Low Emission Electricity Plants

BishopBerkeley writes "Nature is reporting (I have a univ. IP, so hopefully the link works for everyone) that plans are underway to build a power plant in Scotland that dramatically reduces carbon emission in fossil fuel burning power plants. The process will use steam to crack methane into hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The hydrogen is then burned, and the carbon dioxide is pumped into deposits under the North Sea. If it works, will resistance to the Kyoto Treaty finally go away?"

Comments

Umm...

[nystire]

Seems like a bit of hair splitting to me. Will the gas not simply percolate outwards from under the seabed?

(Is a first post comment mandatory? :)

Just a new method to dump carbon dioxide

[spectrum-]

the carbon dioxide is pumped into deposits under the North Sea

So they pump the CO2 into a hole in the ground instead of in the air to sidestep pollution laws. How does that really help overall? What happens to this gas long term?

Whats the point of this devlopment apart from temporarily reducing air emmissions in the direct surrounding?

Re:Just a new method to dump carbon dioxide

[PhilHibbs]

No, they pump it into the ocean where it dissolves. No gas, no greenhouse effect, no global warming.

Re:Just a new method to dump carbon dioxide

[PhilHibbs]

From Wikipedia:

Another proposed form of carbon sequestration in the ocean is direct injection. In this method, carbon dioxide is pumped directly into the water at depth, and expected to form "lakes" of liquid CO2 at the bottom. Experiments carried out in moderate to deep waters (350 - 3600 meters) indicate that the liquid CO2 reacts to form solid CO2 clathrate hydrates which gradually dissolve in the surrounding waters.

Also:

Phytoplankton in the oceans, like trees, use photosynthesis to extract carbon from CO2. They are the starting point of the marine food chain.

So it's like fertilizer for the seas.

Re:Just a new method to dump carbon dioxide

[drnlm]

From the article, they pump the CO2 into a old oil-field, making it easier to pump out oil, and, as a bonus, burying the CO2. Quite a nifty trick, but does require a nearby underground oil-field to work. This also means that you're pumping the gas into a pretty well-sealed enviroment, so leakage is not much of a factor.

Re:Just a new method to dump carbon dioxide

[anthony_dipierro]

So it's like fertilizer for the seas.

And CO2 in the air is like fertilizer for the skys?

Re:Just a new method to dump carbon dioxide

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, the method is FLAWLESS.

Secondly, it would work with NUKULAR WASTE too!

Re:Just a new method to dump carbon dioxide

[Mark of THE CITY]

Yes, it dissolves, but not indefinitely. There's already a large amount of carbon dioxide in the deep ocean waters; how far are we from saturation? Also, though the ocean vs. volcanic lake geometry is vastly different, how confident are we there won't be abrupt oceanic upwellings leading to massive carbon dioxide releases?

Re:Just a new method to dump carbon dioxide

[Directrix1]

I read an article somewhere (probably linked from slashdot) about how there was a vast carbon dioxide lake underneath a lake in the top of a volcano. One day the carbon dioxide pool erupted, and suffocated the surrounding village. So you have a very good (I think show stopping even) point indeed.

Re:Just a new method to dump carbon dioxide

[ScrewMaster]

Thank you for your input in this matter, Mr. President. Now go play in traffic.

Re:Just a new method to dump carbon dioxide

[Mark of THE CITY]

Right, Lake Nyos for one.

Didn't Japan just try this?

[leonbrooks]

Well, you know: ocean, vapours rising...

Depositing CO2

[Pegasus]

There's a whole article in this month Scientific American on that topic. They examine three different methods of depositing CO2 from burning fossil fuels. I hope it will be online next month.

Other problems with Kyoto

[new-black-hand]

Other problems with Kyoto are governments mis-calculating their emissions and sending their countries into the red, with a devestating effect on their economies. Take for example New Zealand, whos govermnet originally predicted a $500 Million windfall from Kyoto due to reduced emissions, but last week the news broke that their calculations were wrong and instead their Kyoto bill wil come to $1 Billion. It is big news over in New Zealand, with the federal budget now in negative territory before it and the government are re-evaluating their Kyoto commitment. They are now looking at increasing corporate taxes to pay the Kyoto bill, leaving many unhappy. Many European nations are now in the same boat.

Bigger news on this front would be the Nuclear Fusion reactor Being built in France, and China announcing the next day that they will also be building a Fusion reactor. Clean energy? Not for at least another decade..

Re:Other problems with Kyoto

[new-black-hand]

I have expanded on this with more information and links in a weblog post about Kyoto and its effects on economies, plus fusion as a saviour.

Acidic fertilizer

[benhocking]

Although I'm certain some organisms would benefit from this CO_2, other sea life will not. Think "carbonated beverages".

