Rather than developing new kinds of power (which might favor new companies and regions) or new patterns of use (which might require effort on the part of individuals), we simply contract with firms who take all our carbon and lock it away underground for millennia. What could be simpler?Carbon dioxide sequestration isn't a great global warming solution unless we develop less leaky equipment or commit to regular re-sequestering, according to a paper published in Nature Geoscience. If the containers used don't leak less than one percent every thousand years, atmospheric carbon would have to be monitored carefully and resequestered on a regular basis over tens of thousands of years in order to match the effects of reducing carbon emissions. Otherwise, sequestration would only slow the warming, not stop it.
Haase - While I already covered the "simple inarguable problems" with the (CCS) carbon capture and storage (link here) , crap like this will make anyone a nuclear energy advocate... it's just nuts.
Even if you ignore those facts, these are inarguable: it will raise emissions, energy costs and coal consumption.
Even if you ignore those facts, these are inarguable: it will raise emissions, energy costs and coal consumption.
- Comprehensive IPCC study
- And the "CCS" for dummies at Low Tech Magazine
- Or a whose "left and right" CCS debate view point at GRIST
- Worlds first carbon capture plan fails biblically
- "Clean coal" won't work, new research says
- Clean coal won't be viable - industry
...it may be easy to read, but many find it hard to understand. Energy czars persuade the persuadable to continue a future built by destroying finite resources "the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce".
But don't let that stop them from dumping billions into the program - $3.4 billion in stimulus dollars to research and develop the technology known as carbon capture and storage (CCS).