Welcome to the Energy Blog

  • The Energy Blog is where all topics relating to The Energy Revolution are presented. Increasingly, expensive oil, coal and global warming are causing an energy revolution by requiring fossil fuels to be supplemented by alternative energy sources and by requiring changes in lifestyle. Please contact me with your comments and questions. Further Information about me can be found HERE.



After Gutenberg

Clean Break

The Oil Drum


Blog powered by Typepad

« Microbial Fuel Cells | Main | Macy's to Install 8.9 MW of Solar Power in California Stores, Combined with Energy Efficiency Program Utility-Provided Energy to be Reduced 40% »

October 02, 2007


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference BASF, RWE Power and the Linde Group to Develop New CO2 Capture Process:



Until there is a sufficiently large cost (carbon tax or whatever) for CO2 emmisions nothing like this will be commercial. The amine process supposedly requires a significant amount of energy, reducing the output/efficiency of the power plant significantly. Perhaps this method will be considerably more economic.

2020 is only 13years away. Utilities probably want to see cost and reliability data before commiting. That will presumably take a few years. Then they may want to see data on a more realistic scale of capture
(not 20tons/day but thousands).

It is interesting that they are now designing plants that can be retrofitted. That is not happening in the important US, India or Chinese markets.

Kit P

They are designing plants in the US for CCS. AEP is one that has been discussed here. There are also several others. For those who are not paying attention, the coal industry has overcome every environmental challenge to staying in business even though the bar of environmental impact keeps keeting lower and lower.

By 2020, AGW will be revealed as the hoax that it really is. The doomsayers will blathering about the next age or whatever. These things come in cycles

Paul Dietz

By 2020, AGW will be revealed as the hoax that it really is.

By 2020, the denialists (at least the sane and honest ones, if any) will realize just how stupid they had been.

Jim Holm

Somewhere along the way Coal Yard Nukes will have to be factored into the equation.


Do the denialists also deny seawater acidification due to absorbed CO2? That's an example of high school chemistry--carbonic acid eroding calcium-rich shells--and will have a large detremental effect on ocean life by mid-century no matter what the temperature is, assuming we continue to add CO2 to the atmosphere.


There is an excellent way of capturing CO2. It's actually been around for quite a while. TREES!
It's a good idea to clean up coal plants, or better yet replace them with clean solar power, more should be done (worldwide) to recover the lost forests. The CO2 contained in those lost forests went into the atmosfere! In Alaska and other cold places, the trees are just falling down and dying because the permafrost that holds up the trees is melting, together with the Mammoth dung.
Trees may be more important to our climate (and water cycle) than you think.

Kit P

jlw, could you explain the fugacity of CO2 in seawater? We are way past high school chemistry!! Please link it to what you mean by 'large detremental' so you do not sound like one of doom sayers. Oh what, you are just repeating something some journalist wrote and neither of you have a clue?


Hi Greg,
Trees do not grow in permafrost. I thought you should know. Maybe there are a few landslides from melting permafrost slopes? If the temperature and CO2 in Alaska increase there will be a lot more trees there. JohnBo


Sorry to correct you.


Kitp, Greg:
Seawater does absorb some amount of CO2, where it is called carbonic acid. The ocean is slightly basic. As more CO2 is absorbed by the ocean it becomes less basic. It is technically correct to say ocean acidification, as what is happening is we are neutralizing the basic nature of the seawater. Of course there is still a valid concern about the effect of this change on abundant microscopic lifeforms, such as diatoms. Small scale experiments suggest organisms they can adapt. Now what effect it will have on a large-scale ecosystem might be a different matter.

Trees do grow over permafrost. In a permafrost region with warmish summers the top layer of soil melts in the summer, and refreezes in the winter. But below that layer the ground is frozen for many tens or hundreds of meters. If say the top meter undergoes the annual freeze-thaw, then tree roots can only occupy that top meter. As warming causes the permafrost to melt, volumes that were largely ice, called ice lenses, can melt leaving voids. Trees can topple, and roads can develop sinkholes.

At the lattitude of Fairbanks full sized Spruce and Aspen grow on permafrost ground. Further North (or higher up) you get dwarf willow, then tundra vegetation.


Try again


Kit P:

Does the Royal Society meet your oh-so-high standards? Then you might want to check this out:


Or how about the journal Nature? How does that comapre to your daily diet of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity?


To quote the abstract of the Nature paper, "Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously."

Really, Engineer-Poet had your number down cold.

Kit P

bigTom, if you want to know more aboutCO2 in seawater ; go to the NOAA web site and search for fugacity. The answer that bigTom provided was very simplistic.

Royal Society press release does not meet any standard for scientific journalism. Most likely because the journalist who wrote it. You would at least think they could properly explain pH. If jlw would read what he links and think about it a little bit, he would conclude that the magnitude of the pH is very small compared to the natural variation.

The same with the climate around Greenland. Why do you think the Vikings called it 'greenland' when they started passing farming it about a thousand years ago?


Kit P, not sure what you mean about Greenland, but the only info about it's name I've read says it was named by Erik the Red to try to attract people to it, though the southern part had some green areas. [ http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/17946 ]

Paul Dietz

The same with the climate around Greenland. Why do you think the Vikings called it 'greenland' when they started passing farming it about a thousand years ago?

It was a PR name to encourage settlers to go there.

Made in China

Made in China

Mcafee serial

My mate sent me an email suggesting i read this. I love it, i bookmarked your site. Keep the updates coming.

The comments to this entry are closed.

. .

Batteries/Hybrid Vehicles