Re:Acidic fertilizer

[PhilHibbs]

That article talks about surface waters:

We do not directly address the issue of the release and storage of CO2 on the ocean floor and in the deep oceans as part of a carbon capture and storage (CCS) programme. ... This subject is part of a forthcoming special report on carbon capture and storage by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due in late 2005.

Additionally, my point about 'fertilizer' is void, because CO2 is primarily consumed through photosyntheses in the surface waters. It may be that those freaky things that grow around thermal vents have some other method of consuming CO2 but I'm sure there's plenty down there already.

Kyoto & economy

[Tune]

Wasn't the whole point of the Kyoto protocol to pay large sums for pollution? Be it $500 million or 1 billion - that's just the short-term effect on economy, the idea is that by taxing polution NOW (and making reduced emission alternatives more attractive) we can alleviate some of the long-term effects (on economy).

If the assumptions of the Kyoto protocol are correct (or at least model some of the environmental costs of our current economies) the mispredicted budgets should worry us about what's to come (long term), rather than the "devestating effect on [] economies" induced by red figures in current annual budgets.

It sounds cynical, but the best way to reduce pollution is slowing economy; increasing corporate taxes. We're not going to help future generations by keeping our current economy "healthy" through pollution.

Re:Kyoto & economy

[anthony_dipierro]

Who said anything about pollution? We're talking about carbon dioxide here.

Re:Kyoto & economy

[maraist]

Wasn't the whole point of the Kyoto protocol to pay large sums for pollution? Be it $500 million or 1 billion - that's just the short-term effect on economy, the idea is that by taxing polution NOW

growth == greater consumption in future.
enhanced efficiency == less consumption per capital
enhanced efficiency ~ technological advancement
growth costs entail:
cost of status quo
cost of adding new people and virtual people (such as businesses)
cost of doing newer things (flying v.s. driving, disposing dipers instead of hand wringing cloth)
cost of research to advance technology ... others

Thus efficiency is part of growth cost.

Moreoever, taking a step back often reduces the value of existing efficiencies (economies of scale , excess profits due to consumerism which are often allocated to research or upgrades of machinery/processes to existing technological levels).. Thus ending growth, or worse, enducing a recession counter-acts efficiency, so the reduction in consumption means less activity AND greater cost per unit of activity.

Thus, take a small European country that is currently growing and consuming a lot of resources (where clean air is considered one consumable resource). Assume it pollutes heavily, but produces a lot of goods (energy, merchandise, etc). Let's say its overall efficiency is above average is it uses the most dollar-efficient technology (the cleanest technology usually isn't the best dollar value technology; you pay for cleanliness). Since it's a small country, it isn't operating at peek efficiency, but it isn't practical for it to grow much more. In other words, the country is full of industry with good management; making appropriate trade-offs.

Now we introduce a new dynamic.. The value of clean-air today has increased. Lets say pollution is starting to leave visible (though not yet repulsive) negative effects on the immediate surroundings. Moreoever, a Kyoto-like treaty is being heavily adopted everywhere and the fear that the local government will implement it is on the horizon.

There will therefore be a shift in the optimal operating environment. However, since there aren't sufficient economies of scale, we don't see a graceful transition. It is staggard, and may leave some companies bankrupt (through letigation, existing competative markets not leaving room for increased costs etc). The general effect will be that the country will move further away from the optimal operating environment; often being cheaper to simply produce less than to upgrade equipment to cleaner (and thereby higher operating-cost) varients.

We're talking well managed companies in this country, so the prices sold to customers is based on well researched consumer-preferences, so an increase in cost can not merely be fully thrown into higher prices - instead there MUST be both an increase and price and decrease in production effecting to a decrease in profits. As stated above, the effect is a reduction in research and implementation of existing better technologies.

So now a year later, if we compare the two possible futures of the same country.. One had a normal progression in technology and GDP, the other had a reduction in GDP, technology and consumption. Kyoto would merely look at the reduction in consumption and crowned this as a victory. But the country is now operating less efficiently. Cleaner technology will be implemented non-uniformly throughout the country, but at the expense of other technological innovations AND at the expense of higher operating costs (furthering future year's decline).

What does the lack of efficiency mean? Well, for one, a continued reduction in innovation, which includes a reduction in efficiency generating techniques.. Thus the two future paths (one Kyoto influenced, one not) will ironically have a reduced potential for clean technologies a decade down the road. Ironic, because one would assume that with such emphasis on pollution, technology would foc

No

[anthony_dipierro]

If it works, will resistance to the Kyoto Treaty finally go away?

Unless this means Kyoto will no longer be a scheme to transfer wealth from the corporations of the most productive nations to the governments of least productive ones, I doubt it. A tax for not living in the stone ages sounds like a bad thing to a lot of people.

