Hello Raili and all, If necessary CO2 emissions are best sequestered at very large coal-fired power plant where 20,000 tons per day or more of CO2 must be managed. There is more CO2 to sequester than coal being burned. The economies of scale are important. This CO2 sequestration is not cheap. It increases the production price of electricity from about 5 to 7 cents/Kw-hr. CO2 sequestration is one of my major research activities. Nuclear power may look attractive. The safety of C3 usage has been demonstrated for many years, no problem, and the C3 delivery trucks might just as well use propane for fuel. For convenience C3 beats solid fuels for sure, besides there are no fumes, no smoke and no ashes, plus convenient on/off usage. Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E. Professor of Chemical Engineering & Consulting Engineer Texas Tech University Lubbock, TX 79409-3121 806.742.1759 fax 742.3552 - Bioenergy List Archives: http://www.crest.org/discussion/bioenergy/200207/ Bioenergy List Moderator: Tom Miles, tmiles@trmiles.com List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org> List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org> Sponsor the Bioenergy List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html - Other Bioenergy Events and Information: http://www.bioenergy2002.org http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon
