It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Shell Carbon Capture and Storage, the greatest Eco Con of 2011

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:44 AM
reply to post by On the level

Instead of spending money on the scams like carbon capture or bird killing windmills

We should be forcing our governments to support CLEAN CHEAP Thorium nuclear power that can provide power for a home for 30-40 years for a cost of $2,500! Micro-nuclear plants for local power today's thorium-power proponents point out, that idea never took hold primarily because thorium-fueled reactors don't provide the opportunity to make and collect materials that can be used to build nuclear bombs. It made no sense to Cold War-era policymakers to devote resources to developing thorium-based technology, given that plutonium, especially 239Pu, an ideal and much-needed bomb material at that time, could be readily produced in nuclear reactors fueled by uranium (which consists of roughly 99.3% 238U). So thorium never made it into mainstream nuclear technology and has never been commercialized even though it is more abundant, potentially less expensive to process, and boasts other key advantages relative to uranium....

In addition to the nonproliferation argument, thorium advocates quickly rattle off a slew of other reasons to push forward with thorium-based power. For example, the element is roughly four times more abundant than uranium and accessible via mining techniques that are simpler and less costly than the ones used to extract uranium. According to James Hendrick, a recently retired U.S. Geological Survey scientist who spoke at the Washington meeting, estimates of U.S. reserves of the metal are on the order of 300,000 metric tons —about 20% of the world's supply—much of which is found in Idaho's Lemhi Pass.

Not only is thorium more plentiful than uranium, it also does not need to undergo a costly and complex enrichment process to render it usable in a nuclear reactor. Uranium needs to be enriched because the desirable fissile isotope 235U comprises just 0.7% of the total material. Thorium exists in nature almost entirely as 232Th....
Proponents also point out that although waste products from thorium usage are radioactive, radiotoxicity persists for just tens of years rather than thousands of years as uranium waste does. They also stress that, unlike coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants, thorium-fueled power plants would not emit greenhouse gases such as CO2 and could generate power almost continuously, unlike solar- and wind-driven systems.... Chem Eng. News

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:43 AM
reply to post by Sounds_of_Silence

Why can't they build a massive pipe past our atmosphere into space and just pump carbon dioxide out into space?

The reason this isn't an option is they KNOW this is a scam! they also are well aware of the fact that the real problem is TOO LITTLE CO2!

I am not kidding. The earth has been sequestering CO2 for millions of years and plants have had to adjust to an CO2 starved atmosphere.

C3 plants can not tolerate CO2 starvation especially when combined with drought. C4 are better adapted to lower levels of CO2 and CAM plants have the best adaptation. Since CO2 is a vital plant food plants must open the stomata wider when there is not as much CO2. This means more water is transpired and therefore a low level of CO2 increase the water requirements.

At 200 pm CO2 trees starve:

At 180 pm CO2 other plants quit growing.

....Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the Co2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm... I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn[/v] entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) ... photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration approaches 200 ppm... (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusion... Source

And yes I know the Ice cores say the CO2 was down around 180 PPM

Plant Stomata react more accurately to CO2 concentration, as has been determined in experiments. (More CO2 means fewer stomata, as plants exchange CO2 more efficiently) Historical collections of leaves can be used to determine past CO2 levels. In most cases, researchers are bound by the modern paradigm, and get confused by the low stomata counts of the past. Stomata cannot measure very high CO2, but only indicate high C)2. Higher CO2 levels over 325ppm are underestimated. When reading stomata research, you need to filter out the ruling paradigm when the problematical ice-core data is used to calibrate the stomata, when it should be the reverse.
Rapid atmospheric changes are well known from past reconstructions:

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 02:03 AM
reply to post by crimvelvet

Funnily enough at the Shell awards they had an entrepreneur that had developed a hydrogen fuel cell that used CO2 from the air to power it and had no waste products except water. Shockingly Shell didnt fund him and went with two projects that supported the CCS pprogramme
I do agree though there are thousands of alternative energy systems that have been proved to work but no interest from the worlds governments as they are in big oils pockets. Is a disgusting system and we are all the losers paying more and more for petrol for our cars and gas for our homes

posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 04:46 PM
a reply to: crimvelvet

Well, seems somebody is also not only thinking but doing carbon capture! They have a plant up in Canada that is operational. There is a write up at MIT Technology Review, June 6, 2016 - Go Inside an Industrial Plant That Sucks Carbon Dioxide Straight Out of the Air

Carbon dioxide emissions must decrease to nearly zero by 2040 if global warming by the end of this century is to be held to 2 °C. But we may well miss that target. A pilot plant started up last fall at Squamish, British Columbia, is testing a backup plan: sucking carbon dioxide directly out of the air.

The article has lots of pictures of the plant. One item that jumped out at me is the article states "[carbon dioxide] only makes up 0.04% of the air we breath". So for all the CO2 doom porners out there, does not seem like a lot. Anyway, instead of starting at zero he repurposed already existing machinery which keeps cost down. He estimates the cost will be about $100 per ton to scrub the air. The excess CO2 is being vented back to the atmosphere.

For those interested in Thorium reactors, here is one that is doing a 5 year run to determine fuel runs/amounts. They have had a reactor going since 2011. Thor Energy (Norway), company website

Now to get both of these set ups together. Thorium reactor to burn fission waste and an inexpensive CO2 scrubber. Something-anything--needs to be done.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in