Comments on: Coming clean on geosequestration technology

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The World Coal Institute’s web site estimates that world hard coal production in 2005 was 4.97 billion tonnes. All this coal has presumably been burnt by now and, if we make a guess of 60% carbon, has released around 10.9 billion tonnes of CO2. Geosequestration technology may be feasable but it is still a extraction, transport and disposal exercise which will have to handle tonnages of a waste material (ie of no commercial value) of this order world wide annually if it is to work. The 120 million tonnes of CO2 geosequestered world wide over the last 30 years as quoted by Dr Cook is miniscule by comparison. I find it hard to accept that even after the technology is proven and economies of scale are in place that Geosequestration wont saddle coal based energy with substantial additional capital and operational costs (with attendent effiiciency penalties).

By: soil carbon

soil carbon — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

We live in a world powered by fossil fuel that was designed for a time when it was cheap and plentiful.

That world no longer exists.

Instead of focusing on the positive and fantastic opportunity presented to build the world of the future, our "leaders" waste precious time trying to delay the inevitable demise of the world of the past.

We must turn our backs on it, move on, and rebuild.

This time, we have to build a world designed for fossil fuels that are significantly more expensive and significantly less available.

As with any change, the last of the old like coal will always out-perform the first of the new like solar or wind. But it will not be too long before the new proves its true worth.

"You never change anything by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model and make the existing model obsolete." Buckminster Fuller.

By: Connor Moran

Connor Moran — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Dr Cook: The thermal efficiency of a coal fired power station is of the region 30-35%. How much energy is required to compress and then pump underground all that CO2? I’ve seen estimates as high as a 7-10% energy cost of the total thermal efficiency.

By: mike smith

mike smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

“Like all technologies, we expect that the cost will come down steeply as it becomes more widely available.”

It might be an inherently expensive process. Like refining aluminium, or desalinating water. I can see the Australian Coal Association hating my mentioning it, but how about a rethink of using uranium?

By: John S

John S — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

One ton of carbon produces three tons of carbon dioxide.
From 1980 – 2006 the world used 125 billion ( BILLION!) tons of coal. Depending on the Carbon content of the coal used, that produced somewhere between 125-250 BILLION tons of Carbon Dioxide.
The use of coal is increasing rapidly but for the sake of the argument lets assume it remains at the same level as the 1980-2006 period.
Do we really think that we are going to store a minimum of 125 BILLION tons of Carbon Dioxide underground?
I do not think so.

By: John S

John S — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000