Innovating out of global warming

[Undertoad]

NYT: In a Test of Capturing Carbon Dioxide, Perhaps a Way to Temper Global Warming

American Electric Power, a major electric utility, is planning the largest demonstration yet of capturing carbon dioxide from a coal-fired power plant and pumping it deep underground.

Various experts consider that approach, known as sequestration, essential to reining in climate change by preventing the gas from being added to the atmospheric blanket that promotes global warming.
...
The initial trial, at the company’s Mountaineer plant in New Haven, W.Va., will take a portion of the carbon dioxide from the flue, compress it into liquid form at more than 1,000 pounds of pressure per square inch, and inject it 9,000 feet below the earth’s surface, a technique that experts say is not well understood but would be essential to large-scale carbon sequestration.

It's early yet for this approach, but there are more like it. I say, be optimistic: if we innovated to created this problem, we can innovate to fix it.

[piercehawkeye45]

I think we can come up with better ideas than this but it is good that we are searching.

[Clodfobble]

If we inject it deep enough underground, does that mean it could eventually make new coal and/or diamond mines?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Carbon dioxide, CO2. Just separate the oxygen, which has plenty of uses. That leaves the carbon to make diamonds, pencils for third world schools, or throw it back in the firebox to burn again.
Burned again carbon, what could be more righteous than that?

OK, I've provided the solution, you handle the implementation.

Can anyone envision one of these gigantic CO2 stashes finding a path to the surface, and suffocating whole towns like the volcano gases have done?

[Griff]

What I can imagine is many global warmists opposing innovating our way out, because it doesn't fit the agenda.

[busterb]

Co2 is big business. This link is just one of many on Google. bb

[Hyoi]

Controlled fusion is the long term answer to clean, limitless energy. The ITER project, an international effort to produce a 500 megawatt tokamak (toroidal) fusion reactor, is scheduled to be completed by 2050. Great strides have been made in developing a functional magnetic containment field for the 100 million degrees C plasma which displays highly nonlinear flow characteristics and what could be more logical than bringing a small part of the Sun some 93 millions miles closer? I see a bright, although somewhat distant, future.

[Hippikos]

Why spending Bio of $$$$ on CO2 storage if we even aren't sure that CO2 is causing AGW? Wasted money that is better spent in Bangladesh if one really wants to save the World.

Let's assume that some plants are built and the CO2 is captured. For every tonne of anthracite [coal] burned, 3.7 tonnes of CO2 is generated. If this voluminous waste could be pumped back into the ground below the power station it would not matter as much, but the rocks that produce coal are not often useful for storing CO2, which means that the gas much be transported. In the case of Australia's Hunter Valley coal mines, for example, it needs to be conveyed over Australia's Great Dividing Range and hundreds of kilometres to the west. [pipelines cost about $1 million per mile, more when terrain is rough and uneven.]

Once the CO2 arrives at its destination it must be compressed into a liquid so it can be injected into the ground--a step that typically consumes 20 per cent of the energy yielded by burning coal in the first place. Then a kilometre-deep hole must be drilled and the CO2 injected. From that day on, the geological formation must be closely monitored; should the gas ever escape, it has the potential to kill. [...]

The largest recent disaster caused by CO2 occurred in 1986, in Cameroon, central Africa. A volcanic crater-lake known as Nyos belched bubbles of CO2 into the still night air and the gas settled around the lake's shore, where it killed 1800 people and countless thousands of animals.

From The Weather Makers, Tim Flannery.

[Hyoi]

These days, a 9000 foot onshore well is chump change, so why not drill two while they're at it? Set a straddle packer across a water zone, inject the CO2, and then draw the mix from the second well. Add a little syrup, instant Dr. Pepper.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Hyoi

These days, a 9000 foot onshore well is chump change, so why not drill two while they're at it?

Pumping CO2 is one of the techniques for extracting oil from wells once considered dry.

Meanwhile, CO2 sequestration is one of so many possible global warming solutions even provided in that entire Scientific American issue devoted totally to global warming and solutions. Step one starts with a summary: a 15 slice pie.

The experiements with CO2 sequestration are trivial. What is not yet known is how effective the technique may be. But then nay-sayers about global warming routinely attack innovation - since that is the definition of an anti-American. Injecting CO2 into wells or deeply into the ocean - all interesting ideas deemed worthy by those who first learn before they know.

[TheMercenary]

Maybe we could just all follow ole Al "I invented the internet" Gore's example and own 4 houses and jet around the world in a private plane. Or use 22 times the average anual expenditure of energy in one month for one house. Hey that's the ticket. Follo ole Al's lead.

[Hyoi]

Pumping CO2 is one of the techniques for extracting oil from wells once considered dry.......TW

The gas used is mostly nitrogen, but you're correct in that injecting a formation, sometimes even with plain water, is a common technique and is called secondary recovery. And I wasn't seriously making light of the idea of CO2 injection, but I do think that extra measures should be taken to protect water formations. New casing, good cementing techniques, the good sense to P & A and redrill if the bond logs are poor, et cetera; particulary, and here's the real kicker with coal, if the gas has substantial hydrogen sulfide content. H2S is none other than a cast iron bitch to deal with.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Maybe we could just all follow ole Al "I invented the internet" Gore's example and own 4 houses and jet around the world in a private plane. Or use 22 times the average anual expenditure of energy in one month for one house. Hey that's the ticket. Follo ole Al's lead.

The fact that opponents of taking action on global warming are now resorting to personal attacks against the messenger says a lot about the strength of their argument.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by glatt

The fact that opponents of taking action on global warming are now resorting to personal attacks against the messenger says a lot about the strength of their argument.

Unfortunately, it also says a lot about Al and how seriously he really takes the threat. I'm trying to figure out if this is-

a) another case where Dems want to shift the burden to others caring little for individual actions
b) hyperbole intended to get early action on a real long-term problem that poses little threat for many years
c) an easy way to control growth in a misguided attempt at a command economy
d) a recruiting effort for The Church of Al Gore Scientist

[glatt]

I have no idea what Gore's excuse is, and it disappoints me that he is a hypocrite, but that doesn't mean his message is wrong. Maybe he thinks he can make the largest impact on this problem by doing what he is doing as a politician, rather than making changes in his personal life that will have a relatively small impact on a global scale.