Skip to main content

View Diary: New German Data Shows No End in Sight for Coal (230 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't see how it can (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the thermodynamics aren't there.  You can't sequester a mass of CO2 that's three times the mass of coal you burn in any efficient manner.

    •  Who knows? (0+ / 0-)

      This algal plant idea is intriguing.  In principle a fast growing farm could take the CO2 and give you liquid fuel.   So you get to burn your coal and use it as a biofuel feed stock too.  Ultimately that's just down cycling, since burning that is still releasing fossil carbon.  You'd have to lock the algae away somewhere probably easier to leave the fossil carbon where it is and run your algae from atmospheric carbon instead

      Maybe this is why I was skeptical

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:57:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You can (0+ / 0-)

      sequester it, but it is expensive.  If you can find a CO2 buyer with a gas or oil deposit, like Denbury Resources, they will even buy your CO2 for injection.

    •  In what manner is that thermodynamics? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      translatorpro, Lawrence

      Nobody is talking about starting with coal, turning it into CO2 (capturing energy), then using less energy than was captured to turn it back into coal. It stays in its thermodynamically-favorable state (CO2), simply not in the atmosphere.  There's no thermodynamics violation.

      It might not be economical, but that's not the same thing.

      •  They're related (0+ / 0-)

        It's not economical because of the thermodynamics of CO2 being a low energy state.  Unlike a worse GHG like methane, which could at least be burned into CO2 and water vapor.

        I never mentioned reversing the combustion process, which is obviously absurd.  The energy required to set up a carbon sink of that magnitude would likely far exceed the output of the plant.

        •  The energy state of CO2 has (0+ / 0-)

          zilch to do with how easy or difficult it is to store.  Water is a low energy state too.  Want to tell me about how impossibly hard water is to store?

          Sorry, but you're pushing pseudoscience here.  Thermodynamics has a very real definition and it's not at all how you're trying to present it.  You can argue "CO2 is too expensive to store", but leave fake-thermodynamics out of the conversation.

          •  Oh for chrissakes (0+ / 0-)

            At normal Ps and Ts, the CO2 generated by combustion takes up a large volume.  Got that?  It's harder, as in more expensive, to store large quantities of gases than small quantities.

            I'm not sure why you're reading a redefinition of thermodynamics into my comment.  Oh and incidentally, if water vapor couldn't be condensed at room temperature and if we were trying to sequester all of the water vapor output from power generation, it would be pretty expensive too.

            I understand thermodynamics plenty well. You're ignoring my argument because you don't like how I presented it, but that doesn't make it wrong.  You're being pedantic and irrelevant.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site