Slashdot Mirror


Germany Fired Up Over Clean Coal

MIT's Technology Review is reporting on the world's first coal-driven power plant designed to capture and store C02 emissions. "Vattenfall's small 30-megawatt plant burns the lignite in air from which nitrogen has been removed. Combustion in the resulting oxygen-rich atmosphere produces a waste stream of carbon dioxide and water vapor, three-quarters of which is recycled back into the boiler. By repeating this process, known as oxyfuel, it is possible to greatly concentrate the carbon dioxide. After particles and sulfur have been removed, and water vapor has been condensed out, the waste gas can be 98 percent carbon dioxide, according to Vattenfall. The separated carbon dioxide will be cooled down to -28 C and liquefied. Starting next year, the plan is to transport it by truck 150 miles northwest, to be injected 3,000 meters underground into a depleted inland gas field in Altmark. Ideally, in the future, the gas will be carried by pipeline to underground storage, says Vattenfall. "

9 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. steps by nimbius · · Score: 5, Funny

    step 1: capture emissions
    step 2: store emissions
    step 3: ? (put back where we found it, if we cant see it then its OKAY!)
    step 4: TEh PROFIT!!1!

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:steps by Breakfast+Cereal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Huh, I thought it was because the earth has a funny way of shifting around and things don't always stay buried for very long which could be problematic for pressurized gasses, but I guess it's because of anti-technology ecofascists.

    2. Re:steps by plague3106 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, then we'd be burning trees much, much faster than they could replenish. That's why they aren't really renewable.

      Nuclear is really the only way to go. Reprocess and re-use the fuel in breeder reactors, and we'll have enough energy for a long time, and little dangerous waste.

  2. Excellent plan! Prepare for the Future! by m4cph1sto · · Score: 5, Funny

    We MUST start accumulating vast reserves of liquid carbon dioxide NOW, so that in 50 years, when we're in the deadly throes of Global Cooling, we can release it to the atmosphere to warm the planet and save us all!

  3. Before anyone gets REALLY "fired up" about this by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    30 MW is tiny. A baseload powerplant in the US runs about 1000MW. So, if this process can scale up 30x, AND we can figure out what to do with 30x the CO2, then I'll get excited.

    Nuke plants had many of the same issues - a 1000MW powerplant is NOT simply a Navy aircraft carrier scaled up, although it looks that way in the Visitor's center.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  4. Re:Solve the problem, for pete's sake by fifedrum · · Score: 5, Funny

    yeah, why the heck don't they convert the CO2 into something usable, like C and O2?

    Maybe build another generating plant next door that supplies the energy required to break the molocules...

  5. Re:Lake Nyos for next generation. by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "What will exactly happen when the liquid CO2 will eventually warm up undergorund and then some future seismic event will open a crack ?

    I hope this storage is somwhere in Sahara desert, not in the heart of densly populated Europe."

    Future Headline:
    "Earth Farts; Thousands die in Europe"

    Followed by the world continuing to revolve about its axis.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  6. Re:Why store CO2? by inviolet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If it's pure CO2 they are capturing and storing, why don't they just release it into the Amazon rain forest?

    Storing CO2 is not a viable solution, but giving it to the trees, who live on it and will convert it into 02, is!

    Rainforests do not consume a net quantity C02. What carbon they do capture during photosynthesis is later reburned during respiration or released later during decomposition (e.g. bacteria, termites).

    If rainforests were net consumers of CO2, then they would be accumulating a carbon store somewhere. This would take the form of vegetation mass (not increasing) or a coal seam somehow forming underneath all the tree roots (not observed). The carbon has to go somewhere if the trees are liberating any oxygen.

    The only forests that do liberate oxygen and store carbon are young, growing forests. Mature forests are done -- they are in carbon equilibrium. Only young ones, which result from clearcutting and replanting, harvest carbon. This is why the US carbon credit program for forest owners will only pay out to folks who can prove that their forest is young growth.

    And yes, I own a pine forest, and am sick of hearing about this crap.

    --
    FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
  7. Re:US should be fired up too. by geekoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The coal industry ni the US has gotten waiver after waiver for our cleaner plants.
    I dont believe they will ever implement an expensive technology unless someone puts a gun to their head. But they can't becasue what do you do if they just decide not to operate?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect