CO2 Storage CCS and or CCU CO2 Use, Geological _Applied Earth Science Input,EU-China Geologists Co-operate to Find Onshore CO2 Sinks

There are more questions than answers in this post, sorry.

My friends and colleagues at MW-Materials World have pointed once more to good approaches and co-operation between Geologists in the EU and in China to fully determine sites suitable for CO2 storage and sequestration: Capturing carbon dioxide in China by MW's reporter R. Mehta.

Perhaps as any good interview should MW's R. Mehta report, raises more questions for comment and debate than answers. The conversation between MW's R. Mehta and Mike Stephenson appears to be good news, and it most certainly is. However I deliberately chose the word storage as opposed to sequestration,favoured perhaps by those concerned with geological time scales. Don't get me wrong, experience in high reliability energy materials (aero-engine, nuclear, petrochem..) strongly recommends aiming for the highest standards, the imponderables of practise can lead to a somewhat lower standards. On the other hand, I believe that engineers and policy makers, not to mention the now GW-GHG sensitive, general public would like estimates, orders of magnitudes, of what "significant onshore storage" means and better we would all appreciate hard facts and best "state of the art" decisions. I recently heard that two French Parliamentarians (independently of political bias) already consider, that globally, there are insufficient suitable CO2 storage-sequestration site (I'll check political quotes). They hope to lead a CO2 users "Lobby". I would expect that the French Deputies have consulted our colleagues at BRGM-France's Geological and Mining Research Authority. That being said the fact that BGS_EU-China are concerned with energy generation is also good news. My scant blogged Venn diagramme: 1. Mining, 2. Power Generation, 3. Materials focused on CO2 sequestration (practice) and many IOM3-Maney online publications still indicates that CO2 storage and sequestration is the weak-link in in-situ global main power generation processes(ie. fossil fuel based). I would be pleased of any reaction and further information following this report, interview and conversation. Finally it is good news that the main new main CO2 emitter over-taking USA, (I believe) is getting involved and accepts assistance.

Links are provided on MW's Environment and Sustainability page5, March 2009 .

Further Reading:
1.EU-China CO2-coach programme
2.NZEC
3. BSG-British Geological Survey's Nascent Site
4. EU Scientific Authority for CO2 storage pdf. News Release 16 March2009. and direct link to the site CO2 GeoNet

Link Life-Cycle Analysis of Nuclear Fuel Route_Cradle-to-Grave, GHG-CO2equivalent emissions_Nuclear Inspections

Life-Cycle Analysis of Nuclear Fuel Route_Cradle-to-Grave, GHG-CO2equivalent emissions_Nuclear Inspections

Tyre Recycling

I have just added the The European Tyre Recycling Association (ETRA) website to my recycling list on my left hand side menu bar for easy reference. Road transportation tyres and alternatives are quite obviously a Pan-European issue.

ETRA claims to be the only European organisation devoted exclusively to tyre and rubber recycling. Founded on 23 September 1994 with 19 members in 5 countries. Today, ETRA has ±250 members in 47 countries including the 25 EU Member States.ETRA membership reflects both the public and private sectors involved in the environmentally safe disposition of post-consumer tyres.

The site (1) contains news items from 2004 to date with conference archives still under construction.

Here are a few figures to play around with in our LCA-Life Cycle Assessments.

"Estimates are that 250,000,000 used tyres are accumulated each year in the countries of the 15 EU. This could supply 45% of European virgin rubber uptake. Only 24% of used tyres is recycled, mostly in low demanding, low price products, that yield low economical profit, stopping R and D investment (most of companies along the recycled rubber supply chain are SMEs). In consequence, the main use of tyres is as fuel substituting one environmental problem for another due to emissions."(2)

This link together with the original research project CRIOSINTER-project link were brought to my attention by the "Research EU" magazine N° 58 Dec08-Jan09.

Here are a few quotes taken from Research EU upon which all car and truck users, but most especially the industrial tyre manufacturers are cordially invited meditate upon.

Business as usual?

"Tyre manufacturers prefer incineration"! According to ETRA's co-founder Valerie Shulman, "The problem is
that recycled rubber is a direct competitor to their own products!" and she further criticises " When tyre manufacturers sign contracts committing them to the incineration path for anything up to 25years they are jeopardizing the future of a sustainable society that is reliant on the emergence of a new recycling-based economic sector"[energy efficient, low carbon emissions path, based on a Full Life Cycle Assessment methodology let me add.]

Sources:
1. The European Tyre Recycling Association (ETRA)

2. CRIOSINTER-project reference

No_Holds_Bard: Deforestation_ A Joke to Illustrate a very Serious and Fundamental Global Problem_Human Economic System in Question

No_Holds_Bard: Deforestation_ A Joke to Illustrate a very Serious and Fundamental Global Problem_Human Economic System in Question

Not many jokes on my Conversation pages so here is one.

As a bonus the post lists_archives other related links to my posts on the "Limited natural resource issue" underlying our economic system.

Back to basics.

What is significant Innovation, What to Innovate, Where to Innovate, How to Innovate_ Back to Basics

In the spirit of "don't keep a good thing to ones-self", I introduced readers of my other management dedicated blog series "This-Above-All"_Energy Autonomy, Renewable Energies in France to two new books "My Energy Executive Choices 2008-2009". My early post was more of a parenthesis than a post truly dedicated book review. The reference to these two books gave me the chance to make a very short but well focused summary, However it in no way does justice to the importance and excellence of both books and their authors.

Refs:
My Energy Executive Choices 2008-2009

Two very good back-ground books to read and more so, to use.
1."Without Hot Air" by David J.C.MacKay free online or buy the print edition.
treats the basics of energy, demystifying confusion over units of measure and Energy Balance _ Production capacity (hard work and Jobs?) vs Consumption (Too easy for human and planetary good?)

2. C'est maintenant, 3 ans pour sauver le monde par Jean-Mark Jancovici et Alain Grandjean
[Now is the time - 3 years to save the world, by J-M Jancovici and A.Grandjean]
Energy and Economy policy for "Human Economy is essentially about how mankind transforms limited natural resources to make useful desirable products and services." quoted from the authors.

There are many points in common between the views of the authors of both books. Both aim to get to the essentials and these are entirely based on sound physical scientific principles. Not surprisingly, since the first author D. MacKay is a Professor in Physics at the famous Cavendish Laboratories Cambridge Univ and the 2nd book's joint authors, Jean-Marc Jancovici and Alain Grandjean are graduates of the France's foremost Engineering School, L'Ecole Polytechnique in Paris. J-M Jancovici is a leading energy and climate consultant and lecturer. Both UK's MacKay from UK and France's Jancovivi are Myth-Killers. Jancovici's website "Manicore" much of which he translates to english, is a wealth of fairly simple "Myth Killing comparative calculations" to help fix one's ideas "orders of magnitude" and allow sensible, intelligent action. The similarities in MacKay and Jancovici's thinking and approaches are quite uncanny.("Great minds think alike"?) A. Grandejean whose work I am less familiar with, is an Economist and appears to be a no-nonsense, myth-killing economist.

Whereas David MacKay avoids as far as possible economics or cost-financial considerations, the two french authors not only take a strong stance on the physical aspects underlying the human (worth remembering) economy drawing from contemporary best selling author the erudite Professor Jared Diamond (recently cited in these blogs)[Link 1] [Link 2]. They also attempt to draw conclusions as to what energy-climate policies, politics ( and of course politicians) must inevitably address and master. They present their perception in a simple and clear manner that both politicians and the general public can understand. Both approaches whether explicitly (french authors) or implicitly (MacKay) consider the universal nature of energy as the fundamental unit, as all thermodynamics students (sciences and engineering) well know.

MacKay seeks to draw-up his energy accountancy (Production vs Consumption) in terms of KWs (KWh's and KWh's/day) whose usefulness in everyday life he explains in great length."

MacKay's catch quote is "Every BIG Helps" whereby he discards such mythology as "If we all do a little bit it will add-up to a lot":
"A lot of small improvements add up to an overall small improvement eg. 1.5% reduction in GHG/person gives an overall 1.5% improvement!
"A lot of "Bigs"" let's say 20% reduction in GHG emissions per person adds up to an overall big (20%) in a relatively short period to boot!
Such is the extent of gigantic effort required by leading scientists and experts such as UN's IPCC and most serious national scientific and engineering bodies world wide.

Jancovici and Grandjean are quote as follows:
"Human Economy is essentially about how mankind transforms limited natural resources to make useful desirable products and services." [Link]