Slashdot Log In
DOE Pumps $126.6 Million Into Carbon Sequestration
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed May 07, 2008 09:11 PM
from the out-of-sight-out-of-mind dept.
from the out-of-sight-out-of-mind dept.
RickRussellTX writes "The DOE awarded $126.6 million in grants today to projects that will pump 1 million tons of CO2 into underground caverns at sites in California and Ohio. Environmental groups call carbon sequestration "a scam", claiming that it is too expensive and uncertain to be competitive with non-coal alternatives like wind and solar. I just hope nobody drops a Mentos down the wrong pipe."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why can't we do both? Damn environmentalists meddling again. Never wanting to compromise or find some benefits in alternatives.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why can't we do both? Damn environmentalists meddling again. Never wanting to compromise or find some benefits in alternatives.
Because the people pushing CCS want to burn coal & then shove carbon into the ground.
Greenpeace wants alternatives, not technology that might arrive in 10+ years, only to prolong the existing energy production system.
I personally agree with you, even though Greenpeace sees the funding as a zero sum game.
You never know how or when knowledge & science, for its own sake, will pay off.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as the carbon angle, no power is completely carbon-free, but nuclear does quite a good job (the carbon emissions are from the uranium mining). Keep in mind that those same up-front energy costs also go into producing solar panels and wind turbines.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, while I like a variety of forms of renewable energy and think they should be supported far more than they are, I realize that it will take a while before they can provide a substantial fraction of our energy needs. The same is not true of fossil fuels, and is true to a much lesser degree of nuclear plants. I didn't say to ignore alternative options; I was simply pointing out that coal is worse than nuclear in a wide variety of ways. The parent was comparing nuclear and coal, and I added a counterpoint to his argument. I did not feel a particular need write a treatise intricately comparing the pros and cons of all plausible energy sources.
Not everyone who fails to trumpet the virtues of renewable sources in every post is a troll, or even dislikes renewables.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEGS [wikipedia.org]
In 2.5 square miles they produce 350 Mega-watts of power
and do it with reflective troughs and heating high temperature
oil to drive a steam turbine.
They store hot oil and get some production even after sundown,
and then switch to natural gas for a few hours til sunrise.
If the uninhabited sections of the Mojave Desert
were used for this system, it would power all of North America.
The Mojave is over 22,000 sq. miles, if 10,000 of it was used
for a SEGs type setup you would get 4,000 times the current
power production ie. 1.41 Tera-Watts rough estimate.
In 2004 it was estimated by scientists that total world
energy usage was 15 Tera-Watts for all types of energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption [wikipedia.org]
The proposed SEGs expansion would produce almost 10% of that.
We have our silver bullet, it will just be a monster to build.
North Africa could use the Sahara and power all of Africa
and Europe.
The best photovoltaic cells are 20% effective, The best Thermals
have hit 41% per wikipedia, and 60% being theoretically possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy#High-temperature_collectors [wikipedia.org]
Here in the US we could also use a large part of the 120,000 sq. mi.
Sonora Desert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonora_desert [wikipedia.org]
Just my 2 cents...
Parent
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Breeder reactors, reprocessing facilities and smart management can be used to dramatically reduce the amount of nuclear waste you have to dispose of - the figures I usually hear are somewhere between 95 and 98%. Also, nuclear plants don't constantly release radioactive particles like coal plants do. And they generate a lot of power. And the more modern designs are very safe; even Chernobyl required a risky test in an old reactor design conducted by a night shift crew that was unsufficiently trained.
Green power doesn't quite deliver as of yet. Photovoltaics still has a rather low efficiency and creates toxic waste during production of the panels. Hydro doesn't scale well, apart from dramatically changing the river you're working with. Geothermal only works in certain places. Wind also only works in certain places, doesn't generate that much power and is suspected to disturb bird populations and people living downwind.
