Posted by: graemebird | October 22, 2009

“Carbon Sequestration”:The TOTAL Impossibility Of Cost-Effective “Carbon Capture And Storage”


Modified From Elsewhere:

” it would require the elimination of coal as a source of energy unless there is some cheap form of carbon capture and storage. There is no prospect of that on the horizon….”

There will never ever be any cost effective carbon capture and storage. The reason why this is impossible is that the energy that ought to be turning a steam turbine, will have to go into compressing the CO2, allowing its thermal energy to escape, and so much so as to make the CO2 a solid.

Supposing you have a compressor, and for the sake of argument we are just talking normal air. Suppose you take up the conversion efficiency at the point of mechanical work, being translated into potential energy in the form of compressed gas. And suppose you then translate it back into mechanical work. So we are going mechanical work, to compressed air and back.

That two step conversion is the most efficient energy conversion there is. It can be above 90%. But only under one condition. Only under the condition that you retain the heat energy along with the compression.

But the compression causes the temperature of the gas to rise. And thermal energy always goes in the direction of higher to lower temperature. Its inevitable then that you lose the heat energy.

There is no way you will be able to take that heat energy you are losing in this way and translate it into electricity or anything economically useful. Because the distribution of it will be too diffuse. We say that there is not much in the way of “heat flux density”. Or more generally energy flux density. Which is what you want always and everywhere to generate economically useful energy.

You want CONTRAST of heat or compression or voltage in a small volume in order to recruit it for useful human advantage. But this compressed CO2 is just going to leak warmth in a diffuse way. Not in any way that you can recruit the joules.

Now look at the problem from another angle. Look at it as if it was an electronic circuit. You have your coal burning, you are pumping the water in, the water is being turned from a liquid into a gas. This causes an immense pressure differential in a small volume so you can turn a turbine through a magnetic field creating an electric current. But supposing thats not the end of the chain!!!

If you want carbon capture and storage, you’ve got to further along the circuit, separate and compress your exhaust. If you look at this as being analogous to an electric circuit, a resistor in any part of the circuit must increase resistance in the circuit entire. The turbine only turns because at the point of the phase change of water from a liquid to a gas there is a massive pressure differential. But if you are pressurizing CO2 later in the process then obviously you have reduced the pressure differential at the point where the turbine turns.

If carbon capture and storage means compression, solidification and underground storage of CO2, we can say with total confidence that there will never be a cost-effective technical solution to it.

Therefore the government has committed 2.8 billion dollars for a technology that is inherently impossible. If they introduce compulsion in this matter it won’t be 2.8 billion it will cost us. Try 100 billion. Try any figure that accumulates until such time as we are recovered from this menace, and somehow have moved to saturation nuclear and ALSO some decades even after that.

Why do people just say, “we don’t want to talk about the science?” The phrase “carbon sequestration” is at least some evidence towards the proposition that the very stupid have become upwardly-mobile.



  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    You idiot Cambria. If we show we are not going to assume that could be the case then the terrorist sponsors will see this and they will put them on board the boats.

    Not what was wrong with his assertion you moron?

    Tuckey is right. What is wrong with what he said you stupid irrational primitive dummy.

    Terrorist attacks happen Cambria you twit. Did you know that? And they are all conspiracies. Do you realise that you idiot?

    A trainer of the 9/11 crowd came straight out of the same unit that murdered Sadat. He got out of Egyptian prison, got a tourist Visa to America. He met someone on the plain and subsequently married her. THEY LET HIM JOIN THE US ARMY. He was also working for the FBI. And he’d drive up to train these guys on the weekend and subsequently was part of a terrorist cell centred in New York.

    Now how does this happen? Its because idiots like you talk when you should listen and take a dumb Prodeo line of principled hatred of vigilance.

    22 Oct 09 at 11:08 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    An FBI agent reports that there are Arab students taking flight lessons, but they don’t seem to want to learn to take off or land.

    How did his bosses approach it? They took the Rudd-Cambria approach. Always we see this hatred of public vigilance attached to problems like this. We see the smugness. The stupidity. Cambria and the guys over at Club sissy-boy Troppo hate vigilance as such. They just hate the idea of asking a candidate for a certificate. They hate it. And why wouldn’t they. These guys are basically wind up toys for leftists. If you look closely with the right eyes you can see the giant key sticking out of Cambria’s back. And Rudd too. Every so often a Chinaman jumps out from behind a bush and winds that key on Rudds back. And off Rudd goes again.

