Carbon Capture and Moneypoint

mike65

Sustainable Energy Ireland have published a report aboput this technique (piping output from powerstations into cavern underground or under sea),

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0917/environment.html

some earlier articles

2006

August

On the face of it, a good idea esp with those Carbon fines on the way.

Mike.

derry

LOL
get real
This has to be the dumbest idea that any green movement could have ever invented

First the costs like billions when you compare even the costs to pay the fines its a no brainer risk it and just pay the fine


To be green requires coming up with stuff that will actually work is actually gonna to be useful to joe soap Paddy or Mary in their part of the world

Adding some maybe 20% extra costs best case 'probably 100% to the electric bill to pump CO2 into the ground is so stupid that its a non starter

Capturing CO2 and putting it into tanks and driving cars that use CO2 engines like they do in Mexico city is useful
Ok the CO goes to the sky but it saves the car burning normal fuel and making CO2 so the overall emmision CO2 drops

The electric stations are average global effiency ~60% as compared to cars global effiency of ~5%

The CO2 can be used in chemical processes some fixing them in complex molicules that can earn incomes instaed to cost money

I mean the holy than though pie in the sky green projects are never going to happen stuff is just wasting news media time and wasting useful resources like research

Worse it will never happen as it isn't going to reduce electricity bills cost to the average joe soaps

Aim for possible stuff like wind power which might in time actually reduce electric power costs

Derry

lostexpectation

THIS WAS N'T THOUGHT UP BY THE GREEN MOVEMENT

gman2k

What's the carbon cost of putting this into practice?
Building a pipeline all the way from Moneypoint or similar back out to the soon to be depleted Kinsale gas fields is not exactly carbon neutral.... It will take a lot of energy to capture and safely transport this CO2....In the meantime, the additional cost of the energy created in the first place will be too high.
I heard on the radio that the costing for this proposal was circa 2.5billion euro????

mike65

The capacity of Kinsale head would be good for about 250 years worth of electricity Co2 output. So it would be a long term investment.

Mike

Celticfire

mike65 wrote: »

The capacity of Kinsale head would be good for about 250 years worth of electricity Co2 output. So it would be a long term investment.

Mike

We might not be using electricity in 250 years. Who knows what technologies we'll be using in a hundred years time?

mike65

True, on the other hand dot dot dot

Mike.

pauln

Celticfire wrote: »

We might not be using electricity in 250 years. Who knows what technologies we'll be using in a hundred years time?

I suppose we may not be using electricity, who knows. On the other hand with Moneypoint being a coal burning station and the fact that coal will be around after oil and gas are gone if we are still using electricity then there will still be a coal plant at Moneypoint.

gman2k wrote:

What's the carbon cost of putting this into practice?
Building a pipeline all the way from Moneypoint or similar back out to the soon to be depleted Kinsale gas fields is not exactly carbon neutral.... It will take a lot of energy to capture and safely transport this CO2....In the meantime, the additional cost of the energy created in the first place will be too high.
I heard on the radio that the costing for this proposal was circa 2.5billion euro????

Whatever the carbon cost of installing the pipeline I'd image it would only be a tiny fraction of what Moneypoint generates. As for the price I suppose it may be justified if you look at the equivalent fines for just releasing the CO2 over the next 250 years.

Burga Galti

It's an interesting plan, I've heard about them doing similar projects in Canada. Actually, a similar project operates in the UK, though the pump natural gas rather as CO2. What they do is pump the unused gas back into the oil fields, which raises the pressure in the field and hence forces more oil out. The end result is that the process is actually profitable.

As to whether doing this with CO2 would be acceptable given that the reason for the pumping is to extract more oil - well, I'll leave that to the greens to worry about. Me, I just see it as a good way of lower oil prices by making our existing fields more efficient.