Re:No

[jlehtira]

A tax for not living in the stone ages sounds like a bad thing to a lot of people.

How terribly shortsighted of the lot. It is a tax for polluting our only, shared, planet. Throwing away things you don't need is a practice from stone age and it's getting increasingly dangerous now that we possess things that are far more poisonous than animal bones. Well, we can't really not throw away carbon dioxide now, but that's only because we're still living a stone age when it comes to recycling.

You know, I think it's sensible to make people pay for the damage they do to other people's property. That's law everywhere. Now, nobody, or all of us, really own this planet, so the payment is not a simple transaction. I think the model of polluters-pay-non-polluters fulfills this moral principle in a sound way. Sure, the more developped nations pollute more now, but that doesn't change anything. That's a lame excuse. Development does not necessarily involve pollution and even if it would it wouldn't change the moral responsibility involved.

Re:No

[anthony_dipierro]

It is a tax for polluting our only, shared, planet.

No, it's a tax for emitting carbon dioxide. That's right, a tax on breathing!

You know, I think it's sensible to make people pay for the damage they do to other people's property.

Me too.

I think the model of polluters-pay-non-polluters fulfills this moral principle in a sound way.

The Kyoto Protocol exempts the second biggest producer of carbon dioxide from making any payments at all, so even if you equate carbon dioxide with pollution Kyoto does not accomplish that goal you suggest.

Sure, the more developped nations pollute more now, but that doesn't change anything. That's a lame excuse.

No, calling carbon dioxide pollution is a lame excuse for taxing progress.

Re:No

[Pentagram]

The Kyoto Protocol exempts the second biggest producer of carbon dioxide from making any payments at all, so even if you equate carbon dioxide with pollution Kyoto does not accomplish that goal you suggest.

Not per capita. Per capita, China is well down the list. And they are only exempt up to the point where their per capita emissions begin to become comparable to developed countries.

Re:No

[anthony_dipierro]

Why should per capita emissions matter? That certainly wasn't part of the stated goal. If my family has 5 people in it, should I be allowed to cause 5 times as much damage to my neighbors property?

Re:No

[jlehtira]

The Kyoto Protocol exempts the second biggest producer of carbon dioxide from making any payments at all, so even if you equate carbon dioxide with pollution Kyoto does not accomplish that goal you suggest.

True, the Kyoto protocol has its problems. It would need to be global to work well. It isn't (USA and others to blame). Also, it has a division between developed and undeveloped countries which I think serves a purpose in making it global but that may lessen its ability to drop pollution levels.

The "second biggest procucer", China, has its per capita carbon emissions at one tenth of that of USA and one of the lowest in the world, which really, well, destroys your point. I think the per capita figure really is the one you should be looking at and I think you can agree.

No, calling carbon dioxide pollution is a lame excuse for taxing progress.

A-ha, you seem to think carbon dioxide doesn't do any harm. Well, it is a greenhouse gas so we know at least one method in which it is capable of doing harm. Human-made carbon dioxide emissions are now 26 billion metric tons per year. Granted, nature is still emitting more, but ours is already a significant portion. We've managed to increase the amount of CO2 in the air by 30%. Imagine there being 30% more oxygen or water in a couple of decades - that'd be a disaster although neither is poisonous in any way.

We don't have a perfect understanding of the workings of this planet here. As such I'd rather not double or triple any number about it. The Kyoto protocol has its shortcomings but it's the best thing that is actually happening. I prefer things that actually happen over criticism that doesn't offer a viable alternative.

Re:No

[jlehtira]

Let me go back to what I said earlier. Nobody, or all of us, own this planet here. That said, it's logical to assume each person "owns" the same amount of it or has an equal right to natural resources.

If you'd count emissions per nation people living in places like Monaco could spend all they want while people in China would be entitled to one cigarette a day max. Hardly fair. And everybody arrogant and selfish enough would start one-person states to sell emission rights and pollute all they want.

Re:No

[Pentagram]

How else do you suggest emission quotas be assigned?

Re:No

[anthony_dipierro]

That said, it's logical to assume each person "owns" the same amount of it or has an equal right to natural resources.

That's just not true, though. US citizens own roughly the same amount of natural resources as Chinese citizens, and there are far fewer of us.

If you'd count emissions per nation people living in places like Monaco could spend all they want while people in China would be entitled to one cigarette a day max. Hardly fair. And everybody arrogant and selfish enough would start one-person states to sell emission rights and pollute all they want.

I'm not the one suggesting that we should "count" CO2 emissions at all.

Re:No

[anthony_dipierro]

I never suggested that emission quotas should be assigned in the first place.

Re:No

[anthony_dipierro]

True, the Kyoto protocol has its problems.

