Burying CO2 emissions

[agrumpycow]

New research into capturing carbon dioxide produced by coal-fired power stations and burying it beneath the Firth of Forth has received funding. Scottish Power plans to capture CO2 emissions and bury them deep beneath the seabed in the estuary.
BBC NEWS | Scotland | Carbon capture plan for the Forth

Research would surely be better spent finding alternative, renewable and cleaner energy sources.
What do others think?

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by agrumpycow

New research into capturing carbon dioxide produced by coal-fired power stations and burying it beneath the Firth of Forth has received funding. Scottish Power plans to capture CO2 emissions and bury them deep beneath the seabed in the estuary.
BBC NEWS | Scotland | Carbon capture plan for the Forth

Research would surely be better spent finding alternative, renewable and cleaner energy sources.
What do others think?

agreed if it leaks out into the seawater it is likely to make it more acidic which will in turn affect animals particularly those which have calcium rich exoskeletons or shells.

Do you know what I read in the new scientist today? The draining of a hectare of bog to grow biofuels emits 30 times as much CO2 as is saved by burning the biofuel in place of fossil fuel. That a newly drained peat bog releases ore carbon dioxide into the atmoshpere than a western city of a comparible size.......

how depressing is that.....

The whole biofuel idea feels like a big dog straining at the leash and you've nearly lost grip of it and its almost got away before you know if its safe......

There are so many positive possibles out there if only people would give them a chance!

in the past I have read about algae farms in glass tubes that need only sunlight and a supply of CO2 to reproduce and be later dired to make biodiesel - why isn't that being run out on a large scale as surely it kills two birds with one stone?

[Paul mabbott]

A pretty dumb idea - how much energy will it take to build tanks and to compress and pressurise the CO2?

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with biofuel - it's just that this has become a 'good thing' so no one analyses how it is produced. It's left in the hands of multinational big businesses who are only concerned about making profits. Unfortunately in most parts of the world (including this, one sometimes thinks) government appears to be at the command of business not vice versa ... so government says we need carbon-neutral fuel and business does a very simplistic presentation of how bio-fuel works. No consideration of the effects on the environment generally nor of the counter-productive effects that you point out, Gill. Bogs were (fifteen years ago) the third largest carbon-sink habitat - destroy them and not only do you release stored carbon but you destroy the sink for the future ...

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

agreed if it leaks out into the seawater it is likely to make it more acidic which will in turn affect animals particularly those which have calcium rich exoskeletons or shells.

Do you know what I read in the new scientist today? The draining of a hectare of bog to grow biofuels emits 30 times as much CO2 as is saved by burning the biofuel in place of fossil fuel. That a newly drained peat bog releases ore carbon dioxide into the atmoshpere than a western city of a comparible size.......

how depressing is that.....

The whole biofuel idea feels like a big dog straining at the leash and you've nearly lost grip of it and its almost got away before you know if its safe......

There are so many positive possibles out there if only people would give them a chance!

in the past I have read about algae farms in glass tubes that need only sunlight and a supply of CO2 to reproduce and be later dired to make biodiesel - why isn't that being run out on a large scale as surely it kills two birds with one stone?

[Gill Catton]

Well I think 'dumb' is a little harsh, the article I read looked very promising You're probably right I'm not a scientist in this area and I hadn't considered the pressurisation process and I don't know how the energy required to do this compares with that required to extract or transport other fuels however, we have a problem with excessive CO2 production and fossil fuels even uranium being finite and in many cases running very low its a shame we can't marry the two things.

[Paul mabbott]

The point I (and others!) continually try to make is that we can simply avoid/save CO2 production - easily. On the other hand, if we hand this over to entrepreneurs it become a proverbial matter of the frying pan and the fire ...

We need two things:
(1) individuals to do what they can - certainly our household has 25% of the energy usage of neighbiuring one - easily ... just because we think about it .. no big problems or sacrifices ...

(2) governments and the UN to take legal action against companies which pollute and destroy the environment .... less confident on this one

Originally Posted by Gill Catton

Well I think 'dumb' is a little harsh, the article I read looked very promising You're probably right I'm not a scientist in this area and I hadn't considered the pressurisation process and I don't know how the energy required to do this compares with that required to extract or transport other fuels however, we have a problem with excessive CO2 production and fossil fuels even uranium being finite and in many cases running very low its a shame we can't marry the two things.

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

The point I (and others!) continually try to make is that we can simply avoid/save CO2 production - easily. On the other hand, if we hand this over to entrepreneurs it become a proverbial matter of the frying pan and the fire ...

We need two things:
(1) individuals to do what they can - certainly our household has 25% of the energy usage of neighbiuring one - easily ... just because we think about it .. no big problems or sacrifices ...

(2) governments and the UN to take legal action against companies which pollute and destroy the environment .... less confident on this one

I think there sadly is the problem the rich countries will simply pass the problem on.... they'll try to find a way that the CO2 release involved in their power production happens in a country that has no targets to meet - hence more rainforests and peat bogs will burn to fill cars with biofuel.

If we could find a way to capture the produced CO2 and use it to produce power brilliant! no destroyed rainforests no CO2 blanket.....

[John D]

I have just read an article this morning based on a speach given by Svein Tveitdal, former Director of UN Environment Programme ( winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 2007 for Studying Climate Change and Adviser on Environment and Climate to the UN). He was giving a speach at the American University in Dubai in which he said according to the report -''Piping carbon dioxide back into the ground or carbon capture and storage is the best way to reduce carbon emissions in the Middle East''.
''Generating enough solar power to take the needs of the UAE would take too long, therefore another solution for global warming and reducing greenhouse gases has to be found'', he said.
''To get to the stage where solar power energy can take a fair percentage of the energy demand is thirty or forty years away, so we cannot wait'', he said.
''In the meantime, CCS is the solution to clean up the emissions of CO2 from industrial processes and pipe them back to the ground'', Tveitdal said.
''There is still a big gap between what scientists say and what politics can do and the gap will just get bigger the longer we wait''.
I found this very interesting having read the comments on this thread to date.
I wonder who knows best?????
Also if there is a delay with solar power in the UAE what chance is there for the UK????
John D