Clean coal plant by Alstom

[Christophe]

Unfortunately, Maloche was not wrong, especially as the rise in temperature appears to be on average 800 years ahead of the increase in CO2 ...

A few comments:

a) If CO2 from fossil origin CANNOT BE the main trigger of the greenhouse effect, it is an aggravating factor! Otherwise you would deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas ...

b) If fossil CO2 has nothing to do with it, then pkoi the big industrialists, oil companies and TOTAL in mind, don't they take up this argument on their own? Don't they have the money to finance some studies?

c) unlike b) they also bet everything (in their marketing partners at least) on CO2 reduction

d) finally pkoi spend millions to bury it if it was for nothing?

e) I repeat myself supposing that the CO2 of fossil origin has nothing to do with it, that would change NOTHING to the other problem that is the exhaustion of fossil energies ....

[Bibiphoque]

Hello,
It reminds me of something, the methane degassing of lakes where we use a kind of large, very long tube which, once primed, creates a pressure difference at the bottom of the lake and thereby raises the methane which is dissolved there.
Nobody has yet proposed to reuse the extracted methane .... And yet, it is not a broth of Perier what comes out.
In addition, it is renewable since organic matter continues to fall to the bottom and decompose.

However, it should be fairly easy to implement.
@+

[Christophe]

Well, the phenomenon you describe is the cause of hundreds of deaths.

I believe that one of the great lakes of Africa poses this problem. Lake Victoria? I do not know anymore. I do not know either if it is CO2 (deadly at high concentration) or methane ...

[Remundo]

An ecological coal-fired power station

Ah yes, but er ... we spend even more energy to store in a hole which is very nice to be waterproof. That our engineers have thought a lot about storage because the hole is very deep, do not fall into it ...

It's super green, huh people, take our word for it

As Toff said, it is necessary to appear to suppress the emission of the pollutant rather than to build gas factories almost incapable of confining it in a sustainable way ...

The tens of millions of euros injected into this project would have been 100 times better placed on ETM, thermodynamic solar and biomass recovery, decentralization of the electricity network, etc.

[Christophe]

Ah well here is pkoi the tankers are for this solution !!!

They will sell more oil! In addition, they are the best in mastering drilling ...

[Remundo]

And yes friends ...

Oxy-combustion is the depollution of smoke by forced oxidation of all carbon oxides ... So everything becomes CO2 and H2O (C, CO + unburnt HC)

We recover a little heat, but not much ... and difficult to recover it.

it also has the effect of polluting the fumes with oxides of nitrogen and sulfur ... because the fumes are essentially loaded with N2, initially non-polluting (80% of the air we breathe).

But the energy sink is to swing all this soup under pressure 1000 m underground. I can tell you that it is not done without spitting kWh ... on the one hand to obtain pure oxygen (generally an ASU for air splitting unit installed in the factory), and on the other hand to compress everything that under the cows floor.

I also read in the press release "porous rocks": funny, aren't they supposed to be waterproof? ...

and small link to the passage on sequestration techniques

[C moa]

Just to complete, in general, CO2 landfill projects are located on former extraction sites of either gas or crude (Cf lacq). These are perfectly tight geological layers.

What is annoying in this type of communication is that we make the general public believe that it is no longer a problem to produce juice from coal or fuel oil. But hey, Germany needs electricity, it buys a lot outside (especially in France) and produces the rest mainly from fossil. It is for me the result of an anti-nuclear policy at all costs.

In addition, everyone is moved to see that the price of their electricity is more expensive than elsewhere

What would be intelligent (beyond the fact of not producing from charcoal) would be to cool and clean the fumes and to pass them to an oilseed algae farm. In addition by doing this life-size test, they could resell it to a lot of companies that pollute and are taxed ...

But OK...

[Christophe]

What would be intelligent (beyond the fact of not producing from charcoal) would be to cool and clean the fumes and to pass them to an oilseed algae farm.

Ah well I see that we have the same idea on the question! CO2 can be a resource ... but in landfill projects it is considered as waste ... "Beuh the ugly CO2 let's bury it so as not to see it anymore"

There are industrial logics that I don't understand but really don't.

Do you know the price of a kg of CO2 at Air Liquide? Better not! Most of you would make an attack!

[Remundo]

The document I sent contains:

"The CO2 capture stage will determine the costs of the capture and
sequestration of carbon dioxide. The contribution of the catch to the total cost of the operation is
around 75%. Electricity production costs increase by around 50% with the PSC.
A major reduction in the costs of the capture stage is one of the major challenges for making it
an acceptable load for the energy industry. "

It is essentially more expensive because it consumes more energy: larger and more energy-consuming power plants.

As for the quality of the waterproofing of the geolological layers, I have doubts ... The geologists do not agree between them.

Anyway, even if 99% of the bell is waterproof, a crack of 1% is enough to release the gas ... And the ground, it works, especially when you empty the gas (exploitation) and then put it back under pressure (CO2 sequestration).

[C moa]

Ah well I see that we have the same idea on the question! CO2 can be a resource ... but in landfill projects it is considered as waste ... "Beuh the ugly CO2 let's bury it so as not to see it anymore"

It does not matter, after Laigret oil, we will develop algae and we will get this wasted CO2

There are industrial logics that I don't understand but really don't.

Do you know the price of a kg of CO2 at Air Liquide? Better not! Most of you would make an attack!

It is true that it is expensive and where it is even crazier is that many industries could use it as gas inert instead of using nitrogen (rarely essential in fact). They could also use it in their instrument air systems ....

Even if the CO2 was not recycled, it would at least be reused