And once those problems are solved, then you'll see resistance to the treaty go away.

The "second biggest procucer", China, has its per capita carbon emissions at one tenth of that of USA and one of the lowest in the world, which really, well, destroys your point.

I don't see the sense in that. You say "I think it's sensible to make people pay for the damage they do to other people's property." Why should it matter what the per capita damage rate is? If 10 people damage your property, is that somehow better than 1 person damaging it? I also don't see the point of using a per capita figure. The United States has roughly the same land mass as China. In the absense of mankind, we'd output roughly the same amount of CO2, so I don't see why we have to cut our relative output just because China is overpopulated.

I think the per capita figure really is the one you should be looking at and I think you can agree.

No, I don't agree at all. If China has ten times as many people as the US, and as a whole those people pollute half as much, then China as a whole should pay half as much. So each individual would pay 1/20th the amount as the costs would be spread out over ten times as many people, but that's not the same as saying US citizens should pay but Chinese citizens shouldn't. And yes, my numbers aren't correct, but I think you get the idea.

A-ha, you seem to think carbon dioxide doesn't do any harm. Well, it is a greenhouse gas so we know at least one method in which it is capable of doing harm.

I'm not sure what you mean that it's "capable of doing harm". Being capable of doing harm and being a pollutant are entirely different things. A pollutant is something which necessarily does harm.

We don't have a perfect understanding of the workings of this planet here. As such I'd rather not double or triple any number about it.

I think not doubling or tripling *any* number is just silly. It depends on what the number is. Further, I think you've got to have more than just an ambiguous feeling that something might happen in order to suggest that nations should sign treaties agreeing to transfer wealth between each other.

Re:No

[Drantin]

Ahh, yes... Taking the money from the people that need it in order to reduce their emissions (R&D, building more efficient equipment, etc) and giving it to those that are already below their threshold... This, fellow slashdotters, is sound reasoning...

Re:No

[ScrewMaster]

What most people don't know is that the original author of the Kyoto Protocol was a well-known individual by the name of Robin Hood.

The rich didn't much like him then and they don't much like him now.

Re:No

[TapeCutter]

"That's just not true, though. US citizens own roughly the same amount of natural resources as Chinese citizens, and there are far fewer of us."

And thus we come to two of the most basic problems found in any proposed universal GHG treaty, an over-populated China and a glutonous USA.

Repeat after me - "There is only one Earth, it's atmosphere and oceans do not recognise national borders, we are ALL in this together".

Re:No

[anthony_dipierro]

Repeat after me - "There is only one Earth, it's atmosphere and oceans do not recognise national borders, we are ALL in this together".

I agree we're all in this together, but that doesn't mean I advocate international communism. As I said in another post, the output of CO2 in China and the United States would be roughly equal ''even in the absense of mankind''. Whether you're "damaging the Earth" through overpopulation or through innovation and productivity shouldn't matter.

Re:No

[jlehtira]

You're basically telling the Chinese that each person in USA is worth ten times what a Chinaman is. I thought thinking in terms of landmass was the thing of colonial era. Then again, USA might still be living the colonial era for what I know. Anyhow, such better-than-you thinking will hopefully result in the chinese moving en masse to USA, to even up the number of persons per land area.

I think USA and its people would really benefit from two experiences nearly all other countries have had to face. Invasion, and a socialist uprising. Especially the invasion thing might teach something about cooperation and respect.

Re:No

[anthony_dipierro]

You're basically telling the Chinese that each person in USA is worth ten times what a Chinaman is.

I don't see how it's like that at all.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just not true, though. US citizens own roughly the same amount of natural resources as Chinese citizens, and there are far fewer of us.

Then please, keep your atmosphere at bay, don't throw YOUR CO2, from burning YOUR resources around. Thank you.

Re:No

[jlehtira]

I'll have to apologise some of my last post that wasn't really thought out very well. I was so completely dumbfound by the idea that people owning more land should be entitled to more pollution. That sounds like a clumsy justification for an advantageous situation. I suppose, thinking it out, that it's a logical extension of strong feeling of property and capitalist liberalism that roam so strongly in USA.

Now, if I really understood what you said, USA and China should be entitled to equal pollution because they have equal area. This right is inherited, as the area of USA was determined centuries ago. USA population is thus more privileged by birthright, and nobody can do anything about it other than invade the USA.

Now superiority by inheritance just doesn't fit into my moral code. I'm a fan of equal opportunities for everyone. Capitalism is great for rewarding the more able but it sucks for rewarding the no-good inheritors. Sure, those born in western developed countries have their living standards higher than those born elsewhere. They have not earned it in any way. They don't deserve better any more than developing nations deserve worse. It can't be helped greatly and it doesn't even matter that much. It's the opportunities that matter. Every smart kid is equally entitled to developing their talent. Reality sometimes comes in the way which is sad and should be worked on.

