Pollution pays: Blue Source is building the business case for carbon-capture and storage systems by storing CO2 in oil wells. Blue Source profits twice, selling the CO2 to the oil producers who use it to stimulate oil production, and simultaneously earning carbon offsets that could soon be worth 20 euros ($29) per ton.
Peter Fairley
Blue Source demonstrates a remediation system that could capture carbon dioxide at advanced coal plants.
If the U.S. coal-fired power industry is ever to switch to advanced, cleaner technologies, it will need an effective way to capture and store its emissions of carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas. Blue Source, a company based in Salt Lake City, recently took a positive step in demonstrating a viable strategy when it started up its first carbon-capture and -storage project. Blue Source is piping industrial carbon dioxide from a natural-gas processing plant in southeastern Colorado to an undisclosed oil producer that will, in turn, pump it into an aging oil field. The result should be increased crude production and a carbon-dioxide emissions reduction equivalent to taking 70,000 cars off the road.
Blue Source's project is innovative not technically--the company employs off-the-shelf technology--but financially: it is among the first whose business plan hinges on the sale of both the captured carbon dioxide and carbon offsets, a financial derivative generated from the emissions reduction. Analysts say that this business model could help commercialize advanced coal-fired power plants and carbon-capture technology that is languishing under weak pollution-control policies in the United States. "Its success will lay the groundwork to enable power-plant projects to go down the same route, should a more extensive carbon policy emerge," says Alex Klein, a senior analyst tracking developments in power generation for consultancy Emerging Energy Research, based in Cambridge, MA.
Blue Source's model is viable thanks to a combination of pricey oil and cheaper carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide that Blue Source is shipping out of the Apple Tree gas processing plant in Colorado's Huerfano County is cheap because it is already concentrated (unlike the effluent from a conventional power plant, which is diluted with nitrogen gas). The carbon dioxide is stripped off of the gas from the county's natural-gas wells, which are just 22 percent methane. Most carbon dioxide of this sort is simply vented. Blue Source installed the compressors and pipes needed to pump it to an existing carbon-dioxide pipeline 16 miles away.
Pricey oil helps because oil producers use carbon dioxide to loosen up crude trapped underground and facilitate its flow to the surface. (Carbon dioxide that comes back up with the oil is stripped off and pumped back down.) When a barrel of crude fetches more, oil producers will pay more for carbon dioxide.
Blue Source and its backers are clearly betting that the market for carbon-dioxide remediation will continue to grow as states introduce caps on carbon-dioxide emissions. What's more, Congress is considering regulating greenhouse gases. (This has already happened in Europe, where a mandated carbon cap-and-trade program has driven the price of carbon-dioxide offsets to more than €20 [$29] per ton. Such offsets sell for just $2 a ton on the Chicago Climate Exchange.) Investment banks agree: last year, Blue Source raised $1 billion in financing through First Reserve, based in Greenwich, CT, the largest private equity firm focused on energy.
New materials provide a potentially cheaper way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
Guest (icsdam)
There is a patented process to do just what you suggest! Check A2BE Carbon Capture's website. I personally feel that underground sequestration is dangerous due to geological forces. Plus, it produces nothing usefull, as does A2BE's process.
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!
Never gunna be a money spinner ...
Thats becacause there are lots of creative profitable ways of using C02 , the big one being plant growth . Why bury the stuff deep underground when it can stored in the soil and used to increase the growth of vegetation . see carbon negative energy etc.
The media? The media grabs on to anything sensational, and this is, for good reason. The source of the concern is from scientists. You might consider looking into the IPCC and other prominent international scientific groups. We are releasing CO2 from the earth into the atmosphere at an alarming rate!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/science/earth/17climate.html
The discussion on CO2 emissions has been agenda driven by special interest groups, that fallaciously argued that CO2 is the number one reason for global warming when water vapor contributes 95% of the greenhouse gases effect on earth. There are very few anthropogenic sources for it in our atmosphere. Why would water vapor be left out of their equations concerning how much effect man is having on global temperatures? In the global warming alarmist camp, if you dare question their science, you are demonized to be a pro pollution or at lest careless about the environment. I believe its possible to be conscious about real pollution with out hyping CO2 as the number one source of greenhouse gas effects on earth. What ever happened to serous science, like answer why both Earth and Mars are warming. Did man messed up mars too?
Discussion about the effect of CO2 is not driven by special interest groups , it is driven by climate scientist whom we should all listen to . To suggest that H2O is the cause of recent global warming is ridiculous . Water is one of the constituents of the atmosphere which origionally helped our planet to warm and continues to maintain a 'Relatively' stable climate , however water cannot stop other causes of global warming ( the reason why Prof Salter's solution to global warming is a non starter ) . The reason why Mars is warming is because the SUN is getting bigger and hotter over time . This is not the reason the Earth is getting hotter because the amount of heat radiating from inside the earth is dropping at the same time , so the two things cancel each other out .
The climate scientist community who, as you suggest "we should all listen too" is hardly settled on the mater of the sources and extent of effect those sources have on global warming. Your belief that it is ridiculous to look at H2O as a source of global warming i believe is short sited, as it is water vapor in the atmosphere accounts for roughly 95% of the greenhouse gas effects. and it isnt too far of a jump to sugest that maybe small variations in atmosphere water vapor or distribution could have large climatic effects. The increasing size of the sun over time you were referring to is at a rate measured over billions of years and couldn't possible be the current source of warming on Mars. Take note at how alternative suggestions to global warming are initially received and then draw your own conclusions as to the reasons why they are ridiculed, is it based in an irrational emotional attempt to save the planet from our selfs. How come CO2 levels found in ice core samples have been poor indicators of periods global warming and ice ages in the past, but only relevant now? Why blame CO2 if CO2 levels didn't play an important role in the past.
