Proposals to store CO2 underground

[kay]

what's wrong with renewables
 

The unlikelihood of their meeting our current energy demands?

Do you not think, Kay, that is a very good indicator that, as a species, we should be looking at reducing our relentless demands on finite resources, and perhaps consider living within our means?

That is the logical conclusion. But the chances are vanishingly small of a majority of people  in the affluent world being willing to reduce their demand beyond what can be accommodated without loss of comfort.

[whitelackington]

In the medium term,
I doubt we have much chance.
Perhaps at the birth of christ there were 600,000,000 mortals living,
 two thousand years later there were 2,000,000,000
one hundred years later there are perhaps 7,000,000,000
is this increase in humanity sustainable?

[whitelackington]

er..... wonder what the maths is on this.

The maths will be sufficiently acceptable for some people to have invested a great deal of money and effort into this. Once upon a time that would have been British time and effort. Now we leave it to other countries. Probably those that value scientists and engineers more than media 'scientists' and footballers.

Ever heard of The South Sea Bubble
lots of punters thought it worth a punt
because they had been convinced by "EXPERTS"
they were taken
 

[Peter Burgess]

er..... wonder what the maths is on this.

The maths will be sufficiently acceptable for some people to have invested a great deal of money and effort into this. Once upon a time that would have been British time and effort. Now we leave it to other countries. Probably those that value scientists and engineers more than media 'scientists' and footballers.

Ever heard of The South Sea Bubble
lots of punters thought it worth a punt
because they had been convinced by "EXPERTS"
they were taken
 

What utter cr4p.

[Elaine]

Scientists, experts and inventors often come up with things that sound good on paper but are not successful at all.

However, this is not a reason to ignore everything they come up with. They are responsible for a lot of good and useful stuff.

My scientific terminology is so impressive isn't it!

[mak]

In the medium term,
I doubt we have much chance.
Perhaps at the birth of christ there were 600,000,000 mortals living,
 two thousand years later there were 2,000,000,000
one hundred years later there are perhaps 7,000,000,000
is this increase in humanity sustainable?

Always wondered what planet Whitelackington was from - seems it is earth after all - only in the future!

As he puts it JC was Born approx 0 BC then he talks about 2,000 years later, then a further one hundred years!!

That may explain a lot of his posts - he is just winding us up - as he must know the outcomes of all these things having travelled back in time from the year 2100.

[wormster]

FFS GERR,

here we go again......................................

Renewbles don't make me laugh, its all very well on a small (domestic) scale, but, overall it ain't going to feed our engery hungry planet.

Dumping CO2 underground all very well untill you gets a large seismic event that rips a fissure to surface and it all evoprates out.

Nuclear is the way to go.....a trident submarine reactor core is the size of a 44 gallon drum and will provide enough power for a city of Wells for 5 years. Instead of building big power stations, if each city had its own power plant it would provide enough forsure.

In reality we're all going to hell in a handbasket, we may as well enjoy what we've got. Globaly we're in a comparitivley warm period, the planet will either heat up or cool down over the next couple of milenia, bringing flood, storm and chaos, mankind will be reduced by a significant factor (drwinism will come back into effect), hopefully by the time it happens we'll all be long gone and dust, so will our great grandchildern, so it wont relly matter. Its either that or when the fossil fuels run out we'll be reduced to a society that echoes the MAd Max scenario................................BRING IT ON   

[whitelackington]

Ahhh, stash it away, like we do with our rubbish and nuclear waste and no doubt other stuff for another generation to worry about.... We'll all be dead, let some other fools deal with our wasteful societies by-products!

I think paying to capture carbon will prove to be inefficient technology
rather like catalytic converters.

[Peter Burgess]

Ahhh, stash it away, like we do with our rubbish and nuclear waste and no doubt other stuff for another generation to worry about.... We'll all be dead, let some other fools deal with our wasteful societies by-products!

I think paying to capture carbon will prove to be inefficient technology
rather like catalytic converters.

We still haven't heard from you about your credentials for making such statements. Opinion without facts is just prejudice.

[Rhian]

There are a few ways in which CO2 can theoretically be trapped underground. In my opinion the best understood of these is to utilise the empty and nearly empty oil and gas fields that we have (there are other methods of geological storage). Lithologically and structurally these places are capable of holding CO2 as they have held gas in the past, for millions of years already. There are also well modeled by the oil and gas companies to understand how to extract the maximum value from them. Using CO2 in mature fields also enhances recovery of hydrocarbons.

There are a number of examples of these that have been developed over the years. There are a number of examples where CO2 has been commercially stored including Sleipner in the North Sea, Snohvit in the Barents Sea, In Salah in Algeria and Gorgon in offshore Western Australia. Sleipner is operated by Statoil and to date more than 7 MtCO2, separated out from the natural hydrocarbon gas produced from the field, have been injected into a saline aquifer sand formation (Use of Saline aquifers are another way of storing CO2)  since 1996.

CO2 can also be used to enhance methane recover from coal measures but thats another subject...

I know its not going to solve the entire problem but its got to be a start surely.

[AndyF]

But the problem is always that with any of these processes you use energy in the process.

You have to capture the CO2*
You have to comress (liquify) the CO2
You have to transport it to the target site
You have to force it down a well under extreme pressure

All these are likey to create as much CO2 as you are disposing of, which may make the whole thing a giant waste of time.

This doesnt stop scientists and engineers pitching for governamnt funding to "research" it even when they know its a dumbass idea. It also doenst stop governments funding the resaerch when they want to look green, even when they too know its a dumbass idea.

This unholy alliance of mutual self interest wastes a whole heap of MY money.

* And before anyone points out you burn using pure oxygen to make the CO2 capture easy I'll just add that you use energy capturing the pure oxygen, thats the reason the new German coal plant is a non-starter....

<Retires to bunker...  >