really don't understand why all the environmentalists are happy with this but not fission...
Re: (Score:2)
When CO2 leaks into the water table, people's children don't start growing a third arm.
Re:Solve the problem, for pete's sake (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the good thing about vitrified storage. It is GLASS. Glass doesn't get into drinking water. Also people forget that seawater already contains Thorium and Uranium.
We shouldn't be storing that stuff in Yucca mountain anyway. We should be reprocessing it and make more fuel out of it. What we can not make into fuel we should "burn" in special reactors in to short half life isotopes that decay to ore levels in just around 100 years and use vitrified storage for that.
So the real answer to the question of to why people fear nuclear power is.
They are ignorant, scared, and they have been lied to by the people that use them as their base of political power.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So the real answer to the question of to why people fear nuclear power is.
They are ignorant, scared, and they have been lied to by the people that use them as their base of political power.
Which, oddly enough, is the same reason people fear drugs, terrorism, pornography, immigrants, internet pedophiles, and just about everything else. FDR was right, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Our irrational reaction to our irrational fears has been, in almost every case, worse than the actual threat we'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When CO2 leaks into the water table, people's children don't start growing a third arm.
CO2 leaking into the water table would be just as serious as radioactive material leaking into the water table, unless you like drinking carbolic acid.
On the other hand, with CO2 being a soluble fluid, it seems more likely that it might leak than a solid, vitrified material.
Re: (Score:2)
> but I really don't understand why all the environmentalists are happy with this but not fission...
Because a 30 MW plant is small, even compared to Shippingport #1, let alone to the 1000MW plants which were the last ones built (in the USA, at least). When it gets large enough to be more than a pilot program, they will turn against it. Originally, the environmental movement was in favor of nuclear power, until it became apparent that some one might actually make a profit providing it in a few years, as
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Solve the problem, for pete's sake (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again, we should think whether the hydrogen is. Don't want to sound like an asshole, but that water vapor those hydrogen-fueled cars produce is not going to vanish either.
Since that hydrogen was probably produced by electrolysis of water, it's pretty much a zero-sum game. But water isn't to be worried about, since rain is a pretty good way of regulating the water vapor in the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well since most of the Hydrogen will hopefully come from splitting water it will end up falling as rain back to Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
How about using it to grow fast growing, oxygen-producing plants?
Someone already suggested underground algae but it could be something else...
Excellent plan! Prepare for the Future! (Score:5, Funny)
Before anyone gets REALLY "fired up" about this (Score:5, Insightful)
30 MW is tiny. A baseload powerplant in the US runs about 1000MW. So, if this process can scale up 30x, AND we can figure out what to do with 30x the CO2, then I'll get excited.
Nuke plants had many of the same issues - a 1000MW powerplant is NOT simply a Navy aircraft carrier scaled up, although it looks that way in the Visitor's center.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The nuclear analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Coal would be far cleaner than nuclear if we could contain all the wastes. If the sequestered CO2 leaked out over tens of thousands of years, it would be barely noticeable. If the nuclear waste leaked out over tens of thousands of years, it could render portions of the Earth uninhabitable. Even a tiny bit of nuclear waste leaking after 100 years could be a major disaster.
The major unsolved problem with coal is that it will run out relatively soon. We need to keep working on alternative energy sources so we'
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, if we ever figure it out, people aren't going to get as worked up about CO2 traveling by rail through their state as they would nuclear waste, because CO2 doesn't have the
CO2 Processing (Score:4, Funny)
Why not put a Coca-Cola bottling plant next door. :~)
Re: (Score:2)
Numbers (Score:2)
In case anyone else was wondering, industrial/commercial uses of C02 are on the order of 120 megatons per year, while CO2 emissions are about 13 gigatons (source [greenfacts.org]). But if they can reclaim the CO2 using less energy/money that other sources, it wouldn't hurt to reuse it.
Re: (Score:2)
or a crapload of greenhouses? I bet plants could use that co2.
Like this? [energysolu...center.org]
You know... (Score:2)
If you just keep your car tires inflated to the proper pressure....
