e.g.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html
this quotes 2.117 Pounds/kWh
- which is ~1kg / kWh
- so the sequestration cost for Coal generated electricty would be $0.10 / kWh

To swampie (06:13:49) : I can’t imagine why people wouldn’t be aware that fracturing rocks is associated with seismicity. You’d think that would be pretty obvious. The more important question is whether such activity is likely to cause a significant event which wouldn’t otherwise occur naturally. That’s a much more difficult question to answer. Most of the places they’re attempting to tap currently are relatively close to the surface and in or near geologically active zones, which increases the risk. But what are the alternatives? Burning fossil fuels has various health effects. Coal mining can be dangerous (and can also have seismic effects). Oil spills can be kind of a problem. Tar sand recovery can produce significant toxic effects. As fossil fuels become more scarce the potential for resource wars increases. So if the alternative is the occasional set of rattled nerves or a few broken vases, I say go for it. Then again, if the potential for calamity is more significant than that, it might be worth reconsidering. But I’d say it’s a little difficult to answer that question if you don’t do the research.

Some of us just don’t have any extra cash. (I wish I had invested in corn futures about 4 months ago)

Pumping in CO2 (air would be alot cheaper) to increase output from oil wells is fine (and is already done to some extent) if it’s economically feasible. Using taxpayer money to do it shouldn’t be necessary if it were. Using 30-40% of a power plant’s total output (that’s alot) for such activity is absurd unless the economic benefits are reasonably quantified. But I seriously doubt it’s possible to quantify the economic or otherwise “benefits” — it’s just as likely a liability.

“Auf dem Weblog KlimaLounge (siehe Surftipp) bieten wir deshalb den Autoren aus Kiel eine Wette an. Wir sind überzeugt, dass die globalen Temperaturen auch in den kommenden zehn oder 15 Jahren weiter ansteigen werden.”

Translated in English:
“At the website KlimaLounge (see Surftipp) we offer the authors in Kiel a bet. We are convinced that the global temperatures will also continue to rise in the next 10 or 15 years.”

In this FOCUS interview Ramstorf clearly questions and challenges the Keenlyside et. al. study, claiming the study has weaknesses.
I wonder how Keenlyside and Latif will respond to that?

But note how his bet at RC is only for the next 6 years, and not for the next 10 to 15 years he mentions above.

Ramstorf and Co. are in a serious damage control mode.

So let’s add sub-clause 3.1, that is: NO FUTURE COOKBOOK ADJUSTMENTS:

1. Let’s up the ante to 10 grand (or whatever).
2. Let’s use the time frame to 1998-2007 vs 2008-2017.
3. We use a composite of the UAH, HadCrut, GISS, and RSS.
3.1 Only the 1998-2007 temperature data as it exists today shall be used.
4. Bet is off only with a volcano with VEI 6 or more.
5. Chaitén in Chile not in the deal.

Overall, I see that no one here is really ready to join me in this. Anthony wants to wait and see what the other readers will do.
I guess it looks like I’ll have to do this on my own.
What’s wrong here? Look at the sunspots…the AMO, PDO, ocean temps, 10 year trend. Why aren’t you bloggers answering the call?

CONCLUSION:
THE REALCLIMATE SCIENTISTS, CORE OF THE IPCC, DO NOT BELIEVE THE NEXT 10 YEARS WILL BE WARMER. What else can one conclude?

Anthony, please post something about that.

“Help me out here folks. If 30-40% of the power plant electricity production is diverted to CO2 capture and sequestration, wouldn’t you have to up your electrical production an additional 30-40% to meet the current consumer demands of the power plant?”

Sorry, bogus math. The 30-40% additional would then need 30-40% more for its CO2, etc.

If P = production, R = ratio (percentage) of additional capacity, and D = delivered power,

then D = P – RP, meaning its what you produce minus the energy to stuff the CO2 under the rug.

Rearranging, D = P(1-R), P = D / (1-R)

So, if R = 33%, or 1/3, then you need to produce P = D / (1 – 1/3) or P = D * (3/2), i.e you’ll need 50% more.

A more intuitive problem would be if 50% of the produced power went to stuffing CO2, then you’d need to produce twice the power.

That’s why the oil and pipeline companies are very interested in CO2 capture. Lots of money in it.

Anyway, what I fail to understand is why people (including the government) are not paying more attention to hot rock geoothermal (HRG), aka enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). According to the widely regarded MIT report, for a very modest R&D investment HRG has the potential to provide an immense amount of energy very cost-effectively. Eventually, HRG could be deployed essentially anywhere, but even in the near term there is enough “high grade” resources to make a significant dent in the energy needs of various locations around the world. And one of the best of those locations is the Western US — essentially everywhere from Colorado and west. And yet HRG is attracting less and less federal R&D money in the US, even though essentially every pilot project over the last 30 years has proven successful. It’s gotten so bad that the amount of money allocated to HRG geothermal research in the federal 2007 budget was exactly zero. Zip. I don’t get it.

It’s not that way in other parts of the world, though. HRG projects are springing up in France, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, and perhaps most notably, Australia. Australia has a number of sites in development, but apparently the Cooper Basin area is much larger than anticipated — big enough to supply the entire country with all their electricity needs. New Zealand, by the way, is thinking in the same vein.

Interestingly, there is also an indication that CO2 sequestration could increase the efficiency of HRG systems by as much as 50%. Everything I’ve ever read about HRG indicates it’s for real. And yet no one seems to be paying attention. I don’t get it. Are we letting the world pass us by or what?

The Keenlyside et al paper has obviously really got under the skins of the RC crowd. Personally, I think the bet idea is rather pathetic on their behalf, and I’m glad a number of posters have told them so. After all aren’t these the guys who are always telling us that peer reviewed science counts more than anything?

Their attempts to ’smear’ the Leibniz Institute for “going to the media” and even to try to downplay publication in Nature as if it is nothing much (of course it was brilliant when Mann et al had their papers published by the same journal!) are incredible.

I posted to them on these lines but like you it never got through.

“Carbon sequestration is irresponsibly portrayed as an imminently useful large-scale option for solving the challenge. But to sequester just 25% of CO2 emitted in 2005 by large stationary sources of the gas….we would have to create a system whose annual throughput (by volume) would be slightly more than twice that of the world’s crude-oil industry, an undertaking that would take many decades to accomplish.”

He also refers to the scenarios in the 2000 IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios as “risible” and even stronger says “Basing policies on computerized fairy tales is inadvisable”

Help me out here folks. If 30-40% of the power plant electricity production is diverted to CO2 capture and sequestration, wouldn’t you have to up your electrical production an additional 30-40% to meet the current consumer demands of the power plant? Do these power plants even have the capacity to up their electrical production 30-40 % ? And wouldn’t 30-40 % of the additional production be used to capture and sequester the additional CO2 produced so that the actual net production increase is only 20-25 % so you are still short of current consumer demand. I know there is a term for this kind of return but do not know it, anyone?