Oil-extraction method also could reduce greenhouse gas | The Columbus Dispatch

Carbon dioxide produced by FirstEnergy's W. H. Sammis power plant along the Ohio River could be injected underground to force more oil out of old wells.

[Cartman]

Oil is not renewable. Carbon is a primary fuel for climate change. Why waste time and money on a technology that will still contribute to an environment that is uninhabitable in the near future? Focus on non-carbon and renewable sources. Profit means nothing when you are suffering or dead. Some of us care more for our grandchildren than the carbon-based industries.

[DrC Ohio]

Since we are not going to end coal fired power plants in the next ten years, this is a practical solution. I hear what Sierra Club is saying, but hope they can point to some studies to back up their claim. I have seen a couple of studies that indicate the CO2 does stay underground.
As for the cost, if AEP needs to upgrade their toilets they will raise the rates. But that is was you get when you have a monopoly.

[sounds fishy]

I'll bet similar effect would come from injecting plain air - I'd like to know details of why / how CO2 has any special properties being exploited here other than political ones.

[American Joe]

Now wait a minute shouldn't we destroy all CO2 ? Outlaw all carbonated drinks?

The tuffy will be how do we get people to stop exhaling?

[Bear-a-Buck]

American Joe wrote:

Now wait a minute shouldn't we destroy all CO2 ? Outlaw all carbonated drinks?
The tuffy will be how do we get people to stop exhaling?

Next, the EPA-zis will want to ban breathing!!! Don't laugh. It's the way those people think - if you can call it that.

[American Joe]

Cartman wrote:

Oil is not renewable. Carbon is a primary fuel for climate change. Why waste time and money on a technology that will still contribute to an environment that is uninhabitable in the near future? Focus on non-carbon and renewable sources. Profit means nothing when you are suffering or dead. Some of us care more for our grandchildren than the carbon-based industries.

Oil is not renewable, really, you now new oil has been discovered in old wells right?

Your grandchildren will all live in poverty and be burning wood for heat with your agenda.

Do you know how oil and coal is formed and from what ?

If we want to get technical the sun is not a renewable source either, it will burn out someday.

Lets go back to each household responsible for their own energy right? Gonna have to outlaw burning wood, coal, keroscene, etc. You realize that it wll pollute more and is less efficient?

You know what animal was almost wiped out until keroscene was refined from oil at about 2 cents a gallon ?

Research beyond the left wing .

[reader]

DrC Ohio wrote:

Since we are not going to end coal fired power plants in the next ten years, this is a practical solution. I hear what Sierra Club is saying, but hope they can point to some studies to back up their claim. I have seen a couple of studies that indicate the CO2 does stay underground.
As for the cost, if AEP needs to upgrade their toilets they will raise the rates. But that is was you get when you have a monopoly.

Climate scientist James Hansen was here a few years ago.(The American Meteorological Society gave him its highest award a couple of years back.) Hansen didnt believe for a second that sequestering carbon would be cost-effective compared to other measures. We need a massive investment in efficiency, and we need to level the playing field for renewable energy.

[reader]

DrC Ohio wrote:

Since we are not going to end coal fired power plants in the next ten years, this is a practical solution. I hear what Sierra Club is saying, but hope they can point to some studies to back up their claim. I have seen a couple of studies that indicate the CO2 does stay underground.
As for the cost, if AEP needs to upgrade their toilets they will raise the rates. But that is was you get when you have a monopoly.

Why would the burden be on the Sierra Club to prove that sequestering carbon won't work? Why wouuldn't the burden be on polluters to prove that it will?

[Moving to Texas]

Could be a good thing - need to check it out - could help us get through the transition to alternative energy

[Jake]

DrC Ohio wrote:

Since we are not going to end coal fired power plants in the next ten years, this is a practical solution. I hear what Sierra Club is saying, but hope they can point to some studies to back up their claim. I have seen a couple of studies that indicate the CO2 does stay underground.
As for the cost, if AEP needs to upgrade their toilets they will raise the rates. But that is was you get when you have a monopoly.

