bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on May 20, 2013 11:07:22 GMT -5
An investment tip for Helen and Rich.
Brad Wall pitches carbon capture to large US firms
Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall says his province has game-changing carbon capture technology, something he hopes to market around the world.
Wall spoke Tuesday at an annual carbon capture conference in Pittsburgh.
The premier said he sensed interest in a government-sponsored project at the Boundary Dam power station near Estevan, Sask.
That project aims to capture up to 90 per cent of CO2 emissions.
Most of the CO2 captured from Boundary is to be used to push more oil out of the ground in what's called enhanced oil recovery.
Wall said Saskatchewan wants to sell the technology. He added there was interest at the conference.
Carbon capture — or sequestration — involves gathering carbon dioxide produced at power plants and injecting the gas deep into porous rock formations so it doesn't add to greenhouse gas emissions.
Jurisdictions such as Saskatchewan that depend heavily on coal-fired power plants are relying on carbon capture and storage to work.
The province plans to reduce 2006 levels of greenhouse gases by 20 per cent by 2020.
Here is the typical lefty response. What is the point of saving the CO2 in the ground if you have to push oil out with it to make it profitable? It's only going to work economically if someone burns that oil, putting more CO2 into the air again.
Duh!!! Idiot what don't you understand about the word "capture"?
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on May 20, 2013 11:11:54 GMT -5
Maybe Saskrock can give a few words on this. I believe he works there or nearby.
|
|
|
Post by helens on May 20, 2013 17:02:39 GMT -5
I'm all for that:)!! Where did you get your 'typical lefty response'? No one wants to breath dirty air, the ground's already loaded with fossil fuel, how's carbon going to hurt?
|
|
|
Post by parfive on May 27, 2013 20:28:16 GMT -5
Out one side of his face: “Helen if the greens what an alternative, why don't they startup their own private company and get to work? I'm sure that between the 4 scumbags that I mentioned above have more than enough money to fund such operations. Why should the government spend tax payer money on them?” Out the other: “Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall says his province has game-changing carbon capture technology . . . a government-sponsored project . . . gathering carbon dioxide produced at power plants and injecting the gas deep into porous rock formations so it doesn't add to greenhouse gas emissions” What’s the big deal about adding to greenhouse gas emissions? Eh? You just told us CO2 levels have been insignificant for over 600 million years. And yet your boy Brad and the Saskatchewan gubmint’s coughed up $1.1 billion of tax payer money and Harpo’s coughed up another $240 million.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on May 27, 2013 20:28:52 GMT -5
Back on the first side again, it’s: “Helen you should really do some research instead of listening to Al's propaganda. We have some of the tightest emission controls in the world. If America is soooooo concerned about the environment. Why did your country not join Kyoto? “ On the other: Oops . . . wait a minute . . .
Never mind. Canada is formally withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, abandoning the world’s only legally binding plan to tackle global warming. The Kyoto Protocol came into force in 2005, and Canada committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels during the period of 2008 to 2012. However, recent estimates indicate Canada’s emissions are more than 30 per cent above that target.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on May 27, 2013 21:03:54 GMT -5
Out one side of his face: “Helen if the greens what an alternative, why don't they startup their own private company and get to work? I'm sure that between the 4 scumbags that I mentioned above have more than enough money to fund such operations. Why should the government spend tax payer money on them?” Out the other: “Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall says his province has game-changing carbon capture technology . . . a government-sponsored project . . . gathering carbon dioxide produced at power plants and injecting the gas deep into porous rock formations so it doesn't add to greenhouse gas emissions” What’s the big deal about adding to greenhouse gas emissions? Eh? You just told us CO2 levels have been insignificant for over 600 million years. And yet your boy Brad and the Saskatchewan gubmint’s coughed up $1.1 billion of tax payer money and Harpo’s coughed up another $240 million. Rich, you really don't know anything about oil production do ya? You see Rich, we are killing 2 birds with one shot. Normally oilwells have to be injected with water later on in there life to keep production up. Now if we replace that water will spent CO2, its a win win situation is it not? Shuts up the greens for a while and preserves our water resources at the same time. You just told us CO2 levels have been insignificant for over 600 million years.They haven't and I stand by that statement. Canada is formally withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, abandoning the world’s only legally binding plan to tackle global warming.That is something called retaliation for all the flak that Canada is taking from the EU and the rest of the climate change hypocrites over our resources. And why would we bother with it if the worlds biggest polluters did not join. T name a few China, USA and India. Why should we reduce our GDP when others don't.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on May 27, 2013 21:24:45 GMT -5
Big water shortage in the Qanadian north, eh? $1.340 Billion buys a lotta water, man. Even in a friggin’ desert.
But your boy Brad didn’t say he was preserving water resources. He said it was to avoid adding to greenhouse gas emissions. Of which there’s no such thing, right?
So why’s he wanna pump plant food underground? He got some big mushroom farm on the side or what?
|
|
|
Post by helens on May 27, 2013 21:59:55 GMT -5
Well... if the Cree win, you may not have the problem anymore:P.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on May 27, 2013 23:21:07 GMT -5
Big water shortage in the Qanadian north, eh? $1.340 Billion buys a lotta water, man. Even in a friggin’ desert. But your boy Brad didn’t say he was preserving water resources. He said it was to avoid adding to greenhouse gas emissions. Of which there’s no such thing, right? So why’s he wanna pump plant food underground? He got some big mushroom farm on the side or what? No water shortage here Rich. We don't build in deserts. As for why he is doing it. We do have a few greenies here to. And why not take a useful gas that is being wasted and use it for some good. Thats called thinking outside the box. The article I posted came from the CBC. They fail to mention things that make a Conservative government look good. To them if at isn't leftwing, its wrong. Helen don't wish for what you will regret later. Pull a million bbl's of oil out of your market a day. Your gas price will be "to the moon Helen".
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on May 27, 2013 23:24:10 GMT -5
Btw Rich. Our boy Brad just passed "another" balanced budget and surplus. More than any of your cowboys can say. ;D
|
|
|
Post by helens on May 27, 2013 23:33:14 GMT -5
I don't wish for anything regarding Canada. Just observing. I agree you guys are in a tough position with the Indians, but you can't say they don't have a case. You act as though that case will 1. go to court soon, when it apparently just got approval to move forward. 2. it won't go to appeal, whichever side wins.
By the time it's settled, 10 or more years from now, hopefully few people will need gas anymore, because we'll all be driving electric or hydrogen powered self-driving cars. Even you don't have a whole lot to worry about, you'll probably be long retired by the time anything actually results from it... seeing as how even if they win within 10 years, big oil will pay them so much money, the Indians suing could each buy 20 rolls royces to park around their mansions for decoration like they did for the Kuwaiti.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on May 27, 2013 23:50:49 GMT -5
the Indians suing could each buy 20 rolls royces to park around their mansions for decoration like they did for the Kuwaiti. Some of the chiefs have.
The biggest problem the natives have up here is their chiefs. They scam money that is intended for their people. They keep them in poverty. If the chief does not like you. Your not gettig a house or if you have one its not getting fixed.
Tell me is it write for a chief that has under 5000 people on his reserve draw a wage larger than the Prime Minister of Canada? Problem is that federal and royalty funds go directly to the chief not the people. But you will never hear that in them greenie rags will ya.
Helen I work with and know a lot of natives. And the lazy comment came from a "Cree".
|
|
|
Post by helens on May 27, 2013 23:57:14 GMT -5
Then those natives should revolt, get together and overthrow their chief. If he's as horrible as you say, shouldn't take much to get the vast majority of Cree to vote him out or however they get new Chiefs. Their nation, they need to deal with their corruption.
But that's like saying, you don't like your neighbors, and the head of household spanked his kids. Therefore they deserve to lose their home. What does their situation have to do with their rights?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2013 6:58:42 GMT -5
It is a farce. Water is pushed into formations to force the oil up and a lot of that water comes back up. Stands to reason that if you push CO2 down the same way there will be a lot of CO2 coming back up to get released back into the atmosphere. Or are they going to put a capture thingy on each well to prevent the CO2 from being released? Water is heavier than oil so oil rises to the top. CO2 is lighter than oil so CO2 will rise to the top.
Oil is pumped into tanks from each well or group of wells and the tanks are vented so the tank can fill up. In some cases the gas in the tank is piped off to a central location and burned (another polluter). Does CO2 burn? Nope. So it will be released back into the atmosphere.
