Hi All
From an Aussie point of view - nukes aren't an option. They tend to be political suicide here for some reason. A chemical engineer friend has also had to face some stiff opposition to oil-shale too - which is just too weird. However just recently my State Government, Queensland, has just started working on a carbon sequestration project. We have so much coal in the ground and anything that makes it more palatable in a carbon-shy world has got to be good, I guess. However AFAIK they're not investigating improving efficiency - the other way to cut emissions. But I think there are at least two good ideas worth investigating - Zero Emission Coal and WOW Energies low-temp turbine cycle.
ZECA Corp has a good concept - make hydrogen using the old gas-shift reaction, make electricity with it in fuel cells and sequester the CO2 in mineral form. Efficiency about 60-70%.
WOW Energies has a slightly less radical approach - use the waste heat in flue gases to make power using a more volatile liquid (propane) in gas-trubines. This cools the flue gases - making capture and sequestration easier - and results in ~ 60% efficiency.
Combining underground coal gasification with either approach would also double - or more - the world's coal energy supplies and reduce the threat of the greenhouse.
Adam
Space/Science » in reply to Bookmark this: I completely agree with Bowser.
Cleaner Coal
The whole thread (29 posts)
- Nature: Hydrogen economy looks out of reach
- Exactly. Only nuke energy makes sense for this.
- So agree
- re: Time to face reality: Unless the hydrogen atoms are bonded to carbon, then hydrogen is not a feasible energy source.
- Rats! Somebody better let both Kerry and Bush know. (n/t)
- Nuclear energy is the only technically feasible near-term solution. (n/t)
- Bookmark this: I completely agree with Bowser.
- Whoops - link
