Re: FW: Sequestration / nuclear option

[John Andrews <andrewsjp@chartertn.net>]

Seems to me the deep sea injection of the liquid CO2 would be simpler 

and just as permanent.  Perhaps mechanically simpler, too.  As I 

understand it, the CO2 is liquified, then injected at a depth where the 

pressure is sufficient to keep it in liquid form.  It then sinks to the 

bottom because it is heavier than water.  It is an interesting concept.



John Andrews

Knoxville, Tennessee



Keith.Millington@csiro.au wrote:



> Hi Ruth,

>  

> The sequestration strategy being considered in Australia is basically 

> to pump liquid CO2 from power stations deep underground into depleted 

> oil and gas reservoirs. 

> http://www.apcrc.com.au/Programs/geodisc_back.htm.  Apparently only 

> about half of the CO2 from fossil fuelled stations would be trapped, 

> the rest released to atmosphere as usual.

>  

> This sounds to me like storing your waste forever - the same problem 

> faced by nuclear power, but increased several orders of magnitude in 

> waste volume !

>  

> Keith

>  

>  

>  







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

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/