(So when Mr. Obama said that keeping your tires inflated would be as effective as offshore US drilling, he was pretty much right. Is it a long term energy solution? Of course not. But is it equivalent to the very little oil we'd get from offshore drilling? Sure.)
Re: (Score:2)
(So when Mr. Obama said that keeping your tires inflated would be as effective as offshore US drilling, he was pretty much right. Is it a long term energy solution? Of course not. But is it equivalent to the very little oil we'd get from offshore drilling? Sure.)
Maybe we should inflate everyone's tires with CO2 from the coal plants.
A reference... (Score:2)
In the end, estimates are all we have to work with here. Estimates of oil production, estimates of gasoline savings. For our purposes in evaluating Obama's claim, all the available evidence shows that he's on solid ground in saying that better car and tire maintenance would save as much gasoline as drilling would generate. We appreciate McCain's campaign pointing out a GAO source we'd missed in our original research, but it's not at odds with our original ruling, True.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that Firestone lawsuit involving companies (in this instance, Ford) habitually underinflating cars' tires so they rode smoother?
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, the "data" he is relying on assumes EVERYBODY in the US is driving on underinflated tires, and that is not the case. If I am wrong, please provide a reference so I can educate myself.
Everybody would be driving on under-inflated tires if they didn't keep them properly inflated. It's not like one inflation lasts the lifetime of the car...
Re: (Score:2)
Average people supported drilling because they thought it would lower gas prices. When you come down to it, drilling might lower prices by 2-3%. The average american would save 2-3% of their gas bill by checking and inflating their tires regularly.
On an individual basis, you will save as much or more by properly inflating your tires as you would if and when drilling begins. Not to mention, you can check your tires today, whereas drilling is at best 5 and probably more like 10 years down the road.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds to me like doing both would be even better.
Ah a solution to our energy needs! (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank goodness coal is a renewable resource! Oh wait...
While this is an ok stopgap, and we should make all of our current coal plants clean coal plants (after all if we can make them clean why would want to breath that crap), it doesn't solve the problem that with ever increasing energy needs we need renewable forms of energy or we're going to quickly run out.
pumping co2 into the ground seems problematic (Score:2)
i can imagine a number of various bad things this can lead to
why don't we just throw all of our efforts into fusion research?
use thorium and uranium fission until we get there?
seems like the most environmentally friendly, geopolitically sound thing to do
CO2 Sequestration worries me (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily CO2 tends to react with Calcium, Sodium and Potassium minerals, and gives us different types of chalk. ;)
loss of efficiency (Score:2)
Underground? (Score:2)
Not as clean as one would think (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is not a power source, it's a power storage medium. The idea is you take electricity(solar, wind, wave, etc.) that you don't need at the moment (night time?) and use it to break water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. You then store the hydrogen and burn it with oxygen when you actually need it.
There aren't huge masses of easily accessible raw hydrogen molecules sitting around all over the Earth like there is with coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is not an energy source. To get hydrogen gas, you need to supply energy to a chemical reaction that generates hydrogen gas. Hydrogen is therefore a means of energy transport, such as electricity.
As for fusion research, it has not stopped.
Is this really clean (Score:2)
Is this clean, or have they just moved the dirt to someone else's yard?
when all is said and done (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting idea. (Score:2)
Using the waste CO2 (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not pipe (some of) the waste CO2 into a sealed greenhouse/biosphere system. Plants (the green biological kind) like that stuff and grow a lot faster when it is available in higher concentrations. Then pipe the oxygen they produce back to the coal burning power plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Terorrists (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorists will wait 10 years, and then blow up the gas stores. It'll only take one good hole in the surface above the cavern. A second explosion inside will force the gas out into the atmosphere.
Of course we could plant trees topside.
Uh, what terrorists would these be? I mean, the aim of any terrorist would be at most to topple the evil western empire, not wipe civilization as we know it off the planet.
