World Without Oil

I doubt if it is barrels. It is a gas, and nobody does anything but know it wafts into the atmosphere.

 

The implication of OldMan's science paper was that CO2 was going to be pumped to storage somewhere. CO2 isn't transported as a gas, but rather a liquid. The beauty of pumping it underground is that in a pseudo critical state it is great stuff. Corrosive, but great stuff. The problem is, all that gaseous CO2 translates to 73 million barrels a day of something which must be disposed of, and it can't cost much or it blows up OldMans idea of scrubbers only adding 25% to your electric bill. I have hypothesized that this is just another good idea which fails at the practical application side because academics coming up with the good idea has no experience in actually implementing ideas, good or bad. Otherwise they wouldn't generally be limited to being academics.

 

There are >350 scrubbers on coal-fired power plants in the USA with efficiencies between 80% and 95% and >30% of the waste products are recycled into other commercial products. The remaining <70% waste products are disposed in state/federal regulated landfills.

IMO this is a better option than dealing with nuclear waste or allowing SO2 into the atmosphere...

 

"There are >350 scrubbers on coal-fired power plants in the USA with efficiencies between 80% and 95% and >30% of the waste products are recycled into other commercial products. The remaining <70% waste products are disposed in state/federal regulated landfills."

Taxcutter says:
...and the gaseous CO2 goes up the stack.

 

I see. So SO2 bothers you, but no problem just letting all the CO2 go? I thought you wanted to make coal fired stuff pollution free, you understand that the EPA has started calling CO2 a pollutant, right? So there are SOME pollutants you want to scrub, but all those other ones you don't object to are allowed to fly away to do whatever it wants? Heck fire, I thought you really meant it about scrubbing pollutants, I didn't realize this was all just a "I want to scrub only my favorites!" thing.

 

Yup. Apparently when OldMan was talking about cleaning emissions from coal fired plants, he only meant some of them, not all of them. He came up with this distinction after I began to run the calculations on disposing on CO2 provided in his science paper. Those guys apparently wanted to scrub CO2 as well, but OldMan doesn't mind that pollutant getting out into the open, only some of the others.

 

Well, CO2 isn't a real pollutant. Its just a handle for the AGW to enact more taxes and regs.

 

My tendency is to agree with you, but TPTB have another scheme running, and that includes making sure that every human breathing will someday be brought into compliance. I understand they aren't doing that yet, but it is a wonderful scheme for long term control of whether or not they should let you live. Like setting the foundation in place for a house, with CO2 claimed as a pollutant, now we can make every human a polluter, and TPTB can assign whatever penalties they wish to force compliance on all issues.

I see Mr Jones, you haven't done your civic duty and painted your front porch as required by local government code. Well you understand that those not in compliance on such small details are assigned a CO2 breathing penalty of $50/resident/year, increasing by $50/resident/year until you can no longer pay your local taxes at which point the house will undoubtedly be sold at auction to someone more compliant.

 

"...every human breathing will someday be brought into compliance."

Taxcutter says:
Maybe CO2 used as a handle for population control?

 

There are carbon capture systems which remove the CO2 emissions...

- - - Updated - - -

There are carbon capture systems for CO2 emissions...

 

But the CO2 is still gaseous and is constantly looking to get loose.

 

And why would you want to do that given that so far the only completely proven effect of extra CO 2 is its highly beneficial effect on plant growth ? Todays atmospheric levels are around 400 PPM . Ideal growing levels are around three times that so obviously more is better in an ever more populous planet

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx/MenuItemID/103/MenuSubID/52/MenuGroup/Home.htm

 

and do what with them, exactly? Your reference wants to pump them hundreds of miles away to that other place....but they are terribly light on details. What would you like to do with all that CO2?

Of course there are. And what would you like to do with it, once it has been captured? Your article didn't mention the cost of that one, which would certainly be borne by the customers of the utility, and it would raise the cost above the 25% increase mentioned just to catch the stuff.

 

http://news.msn.com/science-technology/us-could-store-500-years-of-co2-geologists-say

 

Sooner or later a gas will find a way out.

 

And Peter doesn't say anything about the cost, only the availability of storage porosity.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course. Just as the oil and gas fields of the world would one day be unearthed, and return all their sequestered carbon to the atmosphere, just pumping the stuff underground will fall victim to the same geologic (and now manmade) processes.

 

A world without oil is acne free.

 

Only way to permanently tie up carbon dioxide is to reduce it to a carbonate. But that takes energy and rather defeats the whole purpose of producing it.

 

Takes energy, and therefore costs (like the ones OldMan doesn't want to talk about) to turn CO2 into stuff, but I love the idea of turning it into limestone bricks and building houses with them. Sequestered carbon through home construction, just love it!

 

If sequestering carbon into a carbonate requires more energy than the combustion liberates, why bother?

Its totally worthless because CO2 is not a pollutant. AGW is just a brain-dead scheme to raise taxes and increase regulation.

 

Fear mongering will require a solution, regardless of whether or not there is an actual problem.

Here is the operative example.

The government decides holes need dug. They require it. Companies form to collect labor to dig holes. Companies contribute a fair amount of money to politicians to continue hole digging legislation. In the meantime, we have people gainfully employed digging holes. These employed people pay taxes, enrich the corporation they work for and those who own them. Government tax revenues increase.

The government created a market, and then gains financially from it. The value of the market has no bearing on the issue whatsoever.

Sure. But the government can make money off of it, contributions from companies that are making a killing off it fill campaign coffers, some people will be employed to make sure idiot regulations to do something with no value is done properly. It all makes perfect sense.

Which is why CO2 is a pollutant. The head of the EPA said so.

 

That will lower gas prices, and raise diesel prices.

 

"That will lower gas prices, and raise diesel prices."

Taxcutter says:
At least that gives the consumer some price leverage.