I do not have anything scientific to back this up other than the fact that big oil and coal have filled us so full of the nasty stuff we can not wipe it all off. BUT they will tell part of the truth and the people will fall for it hook, line and stinker. Jim
|
|
robsrockshop
has rocks in the head
Member since August 2012
Posts: 715
|
Post by robsrockshop on May 28, 2013 8:24:05 GMT -5
So I wonder where this ridiculous carbon tax credit as an alt currency idea comes into play here? Like Wampidy says.........it probably doesn't work but the big companies will be showered with credits. LOL.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on May 28, 2013 10:30:45 GMT -5
With post-combustion carbon capture, the CO2 is grabbed after the fossil fuel is burned. The burning of fossil fuels produces something called flue gases, which include CO2, water vapor, sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides. In a post-combustion process, CO2 is separated and captured from the flue gases that result from the combustion of fossil fuel. This process is currently in use to remove CO2 from natural gas. The biggest benefit to using this process is that it allows us to retrofit older power plants, by adding a "filter" that helps trap the CO2 as it travels up a chimney or smokestack. This filter is actually a solvent that absorbs carbon dioxide. The solvent can later be heated, which will release water vapor and leave behind a concentrated stream of CO2. Post-combustion carbon capture can prevent 80 to 90 percent of a power plant's carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere [source: GreenFacts]. But the post-combustion process requires a lot of energy to compress the gas enough for transport. With precombustion carbon capture, CO2 is trapped before the fossil fuel is burned. That means the CO2 is trapped before it's diluted by other flue gases. Coal, oil or natural gas is heated in pure oxygen, resulting in a mix of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This mix is then treated in a catalytic converter with steam, which then produces more hydrogen, along with carbon dioxide. These gases are fed into the bottom of a flask. The gases in the flask will naturally begin to rise, so a chemical called amine is poured into the top. The amine binds with the CO2, falling to the bottom of the flask. The hydrogen continues rising, up and out of the flask. Next, the amine/CO2 mixture is heated. The CO2 rises to the top for collection, and the amine drops to the bottom for reuse [source: Allen]. The excess hydrogen also can be used for other energy production processes. Precombustion carbon capture is already in use for natural gas, and provides a much higher concentration of CO2 than post-combustion. The precombustion process is lower in cost, but it's not a retrofit for older power plant generators. As with post-combustion, precombustion carbon capture can prevent 80 to 90 percent of a power plant's emissions from entering the atmosphere [source: GreenFacts]. With oxy-fuel combustion carbon capture, the power plant burns fossil fuel in oxygen. This results in a gas mixture comprising mostly steam and CO2. The steam and carbon dioxide are separated by cooling and compressing the gas stream. The oxygen required for this technique increases costs, but researchers are developing new techniques in hopes of bringing this cost down. Oxy-fuel combustion can prevent 90 percent of a power plant's emissions from entering the atmosphere [source: GreenFacts]. www.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/carbon-capture.htm
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on May 28, 2013 10:37:29 GMT -5
Interesting little tidbit.
IS THERE ANYTHING BAKING SODA CAN'T DO? One more option for storing excess carbon dioxide is, strangely enough, baking soda. A company called SkyMine is already doing it. Once they sequester the CO2 from other gases and by-products, SkyMine injects it with salt and water (sodium hydroxide). This chemical reaction forms baking soda -- a compound handy for everything from baking a delicious cake to brushing your teeth. To find out more about baking soda and the SkyMine project, check out our article Can Baking Soda Save the Environment?.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on May 28, 2013 10:40:44 GMT -5
It is a farce. Water is pushed into formations to force the oil up and a lot of that water comes back up. Stands to reason that if you push CO2 down the same way there will be a lot of CO2 coming back up to get released back into the atmosphere. Or are they going to put a capture thingy on each well to prevent the CO2 from being released? Water is heavier than oil so oil rises to the top. CO2 is lighter than oil so CO2 will rise to the top. Oil is pumped into tanks from each well or group of wells and the tanks are vented so the tank can fill up. In some cases the gas in the tank is piped off to a central location and burned (another polluter). Does CO2 burn? Nope. So it will be released back into the atmosphere. I do not have anything scientific to back this up other than the fact that big oil and coal have filled us so full of the nasty stuff we can not wipe it all off. BUT they will tell part of the truth and the people will fall for it hook, line and stinker. Jim Wow Jim even when the energy industry does something good for the environment, People like you still bitch and complain. Btw Jim your fuel tank on your pickup has a vent on it to. Better plug it!!!!! Do your part now.
|
|