Re: CO2 Sequestering; Was: Re: Convent fuel for remote locations - C3

[Johannes Moerschner <JM@ier.uni-stuttgart.de>]

Dear all!

being not at all familiar with discussion, research etc. on carbon storage,
sequestration, separation etc. from energy provision I am gratefully taking
up this thread of exchange to ask for your kind help:

At IER we are just compiling a meaningful overview on institutions being
involved in energy research all over Europe. One point to be covered
especially will be just carbon dioxide reduction of conventional energy
technologies by separation, storage etc. I Expect you to be a great
auditorium to give me some helpful hints to European institutions involved
in such research?!

Many thanks for each help!

Sincerely yours

Johannes Moerschner

Dr. Johannes Moerschner 
Head of Section Bioenergy,
Dept. New Energy Technologies and Technology Assessment (NET),
Institute of Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy (IER) 
University of Stuttgart, Heßbrühlstr. 49a, D-70565 Stuttgart 
Internet: http://www.ier.uni-stuttgart.de 
Phone: +49 711/ 780 61-65, Fax: +49 711/ 780 61-77, Mobile: 0163/44 08 90 3 
E-mail: mailto:jm@ier.uni-stuttgart.de 




> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Harry W. Parker [mailto:Harry.Parker@coe.ttu.edu]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 13. September 2002 00:06
> An: Raili Kajaste; Bioenergy; bioconversion@crest.org
> Betreff: Re: Convent fuel for remote locations - C3
> 
> 
> 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
> 

-
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