Comments on: Geo-sequestration mis-reporting http://synapsechronicles.com/2008/04/03/geo-sequestration-mis-reporting/ Thoughts that made it to the page Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:56:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: gyoung http://synapsechronicles.com/2008/04/03/geo-sequestration-mis-reporting/#comment-17459 gyoung Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:38:23 +0000 http://synapsechronicles.com/2008/04/03/geo-sequestration-mis-reporting/#comment-17459 Good point - but I still think it's terribly misleading. Is it a "geo-sequestration plant, capable of capturing and compressing 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide" or is it a so-called "clean" coal plant that is incorporating geo-sequestration? (and don't get me started on so-called "clean" coal ;) there is no such thing) If it's just the sequestration component, then it's completely bogus. If it's a "clean" coal plant, that's a different story, literally - coz that's not what they were actually saying in the news report. In either case I still posit that the story is factually inaccurate. Good point - but I still think it’s terribly misleading. Is it a “geo-sequestration plant, capable of capturing and compressing 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide” or is it a so-called “clean” coal plant that is incorporating geo-sequestration? (and don’t get me started on so-called “clean” coal ;) there is no such thing)

If it’s just the sequestration component, then it’s completely bogus. If it’s a “clean” coal plant, that’s a different story, literally - coz that’s not what they were actually saying in the news report. In either case I still posit that the story is factually inaccurate.

]]> By: ish http://synapsechronicles.com/2008/04/03/geo-sequestration-mis-reporting/#comment-17458 ish Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:36:23 +0000 http://synapsechronicles.com/2008/04/03/geo-sequestration-mis-reporting/#comment-17458 I could be wrong (as I'm new to this stuff) but I think they're referring to the idea that clean coal (and specifically Integrated Gassification Combined Cycle or IGCC) supposedly generates less CO2 emissions (relative to conventional coal fired power stations) in addition to the sequestration of (some of/the majority of) the CO2 emissions. In addition, I think the idea is that IGCC is also more efficient in it's usage of coal - i.e. uses less coal to produce the same amount of energy. Hence, the claim that it could lead to reduced consumption of fossil fuels. Note: I'm not sure whether this plant is an IGCC one or not though - the report didn't say. Not to say I don't agree with the key point you make which is - why invest in this over truly renewable sources like wind, solar or tidal??? I think that may have more to do with the lobbying power of the coal industry... [BTW - disclosure ...I'm starting to learn a little bit more about this because our firm is advising an IGCC project that's currently in pre-feasibility stage.] I could be wrong (as I’m new to this stuff) but I think they’re referring to the idea that clean coal (and specifically Integrated Gassification Combined Cycle or IGCC) supposedly generates less CO2 emissions (relative to conventional coal fired power stations) in addition to the sequestration of (some of/the majority of) the CO2 emissions.

In addition, I think the idea is that IGCC is also more efficient in it’s usage of coal - i.e. uses less coal to produce the same amount of energy. Hence, the claim that it could lead to reduced consumption of fossil fuels.

Note: I’m not sure whether this plant is an IGCC one or not though - the report didn’t say.

Not to say I don’t agree with the key point you make which is - why invest in this over truly renewable sources like wind, solar or tidal??? I think that may have more to do with the lobbying power of the coal industry…

[BTW - disclosure ...I'm starting to learn a little bit more about this because our firm is advising an IGCC project that's currently in pre-feasibility stage.]

]]>