Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (57466)	12/23/2004 1:33:57 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Ray that was an excellent link books.nap.edu and a much more extensive scientific investigation than my BOE research in the 1980s. Obviously I should have used an A4 envelope instead of the small one I used and perhaps used both sides of the envelope, not just the back of the envelope. It puts the kibosh on a couple of aspects of my liquid CO2 to the bottom of the ocean proposition [or at least 400 metres]. I neglected to allow for the density changes of water as it got down to 4 deg C. The damn CO2 isn't as dense as the stupid sea water. Duh Mqurice! So my CO2 liquid-powered power station deep in the ocean isn't going to be running very well at all. So I hereby withdraw the power station component. But adding fine limestone or clays still looks like a good idea to make the stuff run quickly down the line and to buffer the stuff and to bring the limestone back into action. Thanks Hugh. It's surprising how much expertise is floating around SI in all sorts of spheres. Ray, while it's true that NPVs are sometimes ignored while the "how-to" is figured out, I still stick by my BOE analysis showing about 20% energy loss in liquefying the CO2 [meaning 20% more fuel would need to be burned simply to do the liquefaction process]. Plus some capital equipment to do the separation of gases and compression. So it's not out of the question that ocean sequestration of CO2 could be a good option to maintain fossil fuel production of energy. But noocular reactors must be looking good with those extra costs on CO2. BP Solar would also be a LOT more profitable with a huge boost in sales as more applications shift from oil/coal to photovoltaics. No wonder Lord Browne of BP is thinking that CO2 limits would not be all bad as far as BP is concerned. He'd sell a LOT more oil and stuff [to do all that sequestration] AND he'd sell a huge array of photovoltaics [enough to cover Australia, Death Valley and the Sahara]. BP has a good start on photovoltaics. It seems that there's not going to be a problem with keeping the wheels of industry turning. Mqurice