Re: Mr. Tuchelt?


"Tim.Ward" <Tim.Ward@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1121983131.189341.105970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> K. Jones wrote:
>
> > On the Giffels site, they do say the project will "prevent more than 1.6
> > million tonnes of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere over the
next
> > 20 years". That says to me there are plans to sequester the CO2, but
what
> > are they doing with it, so that it doesn't "enter the atmosphere"?
> > Do they have a market for the CO2?
> >
> > Perhaps Mr. Tuchlet could answer those questions?
> >
> > IWO which method would actually be less polluting as a whole......simply
> > burning the methane in a gas turbine and generating electricity
(offsetting
> > "dirty" coal generation), or SHEC's method?
> >
> > > Like I said, it will be interesting to see what the economics turn out
> > > to be, IF the project ever gets built.
> >
> > I wonder if they have a firm date to "break ground", and when they
expect
> > the project to be completed, and in commissioning?
> >
> > K. Jones
>
> I can't definitively answer the question, but if you read it carefully
> you'll note it says "_equivalent_ of xx tons of CO2", or words to that
> effect.
> Since this is so carefully worded, and methane is a more effective
> greenhouse gas than CO2, my suspicion is that the CO2 goes phht into
> the atmosphere, and what they count is the difference in effectiveness
> between the actual CO2 released and the methane that would have been
> released, had they not done anything.
>
> Tim Ward

I had only given it a cursory read, missed that part.

Mr. Tuchelt, can you clarify this?

K. Jones


.

Loading