The big question is: What do we do now? We can't go nuclear because that would mean we generate a few tons of nuclear waste per year that we have to bury for a few decades, apart from theoretically enabling teh nukes. We can't go coal because apart from CO2 emissions coal generates some nuclear waste as well. We can't go solar because solar doesn't generate enough power for most places and is toxic. We can't go wind and water either because they can't keep up with demand. We can't scale back our energy consumption either because that would be just as unacceptable as nuclear waste to most people.
At some point we do need to make an unpopular choice because there aren't any popular ones. I think that nuclear is one of the better choices we can make.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
If we run off of U235 plants, we'll run out of cheap uranium poste haste. The only way we know of to extend our nuclear fuel supply is to reprocess the U238 transmuted to plutonium (or thorium to U233) into additional fuel. However, this is readily achievable.
Conveniently, this sort of breeder reactor also has the ready potential to result in much more *complete* burning of nuclear fuel, resulting in much further reacted, and generally much shorter half-life products. The half life of breeder reactor waste can be as low as 100 years, and as the 95% of the enriched uranium that is U238 becomes viable fuel instead of being discarded as plutonium, the amount of waste per unit power drops by many orders of magnitude
Right now, India is the only country I am aware of that does extensive breeding (they're not in the Non-proliferation treaty, and don't have natively mined uranium, so they transmute thorium into fissile material) although France does some as well. The US doesn't do it because of proliferation concerns (which makes no sense to me, but whatever). However, since switching to a full nuclear power system requires going to breeder reactors anyway, it will also result in massively less waste (probably way less than coal power, and better contained), and shorter-lived waste.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
Not quite, but you were on the right track. Basically in spent nuclear fuel you have three component groups. Leftover uranium, fission fragments and transuranics (heavy nuclei like plutonium formed when uranium absorbs neutrons ).
In a breeder reactor you constantly recycle the uranium and the actinides, so that the only waste product is fission fragments and activated reactor components. It is a lucky coincidence that virtually all the fission fragments that cannot be easily destroyed through recycling have either very short halflives ( less than 30 years ) or VERY long ones ( hundreds and thousands of years ).
The short lived ones decay to bellow uranium ore levels of radioactivity within about 300 years, while the long lived ones decay so slowly that they are less radioactive than the uranium from which they were made.
In spent fuel from traditional reactors you also have to worry about the actinides, and these cause trouble because they have half lives that are somewhere in between. This makes them radioactive enough to be much more toxic than uranium ore, but still long lived enough that they would have to be stored for hundreds of thousands of years. Breeder reactors split these into fission fragments that have characteristics very similar to the ones mentioned above, and therefore the waste decays to uranium levels within a few hundred years.
Also, in general it is worth noticing that if something has a halflife of X years then half of it will still be left after that time ( that is the definition of the radioactive halflife ). This is why it takes up to 300 years for the Cesium and Strontium components of fission fragments to decay bellow uranium radioactivity even tho their respective half lives are just a few decades.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It would be far more efficient if it was nuclear waste.
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nuclear waste doesn't allow for huge amounts of enhanced oil recovery or coalbed methane recovery.
The capital costs are very high, but if used for a purpose, CO2 injection can pay for itself. CO2 injection in the US alone has the potential to recover ~100-400B barrels (restoring old, "used up" fields like the East Texas Field, plus injection into all of the large fields we're currently tapping and the ones we haven't started tapping yet). That's 10-40 trillion dollars at $100/barrel -- a couple times the size of the US GDP. There's not as much money in coalbed methane recovery, but it's still substantial.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why can't we do both?
Why should we? Sequestration has only been proven effect in labs, and the coal industry accepts that it won't be completely up and running by 2030. Wind and solar have been proven to work now. Entire cities and even states in some countries are being run on renewable technologies. It's proven, it works, it's emission free. Carbon sequestration doesn't get rid of the fact that we're un-sustainably mining the earth, creating vast amounts of CO2 and then *hoping* that when we bury it underground there won't be any negative consequences.
"Never wanting to compromise or find some benefits in alternatives."
This is less a compromise and more the coal and mining industry refusing to accept their imminent demise, and instead of looking to the REAL future like some companies (BP?) they'd rather try and flog of unproven and, even in theory, ridiculous ideas to the public.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I think we are on the same team here but I refuse to believe, in the face of hard evidence, that wind + solar + geothermal + hydrodynamic + tidal energy will be sufficient to meet domestic US demand for the foreseeable future. Even the most aggressive energy efficiency plans won't kick in in earnest for a decade (cars turn over roughly 10 years, home appliances every 25, homes every 50 and the more you impose, the more costs go up and the slower the turnover happens).
Parent
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
~Rebecca
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Coal + sequestration is still *significantly* cheaper than solar and will be for the next 20 years at least.
That's because coal is subsidized and external costs are passed on the everyone, whether they use coal or not. If coal plants had to make it on their own and pay for their Externalities [wikipedia.org] electricity costs would be a lot higher. Heck, even the Nuclear Power Industry [nci.org] uses coal's external costs as a selling point.
And dont mention Hydro. :)
The greenies hate that because it destroys habitats.
Some don't like hydro because frequently dams do not live up to their promise [dams.org] or the costs out weight the benefits [pdf] [panda.org]. "World Commission on Dams Report vindicates unjustifiability of large dams" [unep.org].
FalconParent
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
(looks aruond the house) Um, they are.
It used to cost me $11,000/yr to run this place. I spent $5K on stuff and now my operaqting cost is zero.
No, you don't get to keep your electric dryer. Changes must be made. You will make them sooner or later, I just happen to be done now.
Pumping co2 into the ground is the dumbest idea since Bush entering politics.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
They will do anything possible to be environmentally friendly as long as they dont have to change their habits, spend money or essentially do anything at all.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn environmentalists?
Sounds more like you're describing industry and government. They are only interested in milking fossil fuels for all their worth - and then getting government contracts to "clean up" their output. If they listened to environmentalists, emissions could be cut for a fraction of the cost (or for a profit) - but that's not what the men who run powerful industries care about. It's all about the gravy train of massive infrastructure projects (which often cause more problems than they solve).Parent
Better solution exists (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Better solution exists (Score:5, Funny)
If I made such a machine I might call it 'The Real Easy Extraction' machine
Parent
Re:Better solution exists (Score:5, Insightful)
And then as you plant more of them, and get a forest that looks like a tree farm [flickr.com], fire becomes a larger risk.
And then your carbon sequestration devices are threatening surrounding communities.
A huge issue across the US is overpopulation of forests because we have been preventing forest fires for so long, so there is definitely no shortage of trees in many areas.
Other than that small detail, yeah, plants are one way to easily store carbon.
Parent
Re:Better solution exists (Score:5, Interesting)
Trees are great but I heard that a lot of the world's oxygen comes from aquatic plants so I did a quick fact check and found this:
Which means that a lot of CO2 is consumed by these plants right? I'm now wondering, if these marine plants only have access to dissolved CO2 in the water would it help to diffuse CO2 into the water? Wouldn't this be a good alternative being that there are so many "Easy Extraction" machines in the seas? These are also not susceptible to forest fires AFAIK.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Safety? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Safety? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Why not worry about water shooting out of wells? (Score:3, Interesting)
that's why all the plans involve putting it down somewhere. I'd oppose sequestration in huge towers outside of major metropolitan areas, but putting it deep down in the ground makes a lot of sense.
--MarkusQ
Re:Why not worry about water shooting out of wells (Score:5, Informative)
If it was stored in gas form at atmospheric pressure, it wouldn't be a problem (it would just be silly). The problem is that if it's stored in highly compressed or solid form, then if something goes wrong and it goes back to gas, it *will* go up and escape, potentially killing anyone in the area.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That and I don't understand why they can't just make use of it. I'd expect a biodiesel plant would love to be piped into that, making good use of all that CO2 to increase their yield.