Call that international communism if you like. I call it fair. Fairness should apply to individuals because individuals are not responsible for their ancestors' actions or their country's land area or administration.

As I said in another post, the output of CO2 in China and the United States would be roughly equal ''even in the absense of mankind''. Whether you're "damaging the Earth" through overpopulation or through innovation and productivity shouldn't matter.

China is not overpopulating any more than USA is innovating. It's the people that are. And by the way, chinese population is growing slower (.58%) than american (.92%). "In absence of mankind" is a highly hypothetical state of affairs that has no practical nor theoretical significance. To me the question is whether mankind can rise above the animals in questions like morals and cooperation. Equal opportunies and rights are a prerequisite to mutual respect.

Oh well. My attempt to understand US-thought is like running in a tarpit. At least I'm understanding my own thinking more by writing this sort of stuff.

Re:No

[anthony_dipierro]

Now, if I really understood what you said, USA and China should be entitled to equal pollution because they have equal area.

I think that's more fair than counting population and then going with a per capita figure. Especially since all but the most lunatic of alleged affects of global warming are based on property. If the earth heats up and the sealevel rises, most of my home state of Florida is going to be under water. I seriously doubt that large a proportion of China is going to be gone, and certainly not as large a proportion as comparing population would suggest.

Again with the same analogy, but phrased differently, if I damage my neighbors' car, should I pay five times as much if there are 5 people who use that car as if there is one?

Call that international communism if you like. I call it fair.

Maybe so, but it's not realistic. China and the US don't have a single government. To expect us to unify on one particular issue, such as the distribution of land, but not on any others, such as taxation, freedom, capitalism, etc., is not at all realistic.

Fairness should apply to individuals because individuals are not responsible for their ancestors' actions or their country's land area or administration.

I disagree, because even if you're going to call CO2 a pollutant, it's not a standard one, since CO2 is a necessary part of the earth's atmosphere. And in fact, roughly the same amount of CO2 is needed in the US as is needed in China. If the US suddenly cut its per capita production to match that of China it'd probably have more harmful effects than positive.

But even then, if you're going to apply the tax to individuals, then apply the tax to individuals, directly, not to countries. Make everyone pay $1 per ton of CO2 or whatever. And then take all the money and hire people to plant trees or do research or whatever. Get approval of the specifics by a vote based by people, not by countries. In other words, every person in the United States gets an equal vote to every person in the EU. Don't dillute the votes of the Americans just because the union our states formed happens to be a little bit stronger and older. The way the system is now it's rather blatant that it hasn't been designed to solve an actual problem, but to transfer wealth from one country to another.

C02 + H20 = Carbonic Acid

[benhocking]

Fair enough, that article does talk about surface waters. However, adding C02 to water will result in carbonic acid. Of course, if the C02 is kept in the same resevoir where natural gas was found (as the article suggests) and doesn't escape, the point is moot.

Sharp!

[Tune]

Touche.
Some people say CO2 is pollution, some say it's not. Kyoto has been blamed for missing the point by focussing on CO2 (instead of ie. nitrogen-based emmisions and heavy metals).

Most people, however, agree that CO2 is at least a side effect of fossil fuel overconsumption and is hence related pretty much directly to "economic groth" and thus pollution, given the way most energy is still being produced.

But sure, even in the area of greenhouse gasses, cow farts are probably a worse threat than all the rest combined ;-)

Re:Sharp!

[TapeCutter]

"Kyoto has been blamed for missing the point by focussing on CO2 (instead of ie. nitrogen-based emmisions and heavy metals)."

Kyoto does not claim to tackle "pollution" in general, it's sole aim is to reduce the rate of growth in GHG emmisions (in particular CO2).

"But sure, even in the area of greenhouse gasses, cow farts are probably a worse threat than all the rest combined"

Sharp as a billiard ball I'd say. - some science for your edification.

Unfortunately... wrong solution, too late

[Engineer-Poet]

The reaction of methane and steam to form hydrogen and CO2 is energetically downhill. In practice, this means that the efficiency of the conversion of fuel to energy goes down.

If there was natural gas to spare, this wouldn't matter so much. Unfortunately, North American gas production has already peaked ; I'm sure Britain's situation is no better. We cannot afford to sacrifice efficiency to sequester CO2.

What we could use is technologies which allow CO2 to be captured and simultaneously boost efficiency. Solid-oxide fuel cells and molten-carbonate fuel cells, which can operate at substantial pressure, are good candidates for these. SOFC's in particular look good to me; their charge carriers are oxygen ions (O--) so the mixture on the fuel side of the cell shifts from fuel to CO2 and H2O. This means you don't have to exhaust CO2 along with the air feed, and it's easier to capture.

