19 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Environmentalist's call it an eco-disaster.
Wyoming coal plant will produce 10,600 barells of gas per day, (which when consumed)
will double the emissions that an equivalent amount of regular oil to gas would
produce.
JFC!
http://www.treehugge...ontent=My Yahoo

And this load of ____.
"The High Plains Gasification-Advanced Technology Center, if built, would be a test site for turning coal into gas, which burns more cleanly than coal."
http://www.businessw...s/D9RC1E7G0.htm

[still learning]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 09 December 2011 - 12:29 PM, said:

will double the emissions that an equivalent amount of regular oil to gas would
produce.
JFC!
http://www.treehugge...ontent=My+Yahoo

Coal to gasoline (sometimes called coal to liquids) results in considerabiy more CO2 than conventional gasoline.  The gasoline produces the same amount, but producing the gasoline is more CO2 intensive than for ordinary petroleum.
Ordinarily that'd be "from bad to worse."

If you follow the treehugger link to: http://www.sacbee.co...igns-major.html
You can find this claim: "MBFP plans to sequester the CO2 that is captured from the facility by selling the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery."

If they do that, and sequester it all, then it'll be no worse than ordinary gasoline production.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Big if though, don't ya' think?

[Alli]

That does seem like a really bad idea... the "if"s are always quite worrisome in things like this- the world never seems to work the ideal way and I'd want to know what the backup plan is in case things don't turn out as planned- will they shutter the plant? Probably not!

[jasserEnv]

Carbon sequestration is really like leaving landmines around. Even if they force the CO2 to react with rock in the ground, what are the conditions that could cause that CO2 to leech back out again? Is erosion a risk? Does the CO2 have the potential to create any acids that might dissolve the rock? These answers are not readily available and this in of itself makes caution the most appropriate response.

[still learning]

jasserEnv, on 11 December 2011 - 08:30 PM, said:

Carbon sequestration is really like leaving landmines around. Even if they force the CO2 to react with rock in the ground, what are the conditions that could cause that CO2 to leech back out again? Is erosion a risk? Does the CO2 have the potential to create any acids that might dissolve the rock? These answers are not readily available and this in of itself makes caution the most appropriate response.

CCS, carbon capture and storage or carbon capture and sequesteration...

In the particular case of mentioned, where CO2 is used for enhanced oil recovery, this sort of thing has been done for years and is well proven.  Caution, of course.  Anything having to do with oil or gas drilling or production has to be done with caution.

In the case of putting CO2 into depleted oil or natural gas reservoirs, a lot of the concerns that people have about safe CO2 sequesteration are answered beforehand.  That the rock of the reservoir is (or was) leak proof enough to contain the CO2 is already known since the oil or gas didn't leak out over the centuries before.  Need to make sure it stays that way, but it's at least known that it was OK to start with.

In the case of sequestering CO2 from more or less ordinary electric powerplants in other places besides depleted oil or gas reservoirs, I don't think that's actually been done yet so there are certainly unanswered questions.  There aren't enough depleted oil/gas reservoirs to handle the large scale sequesteration that'd be needed if the CO2 from lots of existing electric powerplants were to be captured.  I know that the USGS and other organizations have done considerable research on the issue so some questions will have been answered, but I don't know if enough have.  http://en.wikipedia....ure_and_storage

There's been a lot written about CCS and there's been considerable money spent, but no actual CCS at a regular powerplant into a non oilfield or non gasfield setting, near as I can tell.  In Europe, Vattenfall has been written about, but no actual sequesteration. http://www.vattenfal...C7F55B5DE07505E

[jasserEnv]

I know sequestration has been done for some time. The problem is that it is essentially trying to trap CO2 in chambers that have already been compromised by the very fact that someone has drilled into them. While they might have been sealed prior to that point, they are now compromised at some level. When such reservoirs leak, we aren't going to know it either. It is not as if we will see a dark black trail or some pollutant in the air. The C02 will simply seep up out of the rocks and nobody will be the wiser. This puts the oil companies in control of monitoring the dangerous product which iis not brightest approach from a regulatory standpoint.

Add to that natural gas exercises with fracking are adding cracks to rock to get the natural gas out and you have a nice potential to store something that is going to leak out in a mad rush when somebody works nearby for an 'unrelated' reason.

[JBMedia]

Hmm. This is very interesting. From previous readings I've done I always thought making fuel from coal would benefit us both habitat and economy wise. This is news to me, which brings up even more speculation of whether it should even be done or left alone. How do you all feel about this particular situation?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Easy.
No to coal in all of it's forms. Period.

[still learning]

JBMedia, on 12 December 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

Hmm. This is very interesting. From previous readings I've done I always thought making fuel from coal would benefit us both habitat and economy wise. This is news to me, which brings up even more speculation of whether it should even be done or left alone. How do you all feel about this particular situation?

No matter which of several methods is used, producing liquid or gaseous fuel from coal has a total CO2 "footprint" bigger than does conventional oil or natural gas.  High school level chemistry stuff.  See  http://en.wikipedia....Coal_to_liquids

Now if the CO2 from the production process is sequestered, then the net CO2 emitted into the atmpsphere is about the same as conventional oil or natural gas.  Can (can) work out OK of there's a partially depleted oilfield nearby that actually has a need for the stuff to enhance oil recovery, the operator of the oilfield will pay for high pressure CO2, cover the increased costs of coal to liquid fuel relative to conventional oil.
As previously noted CO2 sequesteration in general is so far unproven, at least on a large scale in non-oilfield situations.  Hasn't failed.  Hasn't succeeded.  Hasn't been tried.  Lots of potential problems, not known yet whether or not they can all be solved.  Can't be counted on, at least not yet.

Not sure how there'd be a habitat benefit to coal-to-liquid fuel .  Maybe if underground gasification is done, no need to strip-mine the coal in that case.  Thing is, that's less proven than CCS and I can imagine all sorts of habitat complications.  Lots of problems to be solved there.  Underground coal gasification is a sort like an underground coal seam fire, hopefully controlled though, unlike this:  http://en.wikipedia..../Coal_seam_fire

Economic benefit?  I dunno.  Likely some fat fees for the promoters who put the deals together.  Some regular jobs for regular folks. Some reduced dependence on imported petroleum.  What else?

Downside?  Increased CO2.  Increased CO2 into the atmosphere unless sequesteration is done, and that can't yet be counted on.  Would a coal to liquids plant owner be willing to write off the investment and shut down if CCS can't be done?

[sculptor]

just curious

what concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the global temperature enough to stave off the next advance of the ice?
and
what concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would be needed to create the oft mentioned positive feedback loop
and, how much of a temperature rise would be expected from said feedback loop
and
What concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would be needed to keep temperatures at current levels during a Tobo level volcanic winter?
and
at current levels and acceleration of additional CO2, how long would it take to reach the above levels?

curiously yours
rod

[Shortpoet-GTD]

4

[Hydrotopia]

They've had many great ideas in the past that have blown-up on them once implemented. This is no different.

[jasserEnv]

JBMedia, on 12 December 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

Hmm. This is very interesting. From previous readings I've done I always thought making fuel from coal would benefit us both habitat and economy wise. This is news to me, which brings up even more speculation of whether it should even be done or left alone. How do you all feel about this particular situation?

Coal, oil, gas, natural gas etc are all essentially densely stored forms of energy that have built up over hundreds of millions of years within these underground deposits. When any of them are burned, they alter the chemistry of the atmosphere. Given that we are taking all this these gases and have been throwing them back into the atmosphere in less than 100 years, it is hardly surprising that we get the drastic effects of climate change. Without far better technology and ways to eliminate any changes to our atmosphere in using this power, we are being irresponsible in making use of it. We are far better to look at alternative sources of fuel rather than continuing to drain through millions of years of accumulated stored energy in such a short time.

[Hydrotopia]

Not only that but we have no idea of the organic stasis that could be existing in those vast reserves. It could be that Earth somehow insulates itself magnetically or thermally through those vast deposits. Removing them and their potentially beneficial effect may be playing a serious game of Russian Roulette with the human race's future.

[sculptor]

every carbon based energy source has been removed from the atmosphere
we ain't adding anything that wasn't there at one time or another

as we become aware of the environmental impact of our actions, we have a new tool in our tool-kit
and we learn as we go-----to respect a hot stove, or sharp edge, or fast car----energy use is no different, just another tool worthy of respect.

the current push to build solar and wind machines to capture solar and wind energy are just more tools, but it takes energy to make tools to use or make(convert) or capture energy, ... kind of a technological spiral

Tesla proposed harnessing the geomagnetic energy in the earth --------- and he proved the concept, but the will to pursue novelty that could decentralize energy production just wasn't there

some of you here are instruments of that order of change (decentralization)

bravo.
...........................

long ago, people burned coal for heat, and the cities turned black with soot the day after a snowstorm------------sometimes, centralizing the use of stored energy(coal) actually was good for the environment

as in AA the trick is in knowing the difference

[Hydrotopia]

sculptor, on 15 December 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

every carbon based energy source has been removed from the atmosphere
we ain't adding anything that wasn't there at one time or another

  That's recklessly cavalier and inaccurate. This record spike is directly unique to a very specific set of circumstances including an unprecedented world population and its resource demands and depletion. To compare this spike with other natural occurrences in Earth history is scientifically unsound simply because no such occurrence has ever happened before and therefore can't be blithely compared.

[sculptor]

Hydro I made no mention of your "spike"

and stand by what i actually did type, and eschew and disavow your interpretation of those words

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Millions of years of plants and animals dying, with their carbon is
being pumped back into our tanks and heaters-at break neck speed, I might add.

[Hydrotopia]

sculptor, on 15 December 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

Hydro I made no mention of your "spike"

and stand by what i actually did type, and eschew and disavow your interpretation of those words

  Well, you don't really have any choice since that record spike is inseparable from the current warming event. That spike is a drastic rise in CO2 that has never occurred before in the previous natural events you referenced. I'm sorry but those are the relevant terms here when referring to Global Warming and its effect. I'm not sure your reply indicates an understanding of what is being said. You said it is nothing that hasn't happened before in Earth history. In fact it actually is something very unique that hasn't happened before - therefore your statement is wrong.