CO2-EOR methods...Bluegas...
http://www.greatpointenergy.com/co2foren...
Biofuels from waste CO2...Joule Unlimited ...who is also partnering with Audi....
"Joule’s renewable fuel platform will best the scale, productivities and costs of any known alternative to fossil fuel today, with no reliance on biomass feedstocks or precious natural resources. Our inputs are sunlight, waste CO2 and non-potable water. Our output? Millions of gallons of clean, renewable fuel that drops into existing infrastructure. Next step: change the world."
http://www.jouleunlimited.com/
US Navy plans....
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/26/u-s-...
As Jeff M stated " more than likely the additional costs will be passed on to the consumer ", but it is a plausible short term solution. The problem is long term, no one seems to see the giant gorilla in the room. SEVEN BILLION people. Think about it, seriously.
Depleting oil reserves, having to fracture for shale, " Liberal bird-chopping windmills ", desalination of ocean water, vertical farming...seriously, it is our responsibility to consider long term solutions for future generations. Soak up and store as much carbon as you wish, you still have a problem in the long run. And it is not only about storage. Its BIGGER. Is the world myopic when it comes to energy demand? The problem is rooted here: more people=more energy demand.
Thumb this answer down into oblivion, this is the truth.
Yes it is. I've always stated that coal fired power plants would be okay with me as long as they find some way to capture the CO2 emissions and put them back where they came from. Of course other CO2 capturing technologies are advancing as well.
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techli...
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techli...
As stated, however, more than likely the additional costs will be passed on to the consumer. The article you linked to does state that it is a low cost alternative though. The problem is getting current power plants to add these into their system of course. As with the sulfur scrubbers placed on these same plants to mitigate the problems of sulfur emissions into the atmosphere, I do think there needs to be a law put in place to limit emissions. Te question is how much additional cost will be passed on to consumers? Especially with the price of fossil fuels currently on n increase (I'm not sure about coal but I am aware oil is becoming much more expensive). Renewable energy in Australia is already cheaper if all costs are taken into account including the carbon tax.
It is a good thing, but like anything that the powerful does not control they will try to hide it, destroy it and claim it as their own. By the time the public becomes aware, the people who caused the same problem will be hailed as heroes.
Send it through a gauntlet of red tape.
According to "Inconvenience Truth" the world only had until 2008 to stop global warming. Now it is TOO LATE.
90% of humanity will die HORRIBLE deaths from floods, hurricanes, droughts, blizzards, meteors, tsunamis and earthquakes.
It would be a good thing if the added expense offsets the potential damage from CO2 emissions.
I'm not convinced of that yet so it may be a waste of money or it may be a good thing. I wonder what the EPA thinks about this?
Everything comes with a price tag.
And the thing with this green energy is that it's not sustainable for the population boom we're presently experiencing.
Since the process can use soft/brown coal (lignite) with a high moisture content I'm sure Germany & Australia & are paying close attention to this demonstration pilot project.
Germany with its stated "green revolution" is apparently facing unacceptably high costs for replacing their nuclear power production with renewable generation but they still have lots of brown coal available locally.
http://news.yahoo.com/german-green-revol...
Australia simply Because they have 25% of the worlds lignite coal reserves in Victoria & they may find a way to use the water released in the process.
If it scales up economically it looks very promising.
I'm so excited I wet myself. I'm sure electric companies won't mind passing on the added expense to the consumers either.
3 cheers for the alarmists. Yay, yay, yay.
It really is not needed. CO2 has no correlation with temperature.
That said, it shows some promise. But 200+ hours isn't really something to brag about. Ohio State is usually overoptimistic about their exploits. Way back in the 70s they had a camera controlled traffic system. Our technology was no where near good enough for that in that time period. I bought into it,hook, line and sinker, but it was a bust. It did advance our technology but it didn't work in practicality.
I wish them success but I am not going to hold my breath.
Also, we must consider the reality of the situation. If this plant was 100% successful, the agenda of the greenies is still the same. They will just shift their methodology of fear mongering.
Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Quote by Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation: “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: "We contend that the position of the nuclear promoters is preposterous beyond the wildest imaginings of most nuclear opponents, primarily because one of the purported “benefits” of nuclear power, the availability of cheap and abundant energy, is in fact a liability."
Until we correct the thinking of this typical greenie logic we will always have a crises.
This looks like electricity generation from coal is possible with nearly no co2 emissions.
http://cbe.osu.edu/news/2013/01/doe-supported-project-advances-clean-coal-carbon-capture-technology
This is a good thing isn't it?
Seems great, now we just have to find an acceptable place (other then our atmosphere) to dump the CO2 and make carbon sequestration part of the law.
Yep. but what to do with Co2, each ton of coal would produce 3.7 tons of Co2, and as we burn billions of tons yearly where would you put it.
Plus if don't liberate it to the atmosphere your locking up billions of tons of oxygen, that's not good we need to breathe too.
You cant put in the ground anyway it would turn into carbonic acid dissolving and letting loose all kinds of toxic materials. arsenic, mercury cadmium to name a couple.