    22 Oct 09 at 11:16 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    A Cheque agent reported that Atta met Al Ani in Prague. How was he treated. Ridicules as an alleged drunk. They took the Cambria-Rudd approach. Subsequently this was substantiated by the facts of Atta pulling out a lot of cash and going travelling right at the relevant time period. How did the authorities view this? They took the Cambria-Rudd approach. The officer Bar-Brady approach. Nothing to see here.

    A terrorist training camp was found in Iraq with a Jumbo jet in it. How did the smug set react. They took the Cambria-Rudd approach to being an idiot on a daily basis.

    A journalist reported on Iraqis about town before and after the Oklahoma bombing. You got it. Everyone took the Cambria-Rudd approach.

    If the public sector was dominated by people like Tuckey then not much of this bad stuff could ever happen.

    Its mostly only idiot-smugness that lets it through.

    22 Oct 09 at 11:22 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Genial WA Labor MP Graham Edwards, a disabled Vietnam veteran well respected on both sides of the chamber, says that Tuckey is the only MP in Parliament to whom he will not speak.”

    Oh no. First you try Homer. Now you are wheeling out cripples to support your idiotic case. What is he wrong about Jason? If you had a case you wouldn’t need to put all these proxies in front of it in the hope that people will hurt themselves throwing rotten apples at the cripple.

    Make your case Jason. You don’t have a case. Wilson’s right. Clearly terrorist governments use stealth. This ought to be obvious to even a small child.

    22 Oct 09 at 11:28 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    This is so primitive. You people are such dirty debaters. You know. I mean. If you cast about for someone who is patriotic and wrong on the one issue you will be able to find him. A Jack Murtha. Some bloke in a wheelchair. Someone who has had her son killed. You will find these people. And some of us will fall for responding to their wrong argument.

    But what is YOUR argument? And do you need to wheel out patriots when you yourself are hardly in the same camp?

    A bloke won’t talk to another bloke. And some lefty is saying that this bloke is respected by Labour. What if that were true. It would be an indictment. They don’t respect him man. You don’t either. Or you would not be wheeling him out like this.

    One bloke won’t talk to another. This has some ways to go as a relevant argument. Maybe he ought to talk to Wilson? Have you thought about asking him to stop being a baby and go and break the ice with Wilson?

    22 Oct 09 at 11:36 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “he most likely fly here”

    So we won’t stop him? So you’ve given up? So in fact we don’t fight terrorism in your view? See you’ve been defeated totally.

    Nuclear weapons must be stopped from the sky, from the water or planted in a city. We don’t say they could come one way and so we don’t stop them the other way. Same with terrorists. Dropped off on the sub. Come on an illegal boat or a cruise. Come on any sort of Visa or faked papers. We obviously have to stop them all. Only your thinking could have lead to 9/11.

    22 Oct 09 at 11:43 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    I hope we have established now that Wilson Tuckey is right. Since his detractors have been shown to have no argument at all that isn’t obviously irrational.

    22 Oct 09 at 11:44 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Holy crap. Are YOU a Trojan horse Samuel. You are letting Cambria get the last word when he’s suggesting that we ought to make sure terrorist regimes have easy access to us.

    23 Oct 09 at 3:36 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “While I think it is time that Wilson retired, what happened today was unacceptable.”


    23 Oct 09 at 3:55 am

  2. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “The biosphere doesn’t give a fig and has seen more variation in gases and temperatures than in the range of any GW forecasts. I’m not a scientist but that is natural history.”

    Right. Finally some sense from this Chucklehead. Already the suspense is building. When is he going to screw up bigtime?

    “What matters is if the resultant changes affect people materially.”

    No thats wrong. Thats Caboose before Cart. What are you? A Soothsayer? You are not an economist saying that. Economists lack the power of specific prediction and hence must go with good policy. That is to say, in any intellectual exercise one builds up one conclusion over another in networked form, but like an upside-down pyramid more than anything else. And if several conclusions at the base are wrong then the entire system is wrong. Hence the necessity of disproportionate raking over first principles.

    In the case of CO2-emissions policy, first principles are scientific. Economic decisions must be built on the top of what the science sez. Economics teaches us that we get the property rights, titles, taxes, law, and the potential for capital flows, the best we can and we leave it to the individuals without arbitrary limit to their options.

