Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

FIRST TEST FOR CLEAN COAL

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Daily Planet Media on September 11, 2008, 5:14 am
 
The world's first power plant free of CO2 emissions has begun
generating "clean energy" in Germany.

The Swedish energy provider Vattenfall switched on the plant at
Spremberg, Germany yesterday.

The plant is operated from a lignite coal-powered 30 MW generator that
liquefies the CO2 and then transports the waste into an underground
storage site.

Vattenfall hailed the project as a milestone in environmentally
friendly energy production, dismissing claims by several environmental
groups that the technology isn't feasible or commercially viable.

The $00 million 30 MW oxyfuel thermal pilot plant will pump CO2
emissions - in the form of compressed liquid - into a former natural
gas field.

The technique is a "technological achievement" to radically reduce CO2
emissions, Vatternfall CEO Lars Josefsson told Daily Planet Media.

Vatternfall plans to export its clean coal technology worldwide with
other demonstration plants scheduled for Mongstad, Norway;
Nordjylland, Denmark and Janschwalde, Germany.

Vatternfall also intends heading a climate change campaign to set a
world standard price for carbon.

Most energy experts agree that provided the Spremberg plant can
produce affordable electricity it will spur a new era for brown, black
and shale coal.

The British Government launched a competition for the construction of
clean coal power plants ten times the size of the German plant now
under trial.

Coal is a primary source of carbon dioxide emissions with 80 per cent
of the world's energy dependent on the fossil fuel.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is designed to separate
carbon dioxide during the process of generating electricity and
burying the CO2 a kilometer or more underground.

The State of the Planet
IS THE AIDS PANDEMIC OVER?


For latest daily news on climate change and planet opinion
www.dailyplanetmedia.com

Read all about the Earth Charter for a sustainable planet
www.earthcharterfoundation.com

Posted by Damon Hill on September 12, 2008, 10:16 pm
 
4e45-8f4b-2d5cda3d52d4@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

What is the energy penalty for separating, liquifying (by compression
and cooling), and injecting the liquid CO2 into a suitable permanent
storage medium?  There's also ash, sulfur and mercury and other
pollutants to deal with (some of the ash constituents might be of
marginal commercial value--it's said the uranium content of some coals
has more energy than the coal itself).

Still seems like it's just sweeping the problem under the rug, almost
literally.  A rupture to the surface of a storage facility could flood
large areas with CO2; this has occured naturally with hundreds or
thousands of deaths.

--Damon

Posted by hhc314 on September 14, 2008, 6:34 pm
 wrote:

Wouldn't it make greener sense to sell the liquified CO2 to a fire
extinguisher manufacturer or two anyther industry that uses it in a
manufacturing process (say a ceramics firm that is producing certain
type products or a soda water firm or beer producer?)

I sort of like the fire extinguisher idea, because the CO2 is then
used to knock down fires that otherwise would produce more CO2 than
that used in extinguishing the fire.

Just a crazy thought, because CO2 has so many valuable in uses in
industry and agriculture (greenhouse farming for example).

Harry C.




Posted by Russ in San Diego on September 16, 2008, 5:15 am
 On Sep 14, 11:34am, hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:

Probably not.  First of all, it's pretty easy to acquire CO2.  Second,
the quantity of CO2 used in industry (culinary and otherwise) is tiny
compared to the amount that would have to be sequestered if you really
were trying to combust what is relatively close to pure carbon
(coal).  I'd like to see the energy budget on combustion of coal while
sequestering CO2.

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the danger associated with vast
quantities of concentrated CO2 than I would be about nuclear fission
byproducts.  CO2 is inherently very mobile stuff if it escapes
containment.  And it stays low to the ground, displacing oxygen until
and unless dispersed by wind.  Not benign stuff in quantity.

Posted by Fred Kasner on September 19, 2008, 3:57 am
 hhc314@yahoo.com wrote:

opinionwww.dailyplanetmedia.com

planetwww.earthcharterfoundation.com

I fear any such thing as CO2 storage underground. I see it eventually
leading to a disaster similar to, but on a larger scale, the event of
release from a lake bottom of CO2 in Camaroon that killed many people.
FK

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread