Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wow, by 2015 DOE has a goal of commercial sequestration at no cost.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 12:32 PM
Original message
Wow, by 2015 DOE has a goal of commercial sequestration at no cost.


By 2015, develop to the point of commercial deployment systems for direct capture and sequestration of greenhouse gases and criteria pollutant emissions from fossil fuel conversion processes. The systems developed must result in near-zero emissions and approach a no net cost increase for energy services, net of any value-added benefits


http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/index.html

I just can't wait. I'm so excited.

I think I'll spend the rest of the day marvelling at the contracts for the Strategic Center for Coal.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NEOBuckeye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. 2015. That should be a "fun" year.
I wonder what the US will look like by then? Maybe we'll be out of the Matrix...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well, it IS nearly Christmas
Personally, I want a pony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. I am very skeptical about CO2 sequestration in, for example,
depleted oil and gas wells being closer to widespread use than the technique is today.

However, at the link "fugitive methane control," NETL discusses reducing emissions of methane (23X global warming potential than CO2), nitrous oxides (296) and CFCs (4,600-10,600). According to NETL, these gases contribute 20% of global warming effect due to their "high potency." Apparently ozone is also a potent GHG gas.

We know how to capture methane from human and animal wastes and from landfills and use it to generate electricity or heat buildings. We (as in humans) can do better in capturing and using flared natural from petroleum drilling and processing.

We have the technology to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from power plants and vehicles.

And surely, we can do more with capturing CFCs.

Here in the developed world, I think that we have the obligation to employ technology that has been proven wherever possible, and to work with the developing world to help them employ proven technology. Perhaps some sort of carbon trading or tax in the developed world with clean up anywhere in the world could help.

The NETL also mentions stabilizing carbon in soil and plants. I have no problem whatsoever with this. Just about every culture knows how to plant trees and bushes. Techniques for increasing the carbon content of soil have been known for centuries.

We simply must get on the stick, by incentive or fear. A few more nasty droughts in key agricultural areas and bad hurricane, typhoon and monsoon seasons might get the attention of some folks even in the developed world because food prices will rise.

I don't think that these action items will be employed on the NETL's timetable.

As to the cost, I think that the key words are "net of any value-added benefits." Isn't increasing temporarily recovery of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons at value added benefit? Cleaning up NOX may have healthy benefits? The question will be whether NETL contemplates currently quantifiable economic benefits or insists, perhaps with some sort of program, on health and ecological benefits that normally are ignored by economists today.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. My view is that all sequestration technologies seek more fossil fuels.
Today "sequestration" is used mostly to pressurize oil wells to drive out more oil, which is burned mostly in cars and trucks.

One future technique is designed to inject carbon dioxide into coal formations to displace methane trapped in it.

Another scheme it to use carbon dioxide as an oxidant to oxidize coal to make carbon monoxide. The carbon monoxide would then be reduced with hydrogen to make synthetic motor fuels. This of course in not "sequestration" either.

Actually, from what I can tell, no billion ton per year sequestration plants are planned anywhere on earth in the next two decades. Mostly this stuff is marketing. It makes people feel as if "something" will be done about coal. Nothing will be done about coal, though, not until it's way to late. Come to think of it, it's already way too late.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I agree with you generally.
However, I expect that there may be a few storage spots that would involve little or no removal of fossil fuel from the earth to the surface. Examples would be some salt domes and depleted natgas wells. Obviously, those types of sequestration sites would be few and far between.

On a realistic level, I expect that the human race will end up removing as much oil and natural gas from the earth as money and technology will accomplish because those two substances are ideal for so many uses.

I'm just hoping that we can leave lots of coal in the ground.

On a totally different subject, do you forsee nuclear-powered cargo ships for oceanic and major coastal trade routes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. If humanity survives global climate change, seagoing nuclear reactors
will become relatively common, I think.

I think survival of our way of life - if not our species - is increasingly a long shot though.

The technology of nuclear maritime propulsion is well proved, although for not, in general, purposes with which I generally agree, since I believe that all war machinery represents a loss to humanity, a waste of human potential and a waste of resources.

The intersting thing about shipboard nuclear reactors, I think, is that large craft, like aircraft carriers, actually represent small cities with the entire population living within easy walking distance of the reactor itself. This is often overlooked.

Some non-military ocean going reactors have been built. Several Soviet era icebreakers were nuclear powered.

Four commercial nuclear powered cargo craft have been built, including the NS Savannah. The Savannah was a technical success, but was built for divided responsibilities, being both a cargo ship with a small hold, and luxury liner.

The Wikipedia article on the history of the Savannah is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

An excerpt:

Savannah was a demonstration of the technical feasibility of nuclear propulsion for merchant ships and was not expected to be commercially competitive. She was designed to be visually impressive, looking more like a luxury yacht than a bulk cargo vessel, and was equipped with thirty air-conditioned staterooms (each with an individual bath), a dining facility for 100 passengers, a lounge that could double as a movie theater, a veranda, a swimming pool and a library. By many measures, the ship was a success. She performed well at sea, her safety record was impressive, her fuel economy was unsurpassed, and her gleaming white paint was never smudged by exhaust smoke. Even her cargo handling equipment was designed to look good. From 1965 to 1971, the Maritime Administration leased Savannah to American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines for revenue cargo service.

However, Savannah's cargo space was limited to 8,500 tons of freight in 652,000 cubic feet (18,000 m³). Many of her competitors could accommodate several times as much. Her streamlined hull made loading the forward holds laborious, which became a significant disadvantage as ports became more and more automated. Her crew was a third larger than comparable oil-fired ships and received special training after completing all training requirements for conventional maritime licenses. Her operating budget included the maintenance of a separate shore organization for negotiating her port visits and a personalized shipyard facility for completing any needed repairs.

No ship with these disadvantages could hope to be commercially successful. Her passenger space was wasted while her cargo capacity was insufficient. As a result of her design handicaps, Savannah cost approximately US$2 million a year more in operating subsidies than a similarly sized Mariner-class ship with a conventional oil-fired steam plant. The Maritime Administration decommissioned her in 1972 to save costs, a decision that made sense when fuel oil cost US$20 per ton. In 1974, however, when fuel oil cost $80 per ton following an energy crisis, Savannah's operating costs would have been no greater than a conventional cargo ship. (Maintenance and eventual disposal are other issues, of course.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Thanks for the wiki on the Savannah.`
That's the ship I had in mind, although I could not recall her name.

I agree that the middle to long distance future doesn't look too hot at this time.

The time that we have wasted since the Reagan years and that we continue to waste really makes me ill. If we had become serious over climate change and liquid fuel depletion 35 years ago, I think that there would be more hope for a reasonable although materially much more modest lifestyle. Now such an outcome for the vast majority of people looks much less likely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. "The Only U.S. National Laboratory Devoted to Fossil Energy Technology"
As opposed to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, http://www.nrel.gov , which had many of its staff terminated just before Bu**sh**'s visit -- only to be temporarily re-hired to distract attention from the emporer's new clothes.

So when are you going to change your avatar to the sarcasm smiley? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. For some reason I resist using that smiley.
Somehow I think that people usually, though not always, know what I mean.

I'm in a very sarcastic and bitter mood today.

I'm trying to lighten up a bit. I have lighted my renewable energy system tonight, and am breathing some particulates right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
10. And we'll all drive to the sequestration site in our GM plug-in hybrids!!!
:eyes: :puke: :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. You can do it by attaching a big balloon to your tailpipe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. So, you're implying that this would be GM's Blow It Out Your Ass-Mobile?
Edited on Sun Dec-03-06 11:39 PM by hatrack
That's pretty much the impression I got from the LA auto show press releases, for whatever that's worth.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-03-06 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Well, that's a poetic way of putting it. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC