Re: FW: Sequestration / nuclear option

[John Andrews <andrewsjp@chartertn.net>]

The HTGR solution for getting rid of the used carbon from reprocessing 

the spent graphite fuel was to convert the carbon into calcium 

carbonate.  There is probably a process for doing the same with CO2.  

Just a thought.  Calcium carbonate is pretty stable and lasts for a long 

time (limestone, marble, etc...)



John Andrews

Knoxville, Tennessee



Keith.Millington@csiro.au wrote:



>Hi,

>

>What are your thoughts on the similarity between underground sequestration

>of CO2 from fossil fuel power stations vs storage of nuclear waste ? Has

>anyone calculated the volume of CO2 storage required per 1000MW, say,

>compared with fission , and also the costs involved in pumping the CO2

>underground ?

>

>The attached is some dialogue I have had with a proponent of this approach.

>

>Regards, Keith Millington

>

>

>

>

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Millington, Keith (TFT, Geelong) 

>

>Ian, 

>

>Sadly I suspect that nuclear power is not being suggested here as a viable

>option for eliminating greenhouse emissions, but as a threat. 

>

>Whilst I think there is considerable merit in more research funding for

>renewables, unless there is a significant breakthrough, fission remains the

>only viable option for maintaining current and projected levels of

>electricity demand for the future. At any rate if we're serious about

>addressing global warming.

>

>Underground sequestration of CO2 and storage of high-level nuclear waste are

>very similar strategies - except for the vastly different volumes involved,

>and of course the media beat-up whenever the word nuclear is mentioned.

>

>

>

>

>Yes. A wonderful Hatchet job, something the press can be good at.

>

>There is a saying that the closer the subject the press is reporting on the

>less you believe what it says because you know about the subject, beware of

>just believing the reporter, they control what parts of an interview are

>shown, i.e. questions and answers and have in the past been caught out

>putting answers against different questions.  

>

>All the people critising Robin had a major conflict of interest in that they

>wanted the money going to research in sequestration to go to their research,

>I much stronger conflict of interest than Robin's.  I didn't notice much

>criticism of their views of where the money should be spent on grounds of

>potential "conflict of interest".  Consider the question of where money on

>greenhouse could most effectively be spent.  Halving the carbon emissions

>via sequestration or reducing dependence on coal by a small fraction with

>the alternate energies, or maybe just go nuclear?

>

>

>

>Regards

>

>

>Ian 

>

>HI Richard,

>  Yes, I saw that last night.  The 7:30 report were trying to corner him on

>a conflict of interest between his 5 digit salary as chief scientist and his

>6 digit salary as a director of Rio Tinto.  The issue was on carbon

>sequestration.  An idea supported by both the chief scientist and Rio Tinto.

>Robin more or less argued that he has a split personality and the person

>doing the Chief Scientist job is oblivious to the person doing the directory

>job.  The interview appeared biased against Robin, but the potential for

>conflict of interest is obvious.

>

>Gavin 

>  

>





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/