At the risk of quoting The Princess Bride, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
The sequestration plants currently in use collect carbon dioxide at the source (coal fired power plants) and inject it into wells for storage. Even the ones using wells deep enough for the compound to be supercritical liquid use far less power than the coal plant gets from burning the carbon. Other plants inject the compound as a gas into shallower aquifers, which cuts costs both in compression and in pipeline building, since many of the plants sit on top of aquifers anyway.
Other approaches are to store it as biomass in soils.
Producing carbon dioxide only at night and storing until there is excess electricity in the daytime from solar plants to reform it into liquid fuels to burn at night is a form of CCS that could be used to solve energy balance problems. It is easier to store hydrogen by binding it to carbon dioxide than to liquefy it. That fuel could also be used for long haul trucking, where batteries are less practical.
In previous epochs of high atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, mountain building and the subsequent weathering eventually took it out of the air through reactions with soil minerals. When we make concrete, we are recycling that old carbon back into the air. Carbon capture and storage is certainly storage. But it does not say anything about the duration of that storage. Sequestration is just a word that means "to set apart". A jury is not sequestered forever -- that fate is reserved for certain others in the courtroom.
What is your argument for how storing it in the air is thermodynamically positive, but storing it in compressed form in natural gas wells is not? I am not saying you are wrong, I'm just asking you to show your work.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Ian Jessup <wrathraptor@gmail.com> wrote:
Sequestration isn't recycling. It's the idea of storing it in a way that isn't harmful to the environment. CO2 being an incredibly low-energy form of carbon, it would require more energy to sequester than the potential energy you'd store via sequestration. Thermodynamically, it isn't energetically favorable or beneficial to attempt to sequester it. If it could be actually recycled in a large scale process the way plants and marine microorganisms do, then it would be energetically favorable. In other words, to sequester carbon you'd expend more energy and producing more carbon than you'd be able to sequester. Result: Net gain in carbon.On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Nathan McCorkle <nmz787@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Ian Jessup <wrathraptor@gmail.com> wrote:Isn't it just recycling? Carbon is a currency, I can burn it, I can
> LOL, because carbon sequestration is a terrible energy intensive process
> that only a madman would pursue.
>
> Pardon my abrupt dismissal. But it's a bad idea. And I don't believe in
> giving bad ideas any validation.
>
eat it... but not in CO2 form.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CA%2B82U9%2BUPRZp_X4feyvxj1zLEDL86kNGJiXBPFxAccFWn80t0w%40mail.gmail.com.
--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - The Coda, Chapterhouse: Dune
Finis Coronat Opus! - "The End Crowns The Work!"
--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CADTLbuCSRSwA7RJfGtMJ6XO7%3D8FCqyrvZfTfEvrXYi4_C%2BBAkw%40mail.gmail.com.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAA0yOM4b%3D4tOgxJouN%2B%3DC-Marb7sNmzurhATSvZ-uSxF2TCFyQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
0 comments:
Post a Comment