The 2015 UNFCCC - will it make big changes?

gctimes wrote: (*Only 10+ points total needed to stop [but, not to reverse] global warming, to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions):

gctimes wrote:
This is what GCT believes must be done:
Hopefully, most coal will be under a CCS or an IGCC system...so more sustainable coal production in the future......

still learning wrote:
Anybody know if there's a working full-scale powerplant that uses CCS or something similar and that just sequesters the CO2, doesn't have an oilfield that can use the CO2 for enhanced recovery (or something similar ).

trafn wrote:
@still learning - I think most people have given up on the subterranean sequestration concept now that the oil companies are finally admitting to the local earthquake problems associated with fracking.

still learning wrote:

gctimes wrote:
This is what GCT believes must be done:
Hopefully, most coal will be under a CCS or an IGCC system...so more sustainable coal production in the future......

Anybody know if there's a working full-scale powerplant that uses CCS or something similar and that just sequesters the CO2, doesn't have an oilfield that can use the CO2 for enhanced recovery (or something similar ). Lots of column-inches about CCS a few years ago, about how it was going to work. Don't recall reading any success stories.

Another touted notion of a few years ago: cellulosic ethanol. Any success stories?

Surface Detail wrote:

still learning wrote:

gctimes wrote:
This is what GCT believes must be done:
Hopefully, most coal will be under a CCS or an IGCC system...so more sustainable coal production in the future......

Anybody know if there's a working full-scale powerplant that uses CCS or something similar and that just sequesters the CO2, doesn't have an oilfield that can use the CO2 for enhanced recovery (or something similar ). Lots of column-inches about CCS a few years ago, about how it was going to work. Don't recall reading any success stories.

Another touted notion of a few years ago: cellulosic ethanol. Any success stories?

This site:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/around-the-world-in-22-carbon-capture-projects

gives plenty of information about ongoing and future CCS projects. They are are mostly in North America, and the CO2 that is captured is typically used to enhance oil extraction. There are a few projects that plan to store CO2 in saline aquifers, but these are few and far between. CCS would have to be scaled up enormously in order to have any significant impact on CO2 emissions, so it is doubtful whether it could play much of a role in limiting climate change from greenhouse warming.

In the UK, at least, CCS is now seen as something of a non-starter, and funding for a pilot scheme at the Drax powerplant has recently been withdrawn. Instead, the govenment now plans to shut down all existing coal-fired powerplants within the next 10 years. They are to be replaced mostly with gas-fired plants which, of course, also emit CO2, though not as much.

IBdaMann wrote:
What would have been done with sequestered CO2? What is the general plan typically with sequestered CO2.
.

trafn wrote:
@Surface Detail - due to the problem with regional earthquakes from fracking, the in-ground sequestration model is not likely to happen.

Surface Detail wrote: The general plan is to store it in depleted oil and gas fields, and in saline aquifers.

http://www.ccsassociation.org/faqs/ccs-storage/

"After injection, the carbon dioxide moves up through the storage site until it reaches the impermeable layer of rock known to overlay the storage site; this layer is known as the "caprock" or "seal". This mechanism of retention is the same one that has kept oil and natural gas securely under the ground for millions of years; this provides confidence that carbon dioxide, too, can be safely stored."

trafn wrote:
@Surface Detail - given that all the tectonic plates are interconnected, I guess we're about to find out if it's a problem or not.

trafn wrote:
@Surface Detail - due to the problem with regional earthquakes from fracking, the in-ground sequestration model is not likely to happen.

Surface Detail wrote:
....
At the moment, though, it's not obvious that the widespread use of CCS would be any more economically viable than simply switching to methods of power generation that produce lower CO2 emissions. It's certainly gone out of favour here in the UK now.

still learning wrote:That was my impression.
I brought it up because it was part of the gctimes entry starting off this thread.

trafn wrote:
@Surface Detail - given that all the tectonic plates are interconnected, I guess we're about to find out if it's a problem or not.

Surface Detail wrote:

trafn wrote:
@Surface Detail - due to the problem with regional earthquakes from fracking, the in-ground sequestration model is not likely to happen.

In the UK, at least, the storage locations in question are under the North Sea, so any mini-earthquakes that may result aren't likely to be a problem.

Into the Night wrote:

trafn wrote:
@Surface Detail - given that all the tectonic plates are interconnected, I guess we're about to find out if it's a problem or not.

They are??? You oughtta watch some more lava flows sometime.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

trafn wrote:
@Surface Detail - given that all the tectonic plates are interconnected, I guess we're about to find out if it's a problem or not.

They are??? You oughtta watch some more lava flows sometime.

Maybe the planet earth is just interconnected with itself?


.

Into the Night wrote:Basically. We're all just floating along on our rafts we call tectonic plates. They bump, they grind, but they are each pretty much independent with any other.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Basically. We're all just floating along on our rafts we call tectonic plates. They bump, they grind, but they are each pretty much independent with any other.

Except when one subducts another then you have dependencies, like two ships colliding.

Hey, my plate just rolled over yours!


.

Into the Night wrote:
The edges of subducted plates are destroyed.

Into the Night wrote: In the Earth, there is no 'edge'.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The edges of subducted plates are destroyed.

Into the Night wrote: In the Earth, there is no 'edge'.

That's going to change with the new "climate". Earth is going to have dangerously sharp edges, even some barbs and thorns. It won't be safe at night. We're already beyond the "tipping point." It will be even worse if we don't pass carbon taxes that outlaw "climate change" from "greenhouse effects" from "greenhouse gases."

...and imagine how bad it's going to get when the "thermal forcing" miracles start to occur. The earth's razor-sharp edges will be the least of your worries.

Into the Night wrote:Boy, I'd hate to be in Iceland about now. All that melting ice and those sharp edges exposed...and not even OSHA around to make the place safe.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Boy, I'd hate to be in Iceland about now. All that melting ice and those sharp edges exposed...and not even OSHA around to make the place safe.

You'd think it would be obvious to everyone that the reason there is a Greenland Ice Sheet and a huge Antarctic ice mass is that...

...wait for it....

* ice accumulates there ! *

Who in his/her right mind would simply believe that all the ice is simply disappearing from those locations?