If you are associated with a university, then please compare increases in tuition for non-monopolistic colleges with how much rates have gone up for monopolistic power companies. Of course they will raise rates, but who doesn't raise their prices when the cost of doing business goes up. Perhaps you prefer the Enron model of a competitive marketplace. Further if you think toilets produce electricity, feel free to disconnect from the grid and make your own electricity by purchasing your own solar cells, gas generators, or small wind mills. No one is forcing you to deal with the toilet monopoly.

[DrC Ohio]

reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Climate scientist James Hansen was here a few years ago.(The American Meteorological Society gave him its highest award a couple of years back.) Hansen didnt believe for a second that sequestering carbon would be cost-effective compared to other measures. We need a massive investment in efficiency, and we need to level the playing field for renewable energy.

I agree the top priority should be energy efficiencies, wind, and solar. However, they are not up to broad utility scale yet. I don't think they will be for another couple of decades. So the question is what do we do with all that CO2 that is burned from coal fired power plants? They are already doing CCS in Norway, North Dakota, and Michigan. As for the cost effectiveness, I think it depends on far the CO2 has to travel to get to its destination.

[DrC Ohio]

reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Why would the burden be on the Sierra Club to prove that sequestering carbon won't work? Why wouuldn't the burden be on polluters to prove that it will?

I went to a presentation by Gupta (scientist in the article) and he had a study that demonstrated CO2 would stay underground. I'd encourage you to check out this website:

http://catf.us/coal/technology/carbon_storage...

"Over time, injected CO2 becomes trapped inside the rock—most immediately through the capillary pressure in the pores, then by dissolving into a liquid, and in the case of brine by eventually hardening into solid calcium carbonate."

[DrC Ohio]

Jake wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are associated with a university, then please compare increases in tuition for non-monopolistic colleges with how much rates have gone up for monopolistic power companies. Of course they will raise rates, but who doesn't raise their prices when the cost of doing business goes up. Perhaps you prefer the Enron model of a competitive marketplace. Further if you think toilets produce electricity, feel free to disconnect from the grid and make your own electricity by purchasing your own solar cells, gas generators, or small wind mills. No one is forcing you to deal with the toilet monopoly.

The point I was making was that AEP raises rates at a drop of a hat and they continue to make record profits. My toilet comment was tongue in cheek that they will use any reason to raise rates. Sorry you don't have a sense of humor.

[Jake]

DrC Ohio wrote:

<quoted text>
The point I was making was that AEP raises rates at a drop of a hat and they continue to make record profits. My toilet comment was tongue in cheek that they will use any reason to raise rates. Sorry you don't have a sense of humor.

Your tounge in cheek comment shows simple sarcasm and total lack of understanding about the cost of service for electricity. I do have a sence of humor, but not for uninformed people like you who make criticisms for the sake of complaining. Try to substantiate their "any reasoento raise rates, and "record profits" as opposed to any other business. By the way, this week I looked at Edys ice cream, the container whose size was shrunk by 25% not too long ago. The cost was almost $6 per carton. That warrants more complaints then how much our electric rates have increased recently.(Thank goodness our electricity costs have not increased as much as beef, ice cream, and other essential commodoties.)

[orwell was right]

Jake wrote:

<quoted text>
Your tounge in cheek comment shows simple sarcasm and total lack of understanding about the cost of service for electricity. I do have a sence of humor, but not for uninformed people like you who make criticisms for the sake of complaining. Try to substantiate their "any reasoento raise rates, and "record profits" as opposed to any other business. By the way, this week I looked at Edys ice cream, the container whose size was shrunk by 25% not too long ago. The cost was almost $6 per carton. That warrants more complaints then how much our electric rates have increased recently.(Thank goodness our electricity costs have not increased as much as beef, ice cream, and other essential commodoties.)

