believing is no science

If you come across a serious sceptic that is willing to listen may be this will help to ease the discussion...



Carpe diem!

history of CO2: Richard B.Alley

You want to take part in the discussion?
You want to understand, know, learn...?
You want to deny CO2 causing global warming?

Then you better listen to Professor Richard B. Alley: it just takes under an hour but will help you to understand things related to many millions and millions of years.

Carpe diem!

apropos energy!

telegraph: "Climate targets can't be achieved, say energy companies”

It is very obvious that this statement comes from energy companies that use any type of fossil fuel to generate power. If I was one of those I would most probably sign that statement.

At least, the article says something interesting about gas:

...Several urged governments to consider gas, rather than less reliable, more expensive renewables, because this fossil fuel emits 50pc less carbon dioxide than coal when burnt.

So gas in combination with Combined Heat and Power units (CHPu) and intelligent construction should give us time to develop further energy alternatives avoiding the disasters of idleness and/or fruitless discussions about what should or should not be done.

And what is more Natural Gas could soon become Bio Gas!

What is the hold up?

Carpe diem!

CCS

BBC: original article

The next steps!

If you are interested in the technology the above article summarises it nicely; but don’t forget …:

• coal fired power plants running under CCS schemes will face a severe reduction in overall efficiency (> own energy demand), approximately -40%: so there must be more and/or bigger plants ….
• The additional cost per ton of CO2 captured is estimated at $50 to $100. A ton of coal when burned emits between 2.6 to 3.2 tons of CO2 – the lower the quality the more CO2 - a ton of coal today costs around $80; its CO2 captured will add $130 to $320 to that price.

One question, can someone please explain why no matter who on this globe talks about CCS, the above English gentleman, a German Herr or a French Monsieur each one is eager to emphasise the fact, that his country would be(come) the one and only global leader of this technology? A technique that in theory works but has yet to be proven: very long term!

Carpe diem!

First clean coal to be extracted

(click headline for original article)

Great, it all sounds good.

Is there anybody out there who can explain how this works?

Coal gasification was used to supply town gas in the 18th and 19th century; this process is known, to make it deep down under ground makes it more complicated but less damaging – does it? The essential question remains the same today as over the past 200 years – only then nobody understood or had at the very least seriously defined that question; that is why we now have a problem.

So how does the carbon capture and sequestration of the generated CO2 work in this case? How is it done and is it sustainable, where is it stored and in what ratio?

Thornton’s website offers the schematic overview shown below.

So the gas, the unprocessed Syngas, coming up is the “first clean coal extracted”, as the headline suggests. Clean of CO2, but then coal is +70%carbon and emits lots of CO2 when burnt. “Hmm?” Okay.

It is then mechanically separated from raw materials, probably the wet and dirty coal-stone-soil mix, which is gasifíed directly; obviously no CO2 emissions here, “Hmmm?” Okay.

The filtered Syngas is then cleaned up, the CO2 extracted and pumped down into some kind of airtight cavity to be sequestered: that problem solved, fine.

It would be interesting to know how that is done, what the pressure is, the capacity and the expected life-span – after all this is supposed to be a one way road for the CO2.

The now clean towngas, sorry Syngas, as it obviously contains a lot of hydrogen, is cracked to make diesel; CO2 free diesel obviously, ultra-clean; or is it the process is ultra clean? “Hmmmm?”

And on top of that there is a zero emission hydrogen power plant. Great!

I forgot: to start the process one needs lots of energy for lots of steam, 300°C to 400°C hot, and for pressurising the system.

It looks promising; the Chinese will pay top dollar for this technology. That is if the energy output minus energy input allows for efficiency not too far off the efficiency of a standard coal fired power plant. They will also want to understand the conglomerate of the complicated processes behind above overview. Surely, Thornton has already answered all questions and is in a position to define the footprint of this innovative technology and especially of the project under and on Fife - to great detail. Asking is free.

Carpe diem!