VeggieBoards banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,182 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
From: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/02/02/g...oal/index.html

Quote:
Big lumps of sooty coal hardly seem like the future of energy, but that's exactly what the U.S. Department of Energy predicts. Consumption of the fossil fuel --the main source of greenhouse gas and a major contributor to acid rain, smog and mercury poisoning --will hit 10.6 billion tons a year by 2030, a near doubling of the 5.4 billion tons burned in 2003, according to the agency.

But coal's growing dominance need not spell doom for the environment, says Mike Mudd, a former manager of technology development at American Electric Power (AEP), one of the country's biggest utilities. Mudd is now CEO of FutureGen, a $1-billion project sponsored by the DOE in partnership with 11 leading energy companies to build the first near-zero-emission coal plant by 2012. The 275-megawatt facility will serve as the model for a new generation of high-tech coal facilities.

...

The FutureGen plant takes gasification a step further by burning only the hydrogen from syngas. The carbon monoxide is combined with steam to produce additional hydrogen, along with CO2 that will be pumped 2,700 to 16,000 feet underground into deep saline reservoirs. The U.S. alone has the geological capacity to store up to 2.2 trillion tons of CO2, roughly 1,000 years' worth of U.S. power-plant emissions, estimates Julio Friedmann, who directs research on CO2 sequestration at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
What do you guys think about storing CO2 emissions underground until a better solution is thought of? It's not the best solution but it's certainly a step in the right direction.

~Wondre
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,032 Posts
I'm not a big fan of the "out of sight, out of mind" mentality. Just leads to a build of of problems for people or things in the future.

What are the possible negative side effects of doing this?

That manager's name is Mudd.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,182 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The negative side effects can't be any worse than releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere which is what we're currently doing. I think this might be a decent temporary solution seeing as how not much is being done to curb our CO2 emissions. The next best thing to stopping CO2 emissions is to prevent them from being released into the atmosphere, right?

~Wondre
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,032 Posts
I think I agree. It is probably a step in the right direction, and in the light of 'global warming' it is probably a pretty good step.

My only real concern is temporary bandaid fixes often become permanent solutions.
Then will people down the road have to deal with it...
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top