    Political science tells us that we don’t cave in to irrationality or on principle, Although one may bend on matters less crucial then basing policy on reality and evidence. That is to say if one is the Prime Minister or the treasurer. Few productive opportunities for such compromise come to other people. Hence the poison of pre-emptive surrender and third worst options from economists.

    “What is most important is the rate of change and economic growth to solve engineering problems.”

    No thats wrong. An economist would know that you don’t start by claiming that avoiding the science gives you a superior rate of change then basing things on the science. An economist would know that the rate of change to solve engineering problems that are forced upon one by arbitrary regulations and taxes is called MALINVESTMENT. And economist would know that while resources are plentiful, capital spending is very limited and energy options are lumpy. Having limited capital spending and resources we don’t want to go in for malinvestment.

    “So far, there has been no mitigation policies”


    It was only a matter of time before this economically ignorant Chucklehead was going to show he was an idiot. We cannot quote him further. He has just demonstrated the neoclassical obsession with ANTI-HOLISM. With ignoring all matters pertinent to the case, except for

    1.neoclassical time and capital spending deprived, static-equilibrium models.

    2. The norms and sensitivities of other public servant tax-eaters.

    What a blockhead.

    He will never be a sound analyst. Since we break subjects to do with reality up into compartmentalized units only for the sake of comprehension. But reality is holistic and without compartmentalisation.

    Being Neoclassical under 40 is all about forgetting. Forgetting that

    1. the brilliant economists Buchanan, Friedman and Hayek talked about efficiency basically to teach thieves and blockheadS, how PRACTICAL property rights were.

    2. Forgetting that any economics about global warming must be based on science. Forgetting that their models are not reality.

    Imagine this dummy forgetting the science in the space of two paragraphs. He starts off:

    “The biosphere doesn’t give a fig and has seen more variation in gases and temperatures than in the range of any GW forecasts. I’m not a scientist but that is natural history.”

    And before a couple of paragraphs this is all out the window.

    Carbon taxes and cap and kill schemes are all a violation of property rights and a surrender to lies and unscience. They cannot under any circumstances be allowed. And if they get in because of idiocy from people like Turnbull, Cambria and the economics right of this country then the only thing to do is defy them, and work for their repeal.

    23 Oct 09 at 2:33 pm

  3. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    CO2 Emissions are helping the biosphere. CO2 levels are not optimal for human, plant and animal life. They are a quarter of what we would want. This is conservatively speaking.

    Is the problem a CO2 problem or a warming problem? If we have nuclear assisted coal liquification we can easily and cheaply solve a warming problem….

    ((((Its at least possible that we may wish to do this in a one-off way some time as we cross the “galactic equator” but this is another matter.))))

    …. Very little money would be needed so long as we had this nuclear and coal liquification on the fly. Since we would have all this cheap SO2 being produced for as an industrial by-product.

    As it turns out we have a CO2 problem- with not having enough CO2. And we don’t have a warming problem. We will have a cooling problem instead.

    But if we had a warming problem, no cap and trade nor any carbon tax would help matters even a little bit. They would draw resources away from any possible solutions. But then we don’t have a warming problem.

    Now what if we found that CO2 emissions were really really bad for the biosphere? Like all of a sudden all of human knowledge was overturned on the basis of a really big paradigm shift, and we found out that CO2 levels above 420 ppm were really really bad for the biosphere?

    Well in that case Hewson would right to be santimonious.

    This Neoclassical obsession with willful zen-like ignorance has got to stop. You guys are being treasonous to this country. And you are aiding and abetting the left on this matter. And some of you weren’t even born here.

  4. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    This is all astonishingly old hat Samuel. And if these guys aren’t CO2-warming skeptics what is talking them so long? It makes one think they must be dull-witted or something. These are kids who have had a financially successful book about a few statistics exercises that they got wrong. They are not economists.

    Plus this half-life of 100 years? Where is this coming from? They are letting someone jerk them around. They are wrong about this. Makes one wonder what an earth they are talking about.

    “A genuine question for anybody that knows. If CO2 has been increasing for about 200 years….”

    It hasn’t. The record has CO2 all over the place.

    “…… and if CO2 causes an increase in plant growth then doesn’t it sabotage attempts to use tree rings as a proxy for temperature…..”

    Terje. Of course it does. What do you think? How can it not be totally fraudulent to use it as a proxy? You tell me how it could be possible that this NOT be fraudulent.

    Using tree rings was always obvious fraud. There is no doubt about it. Its so frustrating talking to you people. Since CO2 directly makes trees grow faster even more than what warmth does its fraudulent to use it.