I don't think comparing ice cream to electricity is especially relevant. Ice cream is not a necessity for modern living, and Ice cream can be purchased from many different sources. Electricity, on the other hand, is definitely needed by a amjority of the population if they intend to live, work, and be competitive. And currently, most people do not have a choice of where they get their electical power. The only choice they have have is whether to use it or not, and that isn't much of a choice in the 21st century.

[DrC Ohio]

Jake wrote:

<quoted text>
Your tounge in cheek comment shows simple sarcasm and total lack of understanding about the cost of service for electricity. I do have a sence of humor, but not for uninformed people like you who make criticisms for the sake of complaining. Try to substantiate their "any reasoento raise rates, and "record profits" as opposed to any other business. By the way, this week I looked at Edys ice cream, the container whose size was shrunk by 25% not too long ago. The cost was almost $6 per carton. That warrants more complaints then how much our electric rates have increased recently.(Thank goodness our electricity costs have not increased as much as beef, ice cream, and other essential commodoties.)

blah, blah, blah. You must work for AEP given how you defend them. Get lost.

[DrC Ohio]

Jake wrote:

<quoted text>
Your tounge in cheek comment shows simple sarcasm and total lack of understanding about the cost of service for electricity. I do have a sence of humor, but not for uninformed people like you who make criticisms for the sake of complaining. Try to substantiate their "any reasoento raise rates, and "record profits" as opposed to any other business. By the way, this week I looked at Edys ice cream, the container whose size was shrunk by 25% not too long ago. The cost was almost $6 per carton. That warrants more complaints then how much our electric rates have increased recently.(Thank goodness our electricity costs have not increased as much as beef, ice cream, and other essential commodoties.)

BTW, the cost of our electricity does not take into account externalities such as illnesses, death, and environmental destruction from the burning of coal. You don't think AEP's profits are that great? Give me a break. You need to do some research before posting a comment. BTW, her's a dime, to go buy a sense of humor :P

[Dan]

Cartman wrote:

Oil is not renewable.

you know... they aren't so sure about that anymore
In many cases where they drilled and extracted oil and the well "dried up" they have gone back to find the well "full" again. It seems... like so many things... modern thinking just isn't right... and we don't know why!(but clinging to the "oil is not renewable... period" like clinging to the "earth is flat" won't change reality)

Cartman wrote:

Carbon is a primary fuel for climate change. Why waste time and money on a technology that will still contribute to an environment that is uninhabitable in the near future?

Human arrogance wants to believe that we control what's going on... sadly... or happily... we don't. The amount of carbon the entire human population puts out there is so small compared to what typically happens it's laughable to pretend it's making any difference either way.
ONE nice size vulcanic eruption releases more CO2 that man has in man's ENTIRE EXSISTENCE...

but... it is hard on the ego to admit to ourselves the earth cools and warms over time... even in human history the earth has been MUCH warmer (hence GREENLAND wasn't an ironic name at one point)... the concept of "ice age" MEANS ice advances... then leaves... for millions of years before man was around!

Cartman wrote:

Focus on non-carbon and renewable sources. Profit means nothing when you are suffering or dead. Some of us care more for our grandchildren than the carbon-based industries.

go for it!
but destroying our country and economy in some misguided attempt to think we humans are more important to the earth and it's environment than we are isn't the way to do it

come up with all the new sources you want
but until they are useful... we need to use what we have!
or learn chineese since THEY will have no problem doing so

[Dave Carter]

DrC Ohio wrote:

<quoted text>
I went to a presentation by Gupta ....

bet that was a wealth of knowledge learned....LOL

[harvey]

Bear-a-Buck wrote:

<quoted text>
Next, the EPA-zis will want to ban breathing!!! Don't laugh. It's the way those people think - if you can call it that.

Limbaugh-esque as sh ats like you, who characterize anyone you disagree with (or should I say, HE disagrees with) as some sort of 'nazi' are utterly clueless idiots incapable of thinking for yourselves.

I'm sure that thinking is, in fact, a complete mystery to you.