This whole idea is basically the same as a landfill. Burying a problem never makes it go away, and almost a
Re:Safety? (Score:5, Interesting)
CO2 has sometimes been pumped down oil wells to provide pressure to lift out more oil after the hole goes "dry" due to loss of natural gas pressure while there's still oil available.
On at least one occasion such a well has leaked, creating a large bubble of CO2 on the ground that displaced the air and caused human fatalities. (Not oil workers, either, but sleeping neighbors.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bamboo (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bamboo (Score:4, Funny)
I think you misspelled the word "Coal."
Parent
Greenpeace... *ahem* (Score:3, Interesting)
As we all know, they're the kind of people that we can have a good intelligent discussion with, right? Of course, anyone that doesn't fall in line with their philosophy is some sort of heretic, even if they happen to be one of their own founders [washingtonpost.com] that disagrees with a long-standing platform of the organization.
I'd have a lot more respect for them if they also condemned Al Gore and his pimping of useless carbon credits [newsbusters.org] that happen to fatten his own pockets...
Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if Greenpeace realizes the choice isn't between coal plants with sequestered carbon and windmills. In reality, barring some fortuitous breakthrough in solar power, as oil gets more expensive the choice will be between coal plants with this technology and coal plants without it. I believe Greenpeace has completely overestimated the average person's willingness to make lifestyle sacrifices for the sake of atmospheric carbon reductions.
I wish organizations like this would try to be part of the solution instead of just trying to limit our options. You can't accuse the coal companies of proposing a technology that isn't economically feasible on the one hand and then propose wholesale conversion to technologies that are even less economically feasible.
We wouldn't even have this problem if the very same people hadn't killed the nuclear industry through scaremongering and excessive litigation.
What a crock (Score:3)
This is no different from Wile E. Coyote's electric fan-powered sailboat.
Or the ethenol believers who conveniently neglect the big fire they have to put under that still.
Wood (Score:4, Insightful)
This was a plot form the Beverly Hillbillies!!! (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.tv.com/the-beverly-hillbillies/the-pollution-solution/episode/72982/summary.html [tv.com]
Jed: This fellow's gonna drill a tunnel through the San Bernardino Mountains, put in a great big fan, and draw all the smog out of Los Angeles.
Drysdale: Why, that's a preposterous idea.
Jed: Yeah. We like it too. (edit)
Good episode
Re:That's the main problem with environmental grou (Score:5, Insightful)
"many of them are just as immune to rational argument"
Your statement hinges on the fact that coal industry has indeed given any rational arguments to support the burying of CO2 (A very literal way of 'burying your head in the sand', don't you think?). Let's step back and look at the problem. The main issue we have the moment is global warming being caused by an excess of greenhouses gases, predominantly CO2 in the atmosphere. We need solutions. Renewable energy is a solution. Cutting back on energy usage is a solution. And yes, even sequestration is a solution. However, what are the best and most effective solutions to take? Cutting back our usage can be done now and it can have significant effects in the area of reducing CO2 output. Renewables are already a proven technology and lack only significant funding to make them more common. That said, in many countries and states funding is significant and renewable energy targets are set to be met. Now let's look at sequestration. Is it proven? Only in laboratories. Which if you consider the scale and possible ramifications of the process is a fairly useless sticking point. Is it safe? Well you decide for yourself. Pumping millions of tonnes into underground caverns? Versus building windmills, hydro plants and solar farms. Does it solve our problems? In the short term it prevents CO2 from immediately going into the atmosphere but burying it can't continue indefinitely, and it does nothing to reduce our reliance on coal - a finite source.
The idea virtually is a scam, it's the coal industry asking for grants and subsidies all across the world to support a dying business instead of looking the facts in the face and realising that renewables are the way of the future. No amount of exaggeration (Moonbeams?) on your part will change that.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It makes the people doing it feel good. That's all it does and all it needs to do.
Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Once again some basic math. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sequestration is no panecea, no cure-all - it is at best an impefect solution to an intractable problem - there are no magic bullets. Using it to justify increasingly relying on coal is idiocy at it's finest.
Parent