Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Pumping carbon dioxide through hot rocks could simultaneously generate power and mop up the greenhouse gases produced by fossil fuel power stations, according to a new study.

Harnessing geothermal power involves extracting heat from beneath the surface of the Earth. Normally, this means pumping water down through hot rocks and extracting it again. But the new analysis suggests carbon dioxide could extract heat from rocks more efficiently than water.

Pruess calculated that the plant would perform more efficiently if carbon dioxide was used instead of water. "Initially I thought this was the most harebrained idea I had ever heard," he told New Scientist. "But the more I looked the more I liked it." Pruess discovered that using carbon dioxide to drive turbines and generate electricity, either directly or indirectly through the use of steam, could produce 50% more energy.

For the rest of the story:
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/...cing-power.html


DA Morgan
.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
I don't see where the CO2 is consumed. I wonder what capacity the rocks would have in holding the CO2.


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Pressurized CO2 seems to behave like water, but with better (larger) characteristics like heat capacity, dipole, etc.
I also noticed that, soilguy, about the "consumption" aspect. It would sequester some CO2 (used in the process) but how much would be generated just to compress the CO2?
Not too important a sink for CO2, but a real neat way to increase efficiency (more energy/effort).

Happy Trails....
~samwik


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Which should be considered given this:

"Far from slowing down, global carbon dioxide emissions are rising faster than before, said a gathering of scientists in Beijing on Friday.

Between 2000 and 2005, emissions grew four times faster than in the preceding 10 years, according to researchers at the Global Carbon Project, a consortium of international researchers. Global growth rates were 0.8% from 1990 to 1999. From 2000 to 2005, they reached 3.2%.

Though alarming, the figures confirm expectations. "They make intuitive sense to me," says Jim Watson, deputy leader of the energy programme at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, UK."

Source and the rest of the story at:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10507-carbon-emissions-rising-faster-than-ever.html


DA Morgan

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5