Talk:Carbon capture and storage

Copy-edit

I stopped by this article as part of the March 2011 GOCE backlog elimination drive. I did what I could for a copy-edit, but there seems to be quite a few issues.

• I think consensus needs to be reached as far as language and measurement. It starts out in one (United States) but towards the middle, it shifts to British usage, and then back again. Any thoughts?
• The section on current projects sorely needs attention. Some of the dating is vague, and other parts of it are outright outdated.
• I think it would be good to bring in an expert on this one. While I can try my best copy-editing, this article could use a good look-over by someone in the field.
• Additional in-line citations would be helpful towards the end of the article. I tried to place cite needed tags when I remembered.

I think the other tags explain themselves. After the issues are cleared up, please replace the copy-edit tag, or go directly to WP:GOCE and place a request there. If there is anything else I can do, please let me know! -Pax85 (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Resource: NYT Utility Shelves Ambitious Plan to Limit Carbon by Matthew L. Wald and John M. Broder.

Resource: Utility Shelves Ambitious Plan to Limit Carbon by Matthew L. Wald and John M. Broder in NYT published: July 13, 2011. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

First sentences ...

A major American utility is shelving the nation’s most prominent effort to capture carbon dioxide from an existing coal-burning power plant, dealing a severe blow to efforts to rein in emissions responsible for global warming. American Electric Power has decided to table plans to build a full-scale carbon-capture plant at Mountaineer, a 31-year-old coal-fired plant in West Virginia, where the company has successfully captured and buried carbon dioxide in a small pilot program for two years.

The West Virginia project was one of the most advanced and successful in the world. “While the coal industry’s commitment and ability to develop this technology on a large scale was always uncertain, the continued pollution from old-style, coal-fired power plants will certainly be damaging to the environment without the installation of carbon capture and other pollution control updates,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, co-author of the House climate bill. “A.E.P., the American coal industry and the Republicans who blocked help for this technology have done our economy and energy workers a disservice by likely ceding the development of carbon-capture technology to countries like China.” (See American Clean Energy and Security Act)

But all such efforts collapsed last year with the Republican takeover of ther House and the continuing softness in the economy, which killed any appetite for far-reaching environmental measures. A senior Obama administration official said that the A.E.P. decision was a direct result of the political stalemate. “This is what happens when you don’t get a climate bill,” the official said, insisting on anonymity to discuss a corporate decision that had not yet been publicly announced. ... But with the demise of the Mountaineer project, the United States, the largest historic emitter of global warming gases, now appears to have made little progress solving the problem.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What about FutureGen? 99.181.135.85 (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

COA conveyor belt

I don't understand this phrase and couldn't find any coherent references that defined it. Unless someone can explain it, it should be removed or (prefereably) replaced by a phrase more likely to be understood. Wcoole (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Energy requirements for sequestration

No mention is made of the energy requirements for sequestration.

An example is here:

https://bioenergykdf.net/sites/default/files/zpdfzholderz/NREL_Data/The%20Net%20Energy%20and%20Global%20Warming%20Potential%20of%20Biomass%20Power%20Compared%20to%20Coal-Fired%20Electricity%20with%20CO2%20Sequestration%20-%20A%20Life%20Cycle%20Approach.pdf

For a power plant with an output capacity of 600 megawatts:

After adding CO2 capture and compression, the capacity of the coal-fired power plant is reduced to 457 MW

In other words, 25% of the plant's output capacity would need to be diverted to the carbon sequestration processes. - Ac44ck (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

BE BOLD! Add it SmartSE (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)