Who is Online

We have 190 guests and no members online

(Carbon Sequestration)

 

 

 

Carbon sequestration 2009 10 07
Carbon Sequestration Source: Wikimedia Commons

 

At the present state of technological development in NSW we have few (perhaps no) alternatives to burning coal.  But there is a fundamental issue with the proposed underground sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a means of reducing the impact of coal burning on the atmosphere. This is the same issue that plagues the whole current energy debate.  It is the issue of scale. 

Disposal of liquid CO2: underground; below the seabed; in depleted oil or gas reservoirs; or in deep saline aquifers is technically possible and is already practiced in some oil fields to improve oil extraction.  But the scale required for meaningful sequestration of coal sourced carbon dioxide is an enormous engineering and environmental challenge of quite a different magnitude. 

It is one thing to land a man on the Moon; it is another to relocate the Great Pyramid (of Cheops) there.

The underground volume required to dispose of coal sourced carbon dioxide is over five times that occupied by the coal that produced it. As discussed in more detail below, to liquify and sequester just 25% of NSW coal sourced CO2 annually (for example that produced by coal fired electricity) would fill a volume of 63 thousand million cubic metres (=251 Km square by 1m deep).  As it is expected that this liquid would be pumped into porous strata, where it will fill interstitial voids to perhaps 10% of the volume, several thousand thousand square kilometers of strata would be required annually. These volumes would also require hundreds of kilometres of high pressure distribution pipeline and hundreds of injection bore holes the diameter and depth of oil wells. 

Within a few years, the underground sequestration site (or sites) required for CO2 would underlie hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of NSW countryside with high pressure liquid/solid phase CO2 that would pose probably insurmountable: geological; engineering; environmental; aesthetic; safety; and cost issues.

Power generation metals smelting and the mining that supports them are amongst civilisation’s largest enterprises.  Present installed coal thermal generating plant capacity in NSW is 12.6 GW.  This is the largest electricity generation capacity of any Australian State (32.4% of the total) and bigger than many developed countries including Switzerland, New Zealand and Denmark. But this capacity is dwarfed in world terms. China adds this capacity every few months.  A single project, their three gorges dam, will have double our entire capacity. We are small players on the world stage and what we do makes little material difference.

NSW is heavily dependent on coal. In 2005-6 the New South Wales (NSW) coal mining industry produced around 161.3 million tonnes (Mt) of raw coal, yielding 124.7 Mt of saleable coal in 2005-06. This accounted for $8.5 billion in income, or 73% of the total value of the NSW mining sector. Exports of 89.8 Mt of thermal and metallurgical coal totalled approximately $6.7 billion in value, while domestic consumption of 33 Mt of coal by the power, steel and other industries totalled $1.8 billion in value. The remaining saleable coal was placed into mining stocks.[1] Since that time exports have increased and the coal price has more than doubled.  Coal is presently worth at least $15 billion a year to the NSW economy, disregarding its economic multipliers.

 

 

No comments

Travel

Thailand

 

 

In October 2012 flew to India and Nepal with Thai International and so had stopovers in Bangkok in both directions. On our way we had a few days to have a look around.

Read more: Thailand

Fiction, Recollections & News

Should we be worried?

 

 

 

"Yesterday, as I stood at my last stop on the campaign trail, I'll never be doing a rally again, can you believe it? I think we've done 900 rallies approximately from. Can you imagine? 900, 901 or something. A lot of rallies. And it was sad. Everybody was sad..."
"They said that many people have told me that God spared my life for a reason. And that reason was to save our country and to restore America to greatness. And now we are going to fulfill that mission together..."
"I will govern by a simple motto: Promises made, promises kept. We're going to keep our promises. Nothing will stop me from keeping my word to you, the people. We will make America safe, strong, prosperous, powerful, and free again..."
"Success is going to bring us together and we are going to start by all putting America first.
"We have to put our country first for at least a period of time. We have to fix it. Because together we can truly make America great again for all Americans. So I want to just tell you what a great honor this is. I want to thank you. I will not let you down. America's future will be bigger, better, bolder, richer, safer and stronger than it has ever been before. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you very much."

 

Presumably, 50-year-old volunteer fire chief; father of young daughters; and a committed church-going Christian: Corey Comperatore, lost his life as a part of God's plan, along with fellow rally goers: David Dutch and James Copenhaver, who also stopped bullets; Dutch critically.

 Nevertheless, Trump certainly loved his rallies. 

 The most talked about moment in the The Harris-Trump debate was when Harris mocked his rallies and Trump responded by asserting that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were eating the residents' pets. 

 

"At the ABC News presidential debate, former President Trump went on a tear accusing Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, of eating pets."

 

 

This was the real Springfield, as opposed to the Simpsons' fictional one.  

  

This man is about to return as 'Leader of the Free World'.

Yet, he saw no warning signals before repeating the Springfield nonsense.  It reminded me of his suggestion, also picked up on Social Media, that Covid-19, might be overcome with household disinfectant.

 

President Trump claims injecting people with disinfectant could treat coronavirus

 

 

And his claim that the F-35 stealth fighter was actually invisible.

 

In a Thanksgiving speech to the US coast guard, President Donald Trump hails the F-35 fighter jet, calling it an "invisible" plane that they "enemy cannot see".

 

 

We already knew that his grasp of American, let alone World, history was woefully inadequate for someone holding, high office.  And this gets to the heart of the matter: he's an ignoramus.

I don't mean he's stupid but he's lacking in the most basic knowledge of how the world actually is. 

No doubt the occasional cat or dog does get eaten by a homeless person but ravenous immigrants, en masse, falling on the pets of Springfield?

The average twelve year old could tell him that this story is unlikely to be true. That same child could tell him that a stealth-jet is not actually invisible (to the naked eye); and that injecting disinfectant; or exposing yourself to radiation, sufficiently energetic to kill a virus infecting you, would very likely kill you too. 

But his ignorance is legendary:

 

Donald Trump often discusses history, and he has a unique way of talking about it.

 

Yet, on several cruises that we have been on with older Americans: "What do you think of Donald Trump" is a standard question at dinner. A few don't like him but for the great majority: 'The Don' can do no wrong. All the negative things said about him are just 'fake news'.  They are 'welded on' regardless.

Now this majority of Americans have got what they wished for - manifest destiny? As bob Dylan sang: With God on Our Side.

I'm worried.

 

 

 

Opinions and Philosophy

Gaia - Climate Speculations

 

 

 

 

Our recent trip to Central Australia involved a long walk around a rock and some even longer contemplative drives.

I found myself wondering if there is more or less 'life' out here than there is in the more obviously verdant countryside to the north south east or west. For example: might microbes be more abundant here?  The flies are certainly doing well. Yet probably not.

This led me to recall James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis that gave we readers of New Scientist something to think about back in 1975, long before climate change was a matter of general public concern.

 

Read more: Gaia - Climate Speculations

Terms of Use

Terms of Use                                                                    Copyright