Terrorists, unlike villains from spy shows from the '60s, have some sort of agenda, they don't sit around in their volcano lair plotting ways of destroying humanity whilst intermittently laughing manically for the sake of it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What's wrong with a million ton of CO2 underground (Score:2)
Sooner or later it'll come out, and the later it does, the more people have forgotten about it and built or just come above the area. A million ton of CO2 can kill a million people, because it's heavier than air and it will linger around until it kills every human, animal and definitely a lot of plants.
CO2 eaters (Score:2)
Can't we just fill that cavern with algae, bateria,etc and wait X years, and then mine the O2 back out?
Biochemistry 101: A brief discourse (Score:3, Informative)
Reaction 1: 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + energy (sunlight) ----------> C6H12O6 + 6 O2
(Note: Reaction 1 is catalyzed by chlorophyll, and there is a lot of other stuff going on.)
Reaction 2: C6H12O6 + 6 O2 --> 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + energy
What it means is that plants take in water and CO2 and make sugar (carbohydrates) and oxygen from it, while sugar (and other things) can be burned in oxygen, making carbon dioxide, water, and releasing some of the energy that went to make the sugar.
(Note: You can run reaction 2 with hydrocarbons (CmHn) instead of carbohydrates. You have to supply more oxygen per hydrocarbon molecule, to oxidize the hydrogen. At the same time, oxidizing the hydrogen also releases energy.)
This is called the "carbon cycle". It used to be taught in elementary school science class, and then again in more detail in high school biology and chemistry classes.
"Global warming" is Mother Nature's way of extending the growing cycle, allowing reaction 1 to convert more carbon dioxide and water into sugar and oxygen.
The above oversimplifies the processes involved, but does at least hint at explaining why burying carbon dioxide in the landfill is idiotic: you are burying valuable food and breathable oxygen.
Brown Coal (Score:3, Interesting)
It's all very well capturing the CO2 generated when burning lignite, but since it is the poorest form of coal with the lowest energy density, much more of it needs to be burned than with traditional anthracite (black) coal and so a lot more of the other air pollutants and ash are going to be generated as well, which seems like a bigger worry to me.
Re:Lake Nyos for next generation. (Score:5, Funny)
"What will exactly happen when the liquid CO2 will eventually warm up undergorund and then some future seismic event will open a crack ?
I hope this storage is somwhere in Sahara desert, not in the heart of densly populated Europe."
Future Headline:
"Earth Farts; Thousands die in Europe"
Followed by the world continuing to revolve about its axis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nothing happens, even in the unlikely event that a seismic event could open a crack 3000 meters (almost two miles) deep.
Aside from the fact that CO2 is denser than air and will tend to stay in the bottom of whatever hole it's put in, the hole that it is being put in is a depleted gas field -- meaning that the rock is porous enough for the CO2 to disperse through it like a rock sponge. It takes a bit of effort to get the gas back out again. Plus, CO2 mixed with ground water forms a mild acid which tends t
Re:Why store CO2? (Score:5, Interesting)
Rainforests do not consume a net quantity C02. What carbon they do capture during photosynthesis is later reburned during respiration or released later during decomposition (e.g. bacteria, termites).
If rainforests were net consumers of CO2, then they would be accumulating a carbon store somewhere. This would take the form of vegetation mass (not increasing) or a coal seam somehow forming underneath all the tree roots (not observed). The carbon has to go somewhere if the trees are liberating any oxygen.
The only forests that do liberate oxygen and store carbon are young, growing forests. Mature forests are done -- they are in carbon equilibrium. Only young ones, which result from clearcutting and replanting, harvest carbon. This is why the US carbon credit program for forest owners will only pay out to folks who can prove that their forest is young growth.
And yes, I own a pine forest, and am sick of hearing about this crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of the dead rainforest is "eaten" by bacteria. Some of it does get buried underground where it remains untouched. Millions of years into the future, our descendants will be able to dig-up coal or oil from those locations.
Of course millions of years is a long time to wait. Which is why it's not practical to use trees to store CO2.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only forests that do liberate oxygen and store carbon are young, growing forests. Mature forests are done -- they are in carbon equilibrium.
A study from 40 years ago reported that info. More recent studies have shown that even mature forests continue to absorb CO2.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/09/11/ap5412821.html [forbes.com]