Alternative energy Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Alternative energy

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Gary Mohilner who wrote (5732)	1/2/2009 4:50:13 PM
From: A.J. Mullen	Read Replies (1) of 16955

You're right that ensuring buried CO2 stays buried is vital if we adopt sequestration. And I agree it would be much better to use the Co2 if that didn't mean allowing it to get into the atmosphere. Even when CO2 does return to the atmosphere it might be possible to get two bites of the apple, and that's better than one. For instance, using Co2 from a power station to increase the the production of algae that is then used as a feedstock for agriculture or to produce biodiesel. The C02 still ends up in the atmosphere, but it provides energy twice. Once in the power station, then as biodiesel or food. Burying Co2 might use less energy than you think. It is already put back into oil and gas fields. Co2 reduces the viscosity of oil and increases the recovery rate. There's a company that provides Co2 to US oil wells in via a pipeline and charges for it. Unfortunately that Co2 is "mined" from salt deposits. I think BP is doing something similar with waste C02 in North Africa and there is discussion of collecting Co2 from British power stations and putting it under the North Sea using the network built for gas extraction. Ashley

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next