|
Friday, November 16, 2007 Carbon Capture Moves AheadContinued from page 1 By Peter Fairley
Blue Source CEO Bill Townsend says that developing the 16 carbon-storage projects the company is now pursuing would require more than $1 billion. Some projects, such as a fertilizer plant in Coffeyville, KS, that Blue Source will link to oil fields in Kansas or Oklahoma, provide concentrated and thus cheap carbon dioxide. But Townsend says that several are coal-fueled power projects and synthetic-fuel plants equipped with sophisticated carbon-capture equipment that is likely to double the cost of preparing the carbon dioxide for pipeline transport. Such projects will face competition. Independent oil and gas firm Denbury Resources has signed two deals in the past six months to buy all the carbon dioxide produced by three planned gasification plants in Louisiana and Mississippi that will convert coal and petroleum coke (a low-grade product of oil refineries) into synthetic fuels and chemicals. And power producer NRG Energy, based in Princeton, NJ, announced plans earlier this month to capture and sell one million tons of carbon dioxide per year from a Texas coal plant using a novel carbon-capture system developed by pollution-controls firm Powerspan. (For comparison, Blue Source is sequestering 400,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year from the Colorado gas plant.) Klein says that there is room for all of these projects because the oil industry is eager to do more carbon-dioxide-enhanced oil recovery and is short on carbon dioxide. "Over the last 20 years, most of the CO2 used in [enhanced oil recovery] has come from natural sources, [and] those are pretty much tapped out," he says. "If the industry is to grow and expand and meet their growth objectives, anthropogenic CO2 will have to play a role." That could be very good news for the coal-dependent utilities that dominate the U.S. power industry--and for their customers. As Klein puts it, "The future for coal doesn't look bright unless they can address this carbon issue." |
A Cheap CO2 Trap
04/22/2008


Comments
devassocx on 11/16/2007 at 2:30 AM
22
or something. Of course its not and it isn't even
CO.
If this proves to be a decent and economical use
for the stuff then fine.
They might also consider canning the stuff and selling it to the soft drink makers. This way the soft drink guys won't have to have some other
company make the stuff for them.
I sort of think this whole thing is overblown by the politicians and the masses are buying into it.
Viv on 11/16/2007 at 7:06 AM
8
co. co2 are valuable feed-stocks in a number of industries and co2s relevance as a raw material is growing, but all the press and politicians want to do is throw it away.
kearns on 11/16/2007 at 12:26 PM
25
dboots on 01/01/2008 at 3:26 AM
4
well with plutonium or uranium? Or maybe it repels it into another chemical, considering all
the chemtrails they have been Xing our skies
with in every state and COUNTRY ACROSS THE GLOBE.
Think of all those Superfund clean up spots that
still today after 15 years, they barely have done
any clean up to any of the hundreds of sites in
each state.
abcarterjr on 11/17/2007 at 11:18 AM
45
Algae Farm?
killian on 11/23/2007 at 4:06 PM
54
icsdam on 04/24/2008 at 9:12 AM
2
Seems all other aproaches to algae farming as a mitigation solution concentrate on oil production. That's incidental compared to the myriad other downstream products available in A2BE's process. I've seen the mass balance on this-THESE guys got the goods!
DJTal on 11/18/2007 at 9:11 AM
114
markwaddle on 11/18/2007 at 5:24 PM
1
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/science/earth/17climate.html
shomas on 11/23/2007 at 11:38 AM
19
DJTal on 11/27/2007 at 11:14 AM
114
shomas on 12/04/2007 at 12:22 AM
19
DJTal on 12/08/2007 at 9:36 AM
114
shomas on 12/16/2007 at 11:18 PM
19
I'd like to bring to attention, a growing body of scientist that belive global temperature changes are more tightly coupled to changes in cloud cover resulting from solar cyclic activity than changes in CO2 concentrations. weather or not (no pun intended) good scientific processes prove or disprove that theory it is reasonably clear that the scientific processes has been abandoned by many in the global warming alarmist camp in exchange for Marxist economies and falsely protecting the environment by displacing pollution production from developed nations to undeveloped nations through the Kyoto Protocol.
DJTal on 12/17/2007 at 6:27 AM
114
dboots on 01/01/2008 at 3:31 AM
4
Earth.
And all those chemtrails they have been Xing our
skies with have contributed to the so called
"Global Warming " scenario of theirs.
Those chemicals cause a reflecting surface which
helps them make energy from the sun. Then because
they have no where to store this energy, they
have made Earth's surfaces the storage area.
They say EVERY TREE (N BUILDINGS) ARE CELL TOWERS. My common sense says they are not talking
about commications.
devassocx on 12/19/2007 at 2:08 AM
22
Please do a web search on this and you will see.