Carbon dioxide sent into sea instead of into air

Contra Costa Times ^ | Sep. 09, 2006 | Robert Lee Hotz

[thackney]

What a waste.

It doesn't have to be. The technology of injection is well known. For decades, oil companies have boosted production by raising the pressure in depleted fields with CO2 injections.

[ReignOfError]

Carbonated oceans ... just great.

FIGHT GLOBAL FOAMING!!!1!

We need an urgent U.N. summit, and I think I know just the place -- Perrier, France, where they've known about carbonation since Roman times.

[Positive]

yeah, and that dihydrogenmonoxide causes metal to rust and if you inhale too much of it at one time it causes death. In fact thousands of children die each year from that very thing.

It does irreperable damage to any electrical or electronic equiptment if it gets inside of them while they are on.

It has absolutely zero nutritional value yet it is the major component of every beverage we consume and in it's purest form it costs more than gasoline.

But do you hear environmentalists howling about removing this stuff from our food supply and atmosphere? No. I want to know why not!

[Positive]

You have a point about the production of CO2...

If we are indeed producing too much of it to allow us to keep the earth cold, all we have to do is eliminiate the Chinese and Indians..no more overabundance of CO2.

[Dan Evans]

For decades, oil companies have boosted production by raising the pressure in depleted fields with CO2 injections.

Only a small percentage of the CO2 created in burning fuel is needed to re-pressurize wells. It would require a terrific waste of energy and money for infrastructure to compress all the CO2 created at power plants and pipe it back to the oil wells or into the sea.

This is nothing but appeasement of the global warming crowd and it will not work. As we see here, they will find plenty of bogus objections to this bypass of their cash cow (carbon trading credits).

[Between the Lines]

I think that it is funny that the same scientists that believe in global warming also believe in evolution, yet they do not believe that humans can evolve to survive global warming.

[Paladin2]

Gov't control of CO₂ production is a slippery slope.

[Mark was here]

Only a small percentage of the CO2 created in burning fuel is needed to re-pressurize wells. It would require a terrific waste of energy and money for infrastructure to compress all the CO2 created at power plants and pipe it back to the oil wells or into the sea.

I would suggest a nuclear power plant be built to power the compressors to pump the CO2 back in the ground.

[Crazieman]

Um, Venus's atmosphere is also 70 times thicker.

This point is constantly missed by global warming alarmists.

[Dan Evans]

I would suggest a nuclear power plant be built to power the compressors to pump the CO2 back in the ground.

You think you're being funny but I would not be surprised if the greens go for that. One of the founders of Greenpeace came out in support of nuclear power.Going Nuclear I think their basic operating principle is: "Anything that is a stupid idea and wastes money".

[thackney]

The process is more than re-pressurizing the field. And much of the world could benefit from enhanced oil recovery of this process if enough CO2 were available nearby.

Reports See Another 89-430 Billion Barrels of Oil Through Carbon Dioxide Injection, Other Advances
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2006/06015-Oil_Recovery_Assessments_Released.html

[Mark was here]

You think you're being funny but I would not be surprised if the greens go for that. One of the founders of Greenpeace came out in support of nuclear power.Going Nuclear I think their basic operating principle is: "Anything that is a stupid idea and wastes money".

The positive side of the nuke plant would be that the energy in the oil could be used where it is better suited, say mobile applications, the nuke plant is more satisfactory in providing power to stationary applications.

[Dan Evans]

The process is more than re-pressurizing the field. And much of the world could benefit from enhanced oil recovery of this process if enough CO2 were available nearby.

If the process saves enough money and increases production the oil companies will do it without being prodded by carrot-and-stick tax policies. Enhancing oil recovery is exactly what they want to do but it has to be cost-effective. Giving oil companies an economic incentive to do something stupid is still stupid. If they would not have done it without the carbon taxes it is a stupid thing to do.

[shield]

bttt

[Dan Evans]

Okay. I guess you were serious. So how does this work again? We build a nuclear power plant next to a fossil fuel plant so that nuclear power captures and compresses the CO2 so it can be piped back to a wellhead somewhere?

Wouldn't it make more sense if we use nuclear power for electricity, petroleum for vehicles and skip the CO2 sequestering BS?

[Mark was here]

Wouldn't it make more sense if we use nuclear power for electricity, petroleum for vehicles and skip the CO2 sequestering BS?

Absolutely.

Anyway it was kinda ironic in a way, considering how the environmentalist closed down a completed nuke plant, I think it was in New York, before it even generated a Watt of power.

Now only if the spent fuel rods could be combined with the CO2 and pumped under the sea..

[Dan Evans]

Now only if the spent fuel rods could be combined with the CO2 and pumped under the sea..

Sure. As long as the pumps are driven by windmill power. That makes sense.

[Mark was here]

Sure. As long as the pumps are driven by windmill power. That makes sense.

Of course the windmills should be visible from the swimmer's back yard, for the highest efficiency!

[thackney]

It is done in other place and before such tax credits were done.

[ChadGore]

Re: The planet Venus might be a habitable earth-like environment were it not for an overabundance of CO2. Bzzzzzzt False!