High-efficiency combined-cycle gas turbines can convert natural gas to electricity with an efficiency on the order of 60%, but they require large, central installations. SOFC's could conceivably be made in home-sized units without losing efficiency, and the waste heat from the process could be used for space heat and hot water. Heating with them would result in a substantial excess of electricity over local needs, which could be diverted to heat pumps to reduce the overall fuel required. (If you can get 60% out of the fuel cell and 3.3:1 out of the heat pump, the total CoP of the system can go as high as 2.4.) Run CO2 exhaust lines in parallel with the natural-gas supply lines, and you've really got something.

Re:Unfortunately... wrong solution, too late

[sillybilly]

Well you're right and not about the energetic downhill. Wrong about this: Theoretically, if you start with methane, and you end up with CO2 + H2O, it doesn't matter what catalysts you use in between, your net energy in the end should be the same (without considering efficiency losses.) However, the more steps you go through, the more losses in efficiency you can expect, so you're right on that part. But something for something, everything has some kind of cost.

I don't understand, why they don't just burn methane, condense all the water into a liquid, and keep the CO2 as gas. Wait I know why.. because CO2 is soluble in water, so the CO2-full water you reuse, instead of purging it to the outer world. Hydrogen is not soluble in water, so this way you can fully separate CO2 and H2, and keep recirculating a CO2 saturated steam as your reaction medium.

By the way there is significant energy loss in fuel cells too, because of the ionic resistance of your molten or solid electrolyte. Though true, it beats the pants off simple thermal engines, especially if you combine the fuel cell electricity with the thermal engine to capture the waste heat. I've seen total efficiency numbers near 80% with fuel cell/waste heat turbine combinations.

CO2 in the ocean makes the oceans acidic

[bloosqr]

Is pumping CO2 into the ocean really such a good idea? I There was a recent report that the oceans were becoming more acidic. Primarily due to the uptake of CO2 into the ocean. I would imagine pumping large amounts of CO2 on purpose over and above the natural uptake into the ocean would make this even worse. i.e. H2O + CO2 makes H2CO3 ala high school chemistry. H2CO3 is carbonic acid.

-bloo

Re:CO2 in the ocean makes the oceans acidic

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like they are making carbonated water.
Imagine what would happen if a CO2 gaz eruption occured under a boat? Wouldn't it sink just like a boat in the Bermuda triangle?
Then, imagine the effects of a sudden addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Re:CO2 in the ocean makes the oceans acidic

[m0rph3us0]

The problem is that the planet exists on such a massive scale and with so many inputs that frankly it is beyond anyones comprehension how it works exactly. If you move the date of "industrialization" from 1700 to 1500, suddenly, temperatures have cooled since the start of industrialization. Also, living in Canada I could give two shits about it being warmer. All it means is we'll have more water to sell to the dehydrated rest of the world, and as long as we let the yanks in on our little scheme no one is going to f with us. Oh and whatever will we do if the ocean becomes more acidic. Maybe dump some tums in the ocean. Let me put it this way, when global warming becomes a problem, we'll build a machine to fix it. Thats the thing about humanity, if we can build something to make the problem we can build something to fix it. Also, if the China, Africa and India want to eat in the next 25 years, they better start hoping the northern parts of Canada and Russia become arable.

Re:CO2 in the ocean makes the oceans acidic

[Fly]

They would not be pumping the CO2 into the ocean. They would be pumping it underneath the seafloor from which they are currently extracting petroleum. The article and summary even state that it is going under the seafloor, not into the ocean.

Re:CO2 in the ocean makes the oceans acidic

[TapeCutter]

"If you move the date of "industrialization" from 1700 to 1500, suddenly, temperatures have cooled since the start of industrialization."

Your post is nothing but a work of mind-numbing fiction, the facts about medieval warming are specifically selected and twisted so that you can bury your head in the sand and feel comfortable in your fantasy world. I can only assume your home is not built on permafrost and is well above sea-level.

"Let me put it this way, when global warming becomes a problem, we'll build a machine to fix it."

Climate change and environmental degredation are already the biggest problems that humanity MUST confront in order to progress, so where is this magic machine that can undo the "sixth great extinction" and refreeze the North Pole?

Juggling the Books

[Doc Ruby]

Of course this is the solution. Because longterm storage of radioactive waste has made nuclear power so cost-effective and environmentally friendly. In the future, they'll be grateful to us for creating all that handy CO2, even when it leaks unexpectedly.

In some ways, CO2 is anti-fertilizer

[Engineer-Poet]

A concept more people need to get is that of the "limiting nutrient". Deserts get enormous amounts of light, but plants can only grow so much given the lack of water; rainforest floors have plenty of water but lack light, and the vast areas of the oceans have plenty of light and water but are starved for nitrogen, phosphorus, iron and the like. Whatever runs out first is the limiting nutrient. (Carbon dioxide is not it.)

