But to give you a sense of the challenge, here are his estimates of the scale of the challenge: 6 billion metric tons of coal burned every year, producing 18 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide and requiring an underground storage volume of 30,000 cubic kilometers per year with untold consequences on subsurface pressure, mineral composition and the like...
Haszeldine and his colleagues therefore call for a quick infusion of massive funds on a global scale, something Steven Chu appears to have at least started in the U.S. And the energy secretary hopes to see major results within a decade.
But is carbon capture and storage really necessary? After all, some studies have shown that major emitters like China or the U.S. could get all their energy from renewables, such as wind or solar.
Chu, for one, doesn't buy it. "It is highly unlikely that any of these countries will turn their back on coal any time soon, ... read full from ScientificAmerican
Note on source ...Keep in mind doesn't think 'peak oil' is a problem
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.
EPA and "policy" experts not buying it? Better read more about it here:
- 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 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".
