backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 176 comment(s) - last by Emryse.. on Nov 28 at 6:22 PM

Britain has pledge to assist China is looking to implement carbon capture vision

While the U.S. was the leader in CO2 emissions for a single nation for the better part of a century, China recently surpassed the world in emissions.  In fact, between now and 2030, Chinese emissions are expected to double as the country continues its path of rampant industrialization.

China chiefly uses coal as its fuel source as it has rich coal resources.  It burns the coal in power plants, in a process that typically emits massive amounts of carbon dioxide.  U.S. plants have various scrubbers and filters to take out other carbon based compounds, such as phenols, many of which are carcinogenic.  Many of China's plants lack these technologies, leading to a two-fold problem -- rising emissions and rising airborne toxins.

Britain, who has had a long and tumultuous relationship with China over the years, now is turning to this familiar land to try to aid a helping hand.  Engineers with British Geological Survey (BGS) attended the launch of the Near Zero Emissions Coal (NZEC) Phase 1 study in Beijing, China last week, a study which aims to implement explore new technologies to capture virtually all the carbon pollution from coal burning plants in China.

The process used is called carbon capture and storage (CCS), and with it China looks to make good on the pledge it made at an EU-China Summit in September 2005.  China has pledged to develop and implement a large scale Near Zero Emissions Coal demonstration.  In order to achieve this goal, China is teaming up with the British scientists of the BGS.

Dr. Nick Riley MBE, Head of Science for Energy at BGS, was enthusiastic about the work commenting, "CCS offers the opportunity to reduce emissions per unit of electricity by 85 - 90%. Large-scale deployment of CCS in China has potential to significantly reduce future greenhouse gas emissions".

The Chinese will utilize the BGS's specialties to help find and map strategically sedimentary basins that could possibly be used as CO2 storage grounds.  These regions will undergo geocapacity testing (assessments of how much can be stored).  The next step is to pick the best locations and put them through an even more thorough analysis and then utilize these sites in the demonstration system.

China's NZEC program is funded by Britain, through Defra, Britain's agriculture and food department, and DBERR, Britain's business regulatory department. It is coordinated by AEA Energy & Environment (UK) and ACCA21 (China).

Perhaps the BGS and China should look at storing the CO2 not on land, but in the sea.  New American research from Harvard University, detailed at DailyTech looks to use sand in a CCS process which stores CO2 highly effectively in the sea

The problem of industrial pollution and carbon emissions certainly remains a thorny issue, but many will be pleased to see China make serious efforts to work towards meeting or even beating international pollution standards.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

funded by the U.K.?
By Moishe on 11/27/2007 10:47:27 AM , Rating: 5
I find it odd that this is funded by the U.K when China is rolling in dough and is the culprit.

Very nice of the Brits!




RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: funded by the U.K.?
By darkblueslider on 11/27/2007 11:14:06 AM , Rating: 2
Are You seriously blaming one country for "Most" of global discussion currently surrounding Global Warming?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2007 11:21:27 AM , Rating: 1
Im not saying they are the only ones-

But it goes without saying that the UK and UN are the primary subjects that are exploiting the global warming dooms day talk (outside of Al Gore).


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By theoflow on 11/27/2007 12:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
I am curious when you say the UK and UN are exploiting global warming. I am not being sarcastic, it is a serious question.

As for how people think Global warming is a lie, I think there was a fair amount of people during the industrial revolution that thought pollution was a lie as well. People believe in pollution, but don't believe in global warming and there is a pretty big gap, or leap of faith, to get the idea.

If you think about pollution, throwing a food wrapper out the window by itself is pretty much harmless. But if everyone did it (and alot of people do) we'd get pollution. That pollution would then lead to various heath issues. Same thing pretty much goes for global warming, although the results are much harder to visualize because we're all not atmospheric scientists.

This leads to the theory of global warming because in reality it is a theory. However, there are many accepted theories that still just theories and not absolute fact.

One major theory of this was that the earth was round. We had tons of data and observations proving that the world was round, but until we actually went into space and looked at the earth with our own eyes, we didn't know for sure that the world was actually round.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By theapparition on 11/27/2007 12:52:52 PM , Rating: 5
For "Global Warming", I don't think there is much scientific debate on whether the earth is warming up. It is. Unfortunately, the term has now taken on a media fueled negative connotation.

No, the debate centers on the question of whether the warming is the result of man-made effects, or is it natural. The second hot scientific topic is the question of whether global warming is even bad. Definitive answers are not in, but most reasonable scientific research has concluded that most effects are negligible and that the results of global warming could be beneficial. Last is whether it is temporary or permanent.

The Earth is certainly warming, as are other planets in the Solar System, sugesting a Solar event. Another fact, is that the Earth has been much warmer than it is today in the recent past. Greenland was aptly named because it was far more temperate than it is now. A single erupting volcano can spew out more "pollutants" than over 100 years of human activity. And certainly everyone has heard of the "ice ages" where periods of the earth were at different temperatures. So you can believe that the Earth goes through regular temperature cycles, or you can believe that the Dinosaurs died out because they couldn't control the pollution in their dino-factories. Maybe it was the aliens who caused previous global warming in the past, but one thing is certain, it wasn't man.

It is certainly wise to reduce our pollution, I'm all for that. What I'd like to see is that we do it responsibly. Does it make more sense now to switch to electric cars, where the overall higher ecological footprint offsets any gains over conventional gasoline. No, not right now. Maybe in the future, it will become a resonable option. Let's all just not panic at the sound of "global warming". OK?


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By OrSin on 11/27/2007 1:22:42 PM , Rating: 1
Greenland was not name that becuase it full of plant life. It was named, that becuase how the Sun reflected off the ice and sea water made the whole land mass look green. Green was never explored for 100's of years after it was named.

Second global warming is not bad for the planet or even human life. The problem is if the ice caps melt, they the sea level rises. And since 80% of the industrialize world live within 20 miles of an mojor boby of water people are worried. The warming itself is not a big deal.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 1:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
Greenland was warmer in the 10th-12th century than it is now. This is indisputable. A cooling Greenland is what drove off the Viking settlements in the 13th century, as the temperature was no longer warm enough to support agriculture.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By mcnabney on 11/27/2007 3:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
That is actually a myth. People have been there, but they fished and hunted whales for oil. In the "summer" grasses and lichens will grow, but there are no native trees or food crops. It is entirely too rocky.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 3:28:05 PM , Rating: 4
Incorrect. Some references:

quote:
...Vikings had large farmsteads with dairy cattle...pigs, and sheep and goats...Farmsteads also had ample pastures and fields of barley used for the making of beer...
By the year 1300...cool weather caused poor harvests in an already fragile climate. Because of the poor harvests there was less food for the livestock...
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_du...

quote:
From around 800 A.D. to 1200 or 1300, the globe warmed again considerably...the British Isles, Scandinavia, Greenland, and Iceland were considerably warmer than at present...
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html

quote:
Ice-core data from Crête, central Greenland, suggests a considerable and rapid warming late in the 9th century...The name of Greenland, when this country was in turn settled by Eiríkr rauði ("the red") around 985, may have described reality...
http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/SWEDEN/Climate.html

While Greenland certainly held a harsh climate even during the time of the Viking settlements, the fact remains that it was most certainly warmer than it is today.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By JustTom on 11/28/2007 1:34:06 AM , Rating: 1
Interesting links, however the quotes associated from the first deal with Iceland not Greenland
quote:
Animal bones and other materials collected from archaeological sites reveal Icelandic Vikings had large farmsteads with dairy cattle (a source of meat), pigs, and sheep and goats (for wool, hair, milk, and meat.) Farmsteads also had ample pastures and fields of barley used for the making of beer and these farms were located near bird cliffs (providing meat, eggs, and eiderdown) and inshore fishing grounds

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_du...
And I can't find reference in that link for the following quote
quote:
By the year 1300...cool weather caused poor harvests in an already fragile climate. Because of the poor harvests there was less food for the livestock...


The correct link should have been: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/end_of_vik...


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By sinful on 11/27/2007 7:18:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Earth is certainly warming, as are other planets in the Solar System, sugesting a Solar event. Another fact, is that the Earth has been much warmer than it is today in the recent past. Greenland was aptly named because it was far more temperate than it is now. A single erupting volcano can spew out more "pollutants" than over 100 years of human activity. And certainly everyone has heard of the "ice ages" where periods of the earth were at different temperatures. So you can believe that the Earth goes through regular temperature cycles, or you can believe that the Dinosaurs died out because they couldn't control the pollution in their dino-factories. Maybe it was the aliens who caused previous global warming in the past, but one thing is certain, it wasn't man.


I'm entertained by your idea that we know enough about other planet's climates to even *begin* to throw this idea out there as even a remotely plausible option - especially when there's so much debate about OUR climate on EARTH.

quote:
So you can believe that the Earth goes through regular temperature cycles, or you can believe that the Dinosaurs died out because they couldn't control the pollution in their dino-factories.


What a great line of thinking. Let's apply it to other ideas... Hrm, species went extinct before man was around... and species are going extinct now, therefore man has no impact on the extinction of species in the present. Brilliant! Let's abolish the endangered species list!

quote:
A single erupting volcano can spew out more "pollutants" than over 100 years of human activity.

Well, in that case, why bother not trying to pollute, and let's just dump all our pollution in your backyard....


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By CascadingDarkness on 11/28/2007 1:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
I've got to reply on this.
quote:
Hrm, species went extinct before man was around... and species are going extinct now, therefore man has no impact on the extinction of species in the present. Brilliant! Let's abolish the endangered species list!


Most people who aren't extreme alarmists would generally attribute most of the Holocene extinctions of present to the fact we are leaving an ice age. Only a small amount of those extinctions should be attributed to man. Just because they happened as humanity was flourishing doesn't mean we caused it all. You’re trying to make a direct cause out of a correlation.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Screwballl on 11/28/2007 3:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
or just dump our trash into volcanoes...


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By JonnyDough on 11/27/2007 7:30:00 PM , Rating: 1
The debate isn't whether or not global warming is natural or man-made, the debate is how MUCH of it is man-made. If the earth is warming, and I light a fire, I am contributing. I don't know why people are insanely arguing over who is to blame. ALL human beings are to blame. Every time someone cuts down a plant they're changing the earth. We need to quit fighting among ourselves already as we've been doing since the dawn of man and start THINKING or we're all going to be living at the foot of the mountain when the mudslide begins. Unless I'm mistaken, some of us have already survived a few large natural events.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/27/2007 12:53:32 PM , Rating: 4
> "although the results are much harder to visualize because we're all not atmospheric scientists"

But a large number of atmospheric physicists don't believe that mankind is negatively affecting climate. Now, if you ask your average biologist, most will profess a belief in global warming, but they're not exactly in a position to know.

> "but until we actually went into space and looked at the earth with our own eyes, we didn't know for sure that the world was actually round. "

Err, we know without a doubt the earth was round when Magellan circumnavigated it in the 16th century.

And while its a nice try to link global warming skeptics to flat earthers, the two situations are not comparable. Countless thousands of environmental doomsday theories have been shown to be false in the past. Many had as much or more popular support than global warming does today.


RE: funded by the U.K.?
By Amiga500 on 11/28/2007 9:48:48 AM , Rating: 2
But a large number of atmospheric physicists don't believe that mankind is negatively affecting climate.

Now that I will take issue with.

I will say that alot of people studying the atmosphere disagree over the extent of human activity driving the change, but the majority will broadly agree the change is not for the better (as regards the effects on most of the planet's population).

Unless the international community agrees to cut carbon emissions by half over the next generation, climate change is likely to cause large-scale human and economic setbacks and irreversible ecological