Brad Wall uses taxpayers money for carbon capture

[oneoff]

You do realize that if the Boundary Dam Carbon capture project is not sucessful then Boundary Dam (and all the coal mining) is finished for good.

Use the phase out of that same coal that used to be shipped right by your door to Ontario as a reminder to self. And the Alberta example where in two decades all coal fired electrical generation is to be completely phased out.

Now in the words of the "owner" of the Derrick Motor Inn (Estevan); not much is going on in Estevan today.. Any imagination at all and you would call Estevan a ghost town if Boundary Dam is phased out....and it will be if some way to make carbon capture work isn't found soon.

And don't forget the impact on the provinces electrical supply. And your own if you notice. And I should have included the relatively new Shand power station at Estevan. But I suspect smart asses already will have missed connecting those dots

And just who except SaskPower supplies every last kilowatt hour for most of this province; so who else is going to foot the bill in any scenario that has gained critical mass to bring non renewable CO2 emissions down comparable to what wind and solar are wrongly assumed to be zero level.

Its becoming evident that the promoters haven't even begun to think this through.

Were're all in deep shit on this carbon initiative nonsense.

Maybe some just don't want to pay their share of "cleaning up" coal fired generation in Sask.

That makes it totally consistant with expecting free lunches for themselves and doing everything possible to see that everyone else pays the whole bill.

I will reread the previous post; and if it still says what this response pertains to...then I give up on "reasoning" with Quebec and BC's stance on pipelines and those who attempt to promote what is easily fed to the general populace who seems to have an appetite anything that creates a warm, fuzzy safe, pleasureable feeling.

[oneoff]

Yeah...still sounds like a complaint about spending tax payers money on an experimental carbon capture project; which if it is/will be successful should have allowed a few more hundred years of abundant coal with reduced Co2 emissions.
No credit for trying; no complaint about the substantial amount; just a sweeping complaint about the status quo who apparently never did anything right.

And it still sounds like the only thing that some people will accept is if the dirty coal stations (even if cleaned up) wouldn't be satisfactory because its still a non renewable fuel.

GEEZ for Cripes sake give the world a break.

[oneoff]

$2000 a tonne is no deal and neither is $15.00

What would be a deal is if we started by putting what is currently wasted by flaring (BIG BIG AMOUNTS) and wasted by venting (which is reported to have multiple times more effect(per unit) than if combusted)

And that would be a very significant start; and a very nice beginning for promoting conference calls and staying at home (or local) holidays and encouraging less extravagance in all areas; and dare I say it even thinking about a plan to match human population to the capability of the planet to sustain the conditions they may expect during their entire lifetime.

[TOM4CWB]

http://www.nh3canada.com/Products.html

The NH3 500 - Standalone Fuel Synthesizer

Our flagship product is a free-standing NH3 production plant, about the size of two refrigerators side-by-side, capable of producing 500 litres/day - 20 litres/hr., or 130 (US) Gal/day - 5.5 Gal./hr.

It is powered by electricity, and we of course have a strong preference for that electricity to be sourced from a renewable supply, be it wind, solar, or tidal. The only feedstocks (raw materials) are Air Water.

The Math: 2 litres of Water 7.5 KWhrs of Electricity = 1 litre of NH3.
Therefore: 2 (US) Gal. of Water 30 KWhrs of Electricity = 1 (US) Gal. of NH3.

Any calculation is therefore based on the value/cost of electricity, in any given market, and at given time of day. To claim that NH3 costs “x” amount of $ / gal., is essentially misleading. Under ideal conditions, that price may be as low as 5 cents per KW/hr. In the worst case, as much as 10 times that amount. And while all such pricing may be volatile, the amount of electricity required to produce a Litre or (US) Gal. of NH3, is not. It is finite.

Currently, our technicians are assembling the first of these machines by hand, and delivering them to a select group of BETA testers, within both gov. and the private sector, via a series of field trials and pilot projects, throughout 2014/15. Full commercial production starts immediately thereafter, with client deliveries commencing by Q2, 2015.

In the interim, we are making our ALPHA Machine #1” available as a demonstration unit, and benchmark test-bed, for purposes of due diligence, and academic and commercial feedback. Please contact our business development office, at your earliest convenience, should you wish to be included.



NH3 500 - Standalone Fuel Synthesizer Bank of 4 x NH3 500s = 2,000 litres/day or 500 (US) Gal/day

While the machine operates on its own merits, it usually forms the heart of a larger, more complete, project solution. Typically, such a solution consists of one or more NH3 500s, Storage Tank(s), and a fenced enclosure to contain all connecting pipes and a point-of-fueling. Additionally, if it is to be used in conjunction with a renewable energy source (wind, solar, tidal, etc.), there will be a requirement for one or more GenSets, to convert the NH3 back into electricity, on demand. Such a system is usually located at or near the electrical substation to which the renewable energy facility is interconnected.

The process involves the intake of Water, and to then extract from it the required 3 parts of H (Hydrogen). Concurrently, there is an intake of Air, from which is extracted the 1 part of N (Nitrogen). In fact, the atmosphere which we breathe is actually 78.1% comprised of the element Nitrogen. There are even birds that are able to “eat” the Nitrogen form the air, as a source of sustenance during long, migratory flights.

These two elements are then precisely synthesized into NH3, by our proprietary, reactive process, and then the resultant NH3 is liquified from its natural gaseous state, into the final product, for final consumption, transportation and/or storage.

In the simplest terms, our NH3 500 FuelStations perform three primary functions; as either an on-site gas pump, as a means of on-site fertilizer production, or essentially as a battery.

As a gas pump, it is of course much more than that, being the entire production system, on-site, for the production of clean, emission-free, and non-explosive fuel. NH3. This is of particular importance to fuelling points located in hazardous conditions, and in hostile locales, where oil depots and gasoline convoys are often selected as primary targets of violence, for their shear vulnerability.

As on-site fertilizer production, it is a “business in a box”, delivered as a turnkey system.

As a battery, the NH3 500 can be coupled with any number of additional units, to achieve the desired level of daily production. In fact, we refer to them as “cells”. A battery can be any device which stores energy, usually electrical, for use at the required time, later. Our system stores energy by converting it into a liquified gas, NH3, which can then be stored chemically in tanks, as already in use throughout farming communities where NH3 is routinely transported, stored and handled as fertilizer. The difference is that if that stored energy is then used as fuel to power an electrical generator, or multiples thereof, we are essentially converting it back to the electricity, from whence it was originally produced. As Newton originally discovered, energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. It can only be converted from one form to another. Like all batteries, there are some losses to be expected, through the entire cycle of charge, storage and discharge. And while our NH3 FuelStations compare very favorably with all other types of battery systems, there are other non-scientific forces at work, which synergize with our production of NH3, namely commercial ones. Because, while the amount of energy stored at any given time may be constant, the commercial value of it time-of-day wise, certainly is not.

The price of electricity is based on two essential factors; the amount required, and when it is required for. The cost of the amounts of energy purchased are measured in $ per KW/hrs. and $ per MW/hrs., depending on the scale of consumption. However, as always, the rate charged is ultimately determined by supply and demand. In most cases, electricity produced during the night can be purchased far cheaper than that which is required for the peak human activity of 2:00 - 5:00 PM, coupled with the nature of our 5-day work and school weeks. In the worst cases of consumption, such as during a heat wave, when air conditioning loads push the system to its limits, special “peaking” plants are brought online, for this very purpose, and of course the worst case scenarios drive the hardest bargains. In standard operation, this situation can now be addressed by time-shifting the electricity which has been collected, as it being produced, in the form of NH3 production, and then stored in tanks, until it is required to re-generate electricity, on demand. Therefore, its true market value is now determined more by market pricing, than by actual physics. At present, it is therefore conceivable that a KW/hr. of electricity can make a round-trip, lasting hours, even days, with little or no economic loss. (Note: This is of course highly dependent on electrical rates, market by market, but still entirely calculatable). Additionally, dispatchable energy is worth more than that which is derived from intermittent or variable sources (renewables), and less back-up and support is then required to compensate for that level of unreliability. In short, storage by NH3 provides a level playing field for all types of renewable energy production, by making them just as reliable, and just as contractable for, as any other form of traditional generation, albeit without any of the CO2 and GHG emissions, whatsoever. Which is why we contend that you can now indeed “have your cake and eat it too”, when it comes to wind power, solar, and all the others."

With western Canada having the most fresh water anywhere on planet earth... we really do have the opportunity better than anyone else... if we are smart!

[oneoff]

Couldn't yet stand to read that last post all in one sitting...but maybe someone could inform whether that process has been patented or has a patent pending.



BECAUSE If the method is sound; then its worth billions. And if it is pure fiction or bullshit and firmly held belief....its all in the same realm as "cold fusion" and ""magnetic seed treaters" and "glyphosate caused near zero nutrient content of sprayed fields" and "Donald Trump solutions" ...not to mention "Canadian greenhouse gas disaster remedies" and on and on.

Where has common sense disappeared to.

[oneoff]

Maybe April Fool's day should be declared a holiday to occur when called by any person at any time.

[sawfly]

thanks oneoff for the en lighting comments.

the carbon capture venture may be a expensive experiment gone bad , but if it made coal usable, it would be huge world wide.

i know a lot of us , kinda wonder about the global warming thing .
myself included.
and carbon reduction actually accomplishing anything.
compared to the earths natural cycles .

that said

with 98% of the science on their side and 40% of the worlds population at risk of being under water. (melting ice caps)
things are gonna change whether we like it or not.

best we can hope for are sane logical approach to reduce carbon emissions.


thanks too Tom for that interesting article .

[mustardman]

one off.
I agree that we might be shutting down coal fired plants if this doesn't work ( maybe the Billions spent could have went to renewables ?)

But this is not any where close to working and yet they are off on trade missions to Sell the technology ???
Just by reciting the 'clean coal clean coal' mantra doesn't make it so
It's a Carbon Tax even though Brad Doesn't call it that.
The Biggest Benefactor of Our tax dollars has been the Oil field as the procedure helps release more oil from the formation .
In fact I ve always thought of it as An oil plan that was Spun as an Enviromental play butPaid for by US

[bucket]

How does anyone know that the carbon capture system doesn't have the VW component to it?


Maybe it's a slick program to fool the masses or at least a couple of government ministers that enjoy filling people's wallets?

[sumdumguy]

Mustardmen, wonder what you suggest for renewables?