Behind all the guff, hypocrisy and bad science that dominates discussion on the issue of climate change lurk stories of real scientific and engineering interest.
This one seems to represent real progress, but undoubtedly will be attacked by the high priests of climate change as the stuff of multinational fantasy.
Perhaps the experts over at Knowledge Problem can cast their sceptical eye over the project and give us their view.
the experts over at Knowledge Problem link to a paper which seems to be another example of that great game "Economists prove the bleedin' obvious".
Posted by: dearieme | July 01, 2005 at 03:01 PM
A normal power plant converts natural gas into carbon dioxide and dihydrogen oxide, otherwise known as water. Both these actions release energy, which drives the turbines and generates electricity.
This article seems to be saying that they are separating the oxidation of carbon in the first plant from the oxidation of hydrogen in the second plant. I don't know how they do this, but engineers are clever folk, they can work it out. The point is, it is bound to be more complicated - i.e., more expensive - than just buring the gas in the normal way. Who pays ?
Regarding injecting the CO2 into old oil fields - yes, this improves recovery (although as long as 15-20 years sounds unlikely). Of course it would be far easier to just use air at the point of injection rather than mess around piping in CO2 from elsewhere, which will inevitably have a cost. Who pays ?
Lots of North Sea fields will be coming to the end of their lives in the next few decades, at which point BP and everyone would have to shut up shop there. Of course, if they can carry on using those oil rigs and pipeline network to pump CO2 into the ground, then they extend the life of those assets for as long as they can get away with this farce. Equally of course, they would have to be paid for doing so. Who pays ?
For the unfeasibly optimistic among us, the answer to the repeated question above is... you and I will pay for it. With higher electricity bills, and higher costs for everything we buy that uses energy in its production - which is pretty much everything.
P.S. Alex Salmond approves of it. Who pays ?
Posted by: fFreddy | July 02, 2005 at 12:49 PM