Re: Oil Shale Is Back
- From: "El Guapo" <plethora@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:59:33 GMT
"Jo Schaper" <jonot34schaperat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13pdk1nctp7qkec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
However, I bet the biologists will have something to say about the 'cook
the underground critters' plan. Just as they already have had stuff to say
about the "pump CO2 underground to sequester it because nothing lives
there except animals" plan.
I'm not as concerned about the oil shale plan as much as the carbon
sequestration plan. I am concerned about the latter, because there seems
to be a number of people who don't understand that CO2, moisture and
limestone or gypsum don't mix very well, to say nothing of if you run into
'bad air' underground, you are pretty much toast if you don't get out PDQ.
And I go underground.
One question about both plans: energy is needed to generate microwaves and
to inject gas or liquified CO2.
I'd like to see net energy budgets on both schemes.
CO2 sequestration plans give me the willies. I don't think we know enough
to start pumping this dangerous gas underground in large quantities, and I'm
highly skeptical that it will have the desired environmental effect, anyway.
It pays to remember that today's great idea might be tomorrow's Superfund
site.
.
- References:
- Oil Shale Is Back
- From: SBC Yahoo
- Re: Oil Shale Is Back
- From: Jo Schaper
- Oil Shale Is Back
- Prev by Date: Re: Oil Shale Is Back
- Next by Date: Re: Black smokers on extraterrestrial planets
- Previous by thread: Re: Oil Shale Is Back
- Next by thread: Re: Oil Shale Is Back
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