    “I know that we have a temperature record from direct measurement for much of that 200 year period…..”

    We don’t have it for the globe. And the way they manipulate it gives us a totally different picture then what the big three have told us.

    “…. but we also use tree rings in this period as a calibration for earlier periods. Of course other factors also effect tree growth such as rainfall and the death of surrounding trees but CO2 is a global factor that can’t be averaged out with increased sampling?…..”

    What do you think? Its not a hard question. Mann knew he at least had steady growth since the 50’s. So he lied to us quite apart from anything that McIntyre has to say about it. Why didn’t you listen when I was talking to you?

    “Another question on a related line is, if CO2 promotes plant growth, and plants absorb C02, doesn’t the system self-correct?”

    Look at Mars? Look at Titan? Look at Venus? Does any planet self-correct for life? Look at us during the ice-ball planet period? Was that self-correcting for life?

    We have chronically low CO2-levels. Venus has chronically high pressures. There is homeostasis for sure. But CO2 is always being drained out of the biosphere, and there is not much evidence that it wouldn’t get too low, should intelligent life not be there to boost it. Carbon rain takes it out of the biosphere in its entirety. Self-correction? The answer is not yes or no. More yes and no. If it self-corrected it would oscillate at maybe 1600ppm.

    “And maybe this explains how the CO2 level has stayed constant across eons…..”

    It HASN’T stayed constant across eons daddy. Where did you get that idea?

    “In other words – surely a damping/correcting factor must exist.”

    There is a damping effect. But its damping on the low side now that we have these big oceans. Matters won’t correct until we correct them by pulling out all those methyl-clathrates, or perhaps until there is a global catastrophe leading to decades of volcanic activity if thats ever going to happen.

    “And if so, why do climate changers believe that this factor won’t come into play as it always has in the past?”

    Climate change is fraud Dave. Ask them for evidence. They won’t oblige. Fraud.

  5. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    What are you talking about you dummy?

    My strange belief system is simply to follow PROCESS. To simply follow EVIDENCE and good methodology.

    If you cannot do that, or if you are emotionally involved with a carbon tax, you ought to butt out. You’ve done enough harm already.

    Now you’ve just quoted a great deal of material, about 90% or more correct in detail, that implies that there ought not be a carbon tax.

    So what is your answer to that?

    Since you are irrational, and a complete moron, my prediction is, that you will STILL be in favour of a carbon tax.

    And this is because you were either a low dog leftist all the while, or a cheap crony punk, or it could be that you have mastered the art of pre-emptive surrender. YOU CHOOSE. You choose. Which of the three categories? You choose. Let me know if you can find a fourth.

    If you were not so cashed up you might think about backing down? About realising you were wrong to promote a blatant stealing form of bailout, and that you were wrong to promote the giving in to a new wave of medieval irrationalism in your unstinting support for the carbon tax.

    But you have a wallet full of cash. And you can act like a slimy eel and some of the slimy slimy things that lived on in the Coleridge vision, and you still can feel good about yourself, since you are cashed up at our expense.

    And I don’t think there is any curing of it. Because you lack the philosophical capacity to mend your ways.

  6. “CL: that’s because there is no time to lose, if you want to be able to do something about it. You don’t: fine. But you can’t ridicule those who do want to limit CO2 to a certain level for saying the need to act is urgent. It is simply true. Undeniably.”

    Fucking Sinclair. What sort of a moderator are you? Don’t let this lying cunt get away with this. Force this idiot to come up with some evidence on pain of moderation. Letting him show up and tell brazen lies like this is anti-social behaviour ON YOUR PART.

    Pull yourself together man.

  7. Good post by Cambria. This was the typical Cambrian post he used to make when he wasn’t trying to scam people or sell out. I mean its not going to blow your socks off. It just struck me as more reminiscent of his usual gear prior to him falling in with justifying the Goldman gang and the Morgan boys.

    “These scardy cats all remind me of the Asian markets. They’re all in a panic over Abu Dhabi basically tanking on $60 billion of debt. Thinking it’s the end of the world.

    But not good old JC. I sold some Aussie yesterday at egregiously high levels and bought it back today when all the panic merchants were out in force selling everything like it was going out of style. These were the bed wetters.

    Set myself up is some decent stocks too.

    Steve if you were a trader you’d be selling when you should be buying and buying when you should be selling.

    Please stop frightening the kids.

    Tonight I may even cover a little of my AGW short which ought to trade much lower at the beginning.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: