Carbon capture and storage

[goosebump]

The only place that carbon should be stored on a short term basis is in trees.

[ibis]

I am argueing against storage as we are not keeping it for later. We are disposing it underground and there is the possibility that this will eventually get above ground.
It is a terrible euphemism. The storage bit is used as the regulations around waste disposal and 'storage' are quite different.

Does the simple use of the word 'storage' allow them to get around such regulations? Surely if that were the case a landfill would rebrand itself as a "long-term recyclables storage area"?

[KungFugazi]

maybe they'll find some use for it in the future ?

It already has a use, CO2 is one of the most important building blocks of life on this planet, without it life on earth would extinguish.

[KungFugazi]

Anyone have any input/opinion on this idea. Or about carbon sequesterisation?

Yes, it is a absolutely ridiculous idea.

[clareman51]

Watching the jonathan Dimbleby tour of Russia the other night on BBC2. He was in Siberia where he met a Russian scientist who said that 26% of all CO2 on earth was stored in the forest bogland there. He stated that on the further north parts of the forest, the permafrost was disappearing and methane was being released in larger quantities. Meanwhile, one company was cutting down 750,000 trees per annum in that area. I have to admit that a frisson of disquiet washed over me during that programme.

[ibis]

Watching the jonathan Dimbleby tour of Russia the other night on BBC2. He was in Siberia where he met a Russian scientist who said that 26% of all CO2 on earth was stored in the forest bogland there. He stated that on the further north parts of the forest, the permafrost was disappearing and methane was being released in larger quantities. Meanwhile, one company was cutting down 750,000 trees per annum in that area. I have to admit that a frisson of disquiet washed over me during that programme.

Borrow some of KungFugazi's unshakable "skepticism", and you will no longer suffer such frissons. There may be other side-effects, but you probably won't worry about them either.

[soubresauts]

Saying we could use it in the future is like saying that landfills are good because we could use them in the future. Dont be foolish.

Actually, that's not foolish. There's a huge amount of energy tied up in the landfills. They're mostly organic matter, plastic, and rubble. Much of the organic matter could be composted. The rest of it, along with the plastic, can produce a range of fuels. The rubble is building material... I confidently predict that we'll start "mining" the landfills in the not-too-distant future.

Those landfills that have been landscaped and have had golf courses, etc., built on them, well, they'll be last to go, I suppose.

BTW, last I heard, the idea of processing coal to make it carbon-neutral is a non-runner.

[wombat]

BTW, last I heard, the idea of processing coal to make it carbon-neutral is a non-runner.

I have heard one TD tell a meeting that an "expert" whom he met on one of their junkets had told him that they could take all the carbon out of coal - obviously the TD in question failed his Inter Cert Chemistry.
The U.S. coal lobby is pushing hard for govt. funding for research into CO2 capture and storage - I believe the ESB have told the govt. here that it is part of their plans for becoming carbon neutral while keeping Moneypoint in operation.
Assuming that such a system could be built at Moneypoint, has anyone considered the cost of building a pipeline from there to Kinsale and the energy needed to transport the gas?
We need to focus on proven technologies - I still think conservation will give the best bang for a buck.

[myksav]

Actually, that's not foolish. There's a huge amount of energy tied up in the landfills. They're mostly organic matter, plastic, and rubble. Much of the organic matter could be composted. The rest of it, along with the plastic, can produce a range of fuels. The rubble is building material... I confidently predict that we'll start "mining" the landfills in the not-too-distant future.

Those landfills that have been landscaped and have had golf courses, etc., built on them, well, they'll be last to go, I suppose.

BTW, last I heard, the idea of processing coal to make it carbon-neutral is a non-runner.

Mining of landfills is already happening, mostly on a pilot scheme. I heard about it 10-15 years ago. At that time they were drilling for plastics. Rather successfully too.

Carbon neutral coal? Coal is 80-90+% carbon, extract all of that and what does the burner use?

[Destiny's Soldier]

When you look at man's activities for CO2 release roughly 27,000,000,000 tonnes annually!

Then look at Man's activities for CO2 capture roughly 10,000,000,000 tonnes of Vegetable,Fruit, Maize, Barley, Wheat, Sugar Cane, Tea, Coffee, Rice, double the weight to include roots and stems,leaves roughly 20,000,000,000.

Now add the 27% of all land on earth is covered in Grassland which is cultived and farmed to produce, silage, hay, grass, alfalfa, you well get up and above 27BN tonnes of Carbon Dioxide Capture.

What a bunch of idiots the Greens are. CO2 is the lego on all life on earth.

What a infantile notion to remove the fertiliser which makes the food for the planet.