BROUGHT TO THE FRONT SO THAT EVIL LEFTIE CAN REVIEW THE FUNDAMENTAL UNSCIENCE AND IDIOCY OF CARBON SEQUESTRATION.
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.