Marine scientists have identified iron as one of the key limiting nutrients in the ocean, and seeding areas with iron has produced algal blooms. But there are organisms which need more than extra iron; they have hard skeletons and they need raw material to build them. For corals and some varieties of diatoms, that nutrient is carbonate ion; they use this to make calcium carbonate.

Acidifying the oceans with carbonic acid converts carbonate ion (CO3--) to bicarbonate ion (HCO3-) via the reaction CO3-- + H2CO3 -> 2 HCO3-. The eliminated carbonate not only depletes the raw material required by diatoms and corals, the acidification makes the ocean water corrode their skeletons and requires more energy for upkeep. At the extreme, they can't keep up and they die.

When the "nutrient" kills photosynthesizers, it's an anti-fertilizer.

Link for parent post

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=169.

Storage

[Mark_MF-WN]

Better that the radioactive waste from nuclear power be stored than simply dumped into the atmosphere, the way coal plants do. Fission reactors COULD simply vaporize their waste, and they'd still be producing fewer radioactive emissions than coal plants (not to mention all the other emissions that they wouldn't be producing). God, talk about bitching about nothing. Finding someplace to put nuclear waste really isn't the huge problem alarmists make it out to be -- people just want to be sure that it's done right.

As for these fossil fuel plants, this is ultimately a good thing. For a small reduction in efficiency, these plants produce less harmful emissions and are able to store those emissions for disposal. These plants can therefore continue operating without having a terrible effect on the environment (a single coal plant in Ontario was estimated to be producing as much CO^2 as one million cars, on average).

Re:Storage

[Doc Ruby]

Tell the people around Hanford how small a problem is the disposal of nuclear waste. Or Nevada, America's "not my backyard". This stuff is a terrible albatross around our necks. As is the CO2 emissions from coal plants, including their nuclear waste. Which is why we need a better solution than just continuing our reckless production of pollution, better than sweeping it under the carpet.

Re:Storage

[Hercynium]

I'm not trying to troll here... but where do the French keep all their spent nuclear fuel??

It's an honest question. From what I remeber reading, they rely on nuclear power for a significant portion of their electricity. I, personally, believe tht nuclear power is a superior alternative to coal & oil and I wonder why the US hasn't pursued it like the French have.

Re:Storage

[Doc Ruby]

They make this inexplicably delicious sauce...

kyoto has other more serious problems

[briancnorton]

For instance, you get co2 credit for planting new forests while chopping down old growth. Problem is that planting new forests releases TONS of CO2 that the trees planted will take hundreds of years to process. Couple that with the massive economic (1 Trillion or more) cost that could be spent on something like bringing potable water to everybody on earth, and it sounds like a losing deal.

Better

[Mark_MF-WN]

But's that exactly what we're talking about here -- better solutions. A fission reactor is better than a conventional coal reactor, as is this new variation on fossil fuel reactors (at least from the sounds of it). No one is suggesting that they're the supreme solutions, after which no more research into clean power generation need be done. Far from it. But they're better than what preceded them.

I honestly can't tell what you seem to think. Should we just stick with burning coal and wood the old-fashioned way, simply because nuclear power isn't perfect? Of course not -- that would be stupid. Deeply, deeply stupid. Should we not scrub the emissions from coal plants, just because it doesn't magically destroy the emissions completely? Of course not. That too would be deeply stupid. We take what improvements we can get, even if they're only incremental ones.

There's no such thing as perfect power. Hydroelectric flood vallies and destroys ecosystems river ecosystems (and damages some parts of oceanic ecosystems). Wind turbines kill birds, and you need outrageous numbers of them. Manufacturing solar panels produces enormous amounts of toxic by-products. We simply have to face the fact that NOTHING is perfect. But some things are definitely better than others. And a small amount of contained nuclear waste is far, far better than a somewhat larger amount of nuclear waste being dumped straight into the atmosphere along with dangerous amounts of mercury and vast quantities of CO^2 (among other things). Finding a place to stick nuclear waste (and relocating anyone living nearby) is much easier to manage than dealing with the rest of the population getting mercury poisoning while they die of smog-induced lung cancer during a near-lethal heat-wave.

But please, enlighten me. What better solution do you propose? What solution could there possibly be that doesn't involve SOME nasty set of consequences? And what should we be using for power while this magical perfect solution is being developed and deployed?

Thanks for spitting on progress just because it doesn't proceed immediately to utopian perfection.

Re:Better

[Doc Ruby]

Well, if you're going to demand "utopian perfection", you'll have to ask someone else. Just don't tell them about your power preferences, which are hardly "utopian perfection".

I will point out that the Sun is the source of all the power we consume, except nuclear. Instead of this giant project to sweep CO2 under the rug, I prefer a giant project to collect power in solar satellites, lasered to the Earth's surface for collection. Or maybe solar collection on the Moon, perhaps even powering a fusion plant on the far side, with power sent back, perhaps via intermediary satellites during the "New Moon" phase. Meanwhile, I'd like to see a giant project to soak up both CO2 and solar energy in biomass, sequestering much of the CO2 we've already pumped.

None of these plans is perfect. None requires some imaginary "utopia". If the energy industry weren't so satisfied with its subsidies and immunity to liability, it would already be pursuing lower-risk, higher-reward power sources like the kind I mentioned. Or employing engineers smarter than I to do something new, that breaks with our old, lethal pollution habits. But of course they are run by people with an extreme case of the blinders you waved in your post. If we want to be free of our past mistakes, we have to stop thinking and acting in the same terms we used to make them. Stop perpetuating them, and start ramping up new solutions, guided by the wisdom we've paid so much to earn.

Re:Better

[Doc Ruby]

"Every dollar invested in electric efficiency displaces between five and seven times as much carbon dioxide as each dollar invested in nuclear power, even assuming the significant advances in nuclear power technology," says Kyle Datta, managing director of research at the Rocky Mountain Institute.

And increased electric efficiency also pays off in increased capacity the power grid to support more people. And spins off benefits in mobility, for longer power cycles from the same batteries. These are the rewarding returns on energy investment, rather than building a new generation of discredited technologies.

Difference between theory and practice

[Engineer-Poet]

In theory there's no difference... in practice, there is.

Theoretically, if you start with methane, and you end up with CO2 + H2O, it doesn't matter what catalysts you use in between, your net energy in the end should be the same (without considering efficiency losses.)

Tell me, why wouldn't you consider efficiency losses? <verybigevilgrin>

The problem with steam reformation of methane to hydrogen is that it must be done at a relatively low temperature to proceed to completion, and you have to supply the steam. This has two implications:

1. One of the inputs is a substantial amount of heat, to vaporize the water and bring it up to temperature; this energy has to come from your fuel.
2. What excess heat of reaction you do get is at low temperature and cannot be effectively converted to useful work.

If you're doing this to make hydrogen to burn in the same engines which once burned methane (such as combined-cycle gas turbines) your net efficiency will drop substantially.

I don't understand, why they don't just burn methane, condense all the water into a liquid, and keep the CO2 as gas.

Because either compression of CO2 to liquid, or chemical combination of CO2 with other material for sequestration, is an energy-intensive process. You are much better off reacting methane with oxygen at high pressure and getting liquid CO2 more or less directly after cooling; you can fractionally distill the effluent using the process's own waste heat, and what little CO2 comes with the water is of small consequence.

A solid-oxide fuel cell or molten-carbonate fuel cell operating at 60% efficiency, combined with a waste-heat steam turbine driven by the 1500 F output heat, could certainly beat 70% thermal efficiency. If you go to a double bottoming cycle (fuel cell / gas turbine / steam turbine) you can beat even that, but you sacrifice the ability to get liquid CO2 directly from the cooled FC effluent.

Re:Difference between theory and practice

[sillybilly]

You are right. When dealing with low steam cracking temperatures, and Carnot engines thermal efficiencies are 1-T1/T2, so even though you do get the energy, it's not in a useful form, it's not something that sounds very tasty. Clearly the best route is to forget steam cracking, and just use CH4+O2 directly, whether via fuel cell or via combustion, then condense the water out, and deal with your CO2. And yes, whatever CO2 you have in your carbonated water soda, that's not too much, and can be gassed out at high temp.

When I first read the story, I thought they finally built a huge bacteria farm to absorb the effluent CO2. But that's not a very tasty solution either, you're basically just using solar energy in the end, at a very low photosynthetic energy conversion efficiency, however you're pumping these bacteria full of CO2, so your local solar "efficiency"(areal efficiency, before saturation/m2 is achieved and the photons are ignored) could increase. Still, you'd need to absorb energy equivalent to the power plant output, and at 1kW/m2 solar input, and photoconversion efficiency of 2% theoretical, 0.3% practical, that's only 3-20 Watts/m2 (times flux cosine of your global latitude.) so you need quite a few hectars of algea/bacteria farm to keep up with your power plant's CO2 production.

Waste of Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Scotland already has a zero CO2 power plant, but the UK government ignores it...... The UK has had its fingers burnt with the "Wave Power" idea many years ago ... Follow this link for a really good power station, beats all the windmills ! http://www.friendsofscotland.gov.uk/education/isla ypower.html