Scientists have quite rightly asked the question .... What is the effect of adding carbon to our atmosphere ? They are right to do this because it is something which we humans are doing to the earth . Does adding carbon miraculously have no effect at all . Quite clearly not . Carbon atoms absorb the suns energy and trap heat in the atmosphere . Just because there are other things that affect the earths temperature is not a reason to ignore the effect of carbon . Water vapour in the atmosphere couldn't possibly be the CAUSE of global warming because water vapour's presence in the atmosphere is dependent on heat . As the atmosphere heats up it picks up water , as it cools down it deposits water . This is the reason why pumping water vapour into the atmosphere to combat global warming would not work . Water vapour reacts to changes in temperature . It acts as a greenhouse gas in it's pure vapour state but when it forms into clouds it reflects the Sun's energy back out to space , having a cooling effect on the earth , so on balance its effect may be negligible . The earths temperature has fluctuated many times in the past and there is nothing that changes in atmospheric water have been able to do about it . As to why levels of CO2 in ice core samples are a poor indicator of changes in temperature is simple . The majority of time rises in temperature preceed rises in CO2 levels , however there are many examples where the level of CO2 has risen before a rise in temperature . Showing that CO2 can affect the temperature . Why is the temperature of Mars inreasing ? We've not been studying it's temperature for very long so it may not be connected to the earths changes in temperature . CO2 is relevent now because it's a big effect that we are having on the earth . Questions for you ... What is the EFFECT of a rising level of CO2 on the earth ? What would be the effect of building a plastic bubble around the entire earth ? You may not agree that manmade global warming is a reality , and you don't have to , but if you do it is a motivation for change , and all of the things that need to be done to solve the problem are good things to do anyway . Peace Love Chill Out .
While looking for the sources of recent rises in global temperatures is a good thing from a scientific point of view. Some scientist have settled on CO2 as the cause. Claims that CO2 played an important role during this or that warming period but not these others is tantamount to selecting data that fits a particular climate model and ignoring the data that say other wise. Ignoring data that is at odds with prediction is clearly bad science.
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.
Your concerns about socialist government action on global warming depend largely on how much people take personal responsibility for solving the problem . If people don't act , then governments will be forced to . All of the things that need to be done to solve the problem are good things for us to do anyway . Farmers have a vested interest in carbon , if farmers don't do what they can to remove carbon from the atmosphere and use it to build their soils , to make their land more productive then it is their own loss . You could apply this to all of the solutions to global warming , if we don't it's our loss . Are far as others causes of climate change go , those things are beyond our control , so whilst it may be interesting to learn about them it's not a reason to ignore those things which are under our control .
Id like to add that is not only unscientific to assume water vapor's neutral role in climate change, but completely erroneous.
taken from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_condensation_nuclei
"When no cloud condensation nuclei are present, water vapour can be supercooled below 0 °C (32 °F) before droplets spontaneously form (this is the basis of the cloud chamber for detecting subatomic particles). In above freezing temperatures the air would have to be supersaturated to around 400% before the droplets could form."
Conversely it can be concluded that water vapor in the presence of cloud condensation nuclei will condense with out needing 400% super saturation and form clouds that cool the earth
The article briefly mentions subatomic particles as a seed for cloud formation in an unrelated way for bubble chambers.
Some scientist have begun to ask what role sun spot activity may have in reducing the amount of cosmic radiation in the solar system and subsequent reduction in the amount of subatomic particles generated in our atmosphere from collisions with cosmic rays and the level of effect on cloud formation. Simply said the theory says that the more sun spots we have the more cosmic radiation is kept from reaching earth causing less cloud formation, increased water vapor levels increase global temperatures without the cooling effect of clouds.
Re: Destroying Earth, Mars EVERY TREE A CELL TOWER
Absolutely Man has messed up the moon, Mars and
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.
We are hardly releasing CO at an alarming rate.
Please do a web search on this and you will see.
Global warming theory has failed.
Taken from
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/392789_murdockonline19.html
"Global Warming is over, and Global Warming Theory has failed. There is no evidence that CO2 drives world temperatures or any consequent climate change," Imperial College London astrophysicist and long-range forecaster Piers Corbyn wrote British Members of Parliament on Oct. 28. "According to official data in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been colder than that year, yet CO2 has been rising rapidly." That evening, as the House of Commons debated legislation on so-called "global-warming," October snow fell in London for the first time since 1922.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
devassocx
111 Comments
the dreaded CO2
People are treating this stuff like its cyanide gas
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.
Reply
Viv
61 Comments
Re: the dreaded CO2
I have to agree with you, its the media silly season story of the century.
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.
Reply
kearns
30 Comments
Re: the dreaded CO2
So what ever happened to Arbor Day? For heaven's sakes, plant trees like we did when we were children. Heck, this stuff's not plutonium, it's carbon dioxide for pity's sake.
Reply
dboots
4 Comments
Re: the dreaded CO2
You ever consider that this stuff mixes/binds
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.
Reply