Capture and store CO2?

[georgeskohler]

There was a whole issue of Science dedicated to the idea of capturing and storing CO2 that is emitted when we burn fossil fuels. Is our best option to pursue this strategy while continuing research on alternative energy sources?

 

I understand the need for this I guess, but even if we can minimize leakage from underground storage, etc. to me this just highlights the need to really directly address our entropy crisis once and for all...what do you all think?

[iNow]

There was a whole issue of Science dedicated to the idea of capturing and storing CO2 that is emitted when we burn fossil fuels. Is our best option to pursue this strategy while continuing research on alternative energy sources?

 

Yes. We will not be able to completely replace fossil fuels, so we need to be able to handle them more cleanly. Further, it will take some time to scale up renewable energy to such a point where it can support our population, and we can start carbon capture almost immediately while we move down that path.

 

We need to do both.

[greenprogrammin]

You mention "minimize leakage from underground storage". I think the CO2 will be absorbed or fixed by lime. Much like a rebreather used during scuba diving.

[OSHMUNNIES]

We will not be able to completely replace fossil fuels, so we need to be able to handle them more cleanly.

 

iNow,

I assume you're referring to our short term inability to replace carbon fuels because of current economic burden, correct? (i.e., we have the technology, but not the infrastructure)

 

If not, please clarify/provided basis for your inference.

[iNow]

Definitely in the short-term we are unable to satisfy energy demand without fossil fuels, due simply to the density of that demand and the breadth of products/scope or use. I'm not referring to economic challenges, but practical ones. We use fossil fuels in far too many applications to replace it overnight.

 

In addition to the short-term challenges, I foresee that there will still be applications in the long-run where we'll need to use fossil fuels. For that reason, taken as given that its use will never go to zero, we need to focus on cleaner methods of putting it to use.

 

I'd love for us to never again burn a single drop of fossil fuel for all of eternity, but I know that will never happen. We need to take steps to minimize its use, do so quickly, and work in parallel to clean it up for all of those times where we still continue to use it in the meantime.

[pioneer]

 

This graph represents is the heat that escapes from the CO2 greenhouse blanket that is trapping the earth's heat. The red is the hard data and the black is the average of the models which drive the fear. The data says, the CO2, although contributing to global warming, does so at a slower rate than the models predict, since more heat is escaping than predicted.

 

The bottom line is, the earth's greenhouse, has natural vents, like the little open windows one sees on the roof's of greenhouses. The graph seems to show that the earth opened up windows to let out the heat.

 

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/

[iNow]

This graph represents is the heat that escapes from the CO2 greenhouse blanket that is trapping the earth's heat. The red is the hard data and the black is the average of the models which drive the fear. The data says, the CO2, although contributing to global warming, does so at a slower rate than the models predict, since more heat is escaping than predicted.

 

The bottom line is, the earth's greenhouse, has natural vents, like the little open windows one sees on the roof's of greenhouses. The graph seems to show that the earth opened up windows to let out the heat.

 

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/

LOL!

 

Your own source negates your conclusions and assertions. That's classic, right there.

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/

 

Perhaps you should try actually reading what those articles say instead of cherry-picking the parts which you mistakenly assume affirm your preconceptions.

Edited November 20, 2009 by iNow

[Mr Skeptic]

There was a whole issue of Science dedicated to the idea of capturing and storing CO2 that is emitted when we burn fossil fuels. Is our best option to pursue this strategy while continuing research on alternative energy sources?

 

I don't like it. It increases costs, but decreases efficiency. It still burns fossil fuels, and there is a risk that the CO2 will escape anyways. In the worst case scenario, if all of it escapes we actually increase CO2 by about 30% I think it was. In the best case scenario, we use 30% more coal but don't emit the CO2.

 

There are alternatives. The CO2 could be used to boost the growth in algae ponds or greenhouses (though this would take a very long time to implement). Instead of sequestering the CO2 at the coal plants, we could do geoengineering projects -- for example, fertilizing the world's oceans with iron, which will boost plankton growth so that the ocean sequesters more CO2. This however runs the risk of creating anaerobic dead zones and whatever else messing with ecology on the massive scale can result in.

 

I understand the need for this I guess, but even if we can minimize leakage from underground storage, etc. to me this just highlights the need to really directly address our entropy crisis once and for all...what do you all think?

 

Well, no one likes it. Some would like to keep emitting the CO2 anyways and some would want to get off fossil fuels entirely. However, this may be necessary as a stopgap measure so that we can continue to get energy from fossil fuels without increasing CO2, until we have more sustainable energy and infrastructure.

[georgeskohler]

Argh, I wish we could just conserve our resources better! Oh well...

[pioneer]

Here is a road maps of California research initiative for climate change;

 

PIER Program Research Roadmaps

Research Roadmap for Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methods (PDF file, 137 pages, 1.6 MB, July 2005)

Climate Change and Health In California: A PIER Research Roadmap (PDF file, 116 pages, 2.2 MB, May 2005)

PIER-EA Climate Change Research, Development and Demonstration Plan (PDF files, mulitple volumes, April 2003)

 

Does anyone see how the deck is stacked? If you want money, you either get with the program or don't expect anything but mud slinging. One will not see a balance with funding available to check out opposing claims, just to see if playing field is a little slanted.

 

Money starts with the political system. They decide the priorities for funding. Politicians can only tell the truth and never make stuff up. They would never use mud slinging against their opposition. If they wanted the moon to be made of green cheese, since this will help them stay in office, they simply put up the money for only that. Now the majority of the data supports green cheese. This consensus is totally unbiased.

 

Let us work under the assumption of the political deck stacking. The government is a major user of energy and resources and has a huge carbon foot print, bigger than any other group. We will set green targets for the government. If they fall short, they can pay a fine or buy green credits, which is given to the people as a tax break. If we could do this, the research funding would change priorities, to avoid the tax refund. That is how you get the system to be honest by applying the game against it.

[jess]

There was a whole issue of Science dedicated to the idea of capturing and storing CO2 that is emitted when we burn fossil fuels. Is our best option to pursue this strategy while continuing research on alternative energy sources?

 

I understand the need for this I guess, but even if we can minimize leakage from underground storage, etc. to me this just highlights the need to really directly address our entropy crisis once and for all...what do you all think?

 

I think we should be breathing more co2 out of any thing so we can feed the trees the problem it we don't have enough trees

[Mchurd]

I think we should be breathing more co2 out of any thing so we can feed the trees the problem it we don't have enough trees

 

Adult trees uptake of co2 is rather steady. Young trees uptake co2 for respiration and also use carbon to build mass...so the solution is new forests that grow, die (bury the carbon), and regrow and repeat the steps. Planting a tree for it to last for 500 years isn't as effective. Also check out iron fertilization of the ocean, same concept but different environment. My new blog talks about this if you're interested, in my sig.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Mchurd

[esme]

would not the world wide growth of industrial hemp with all its properties significantly reduce co2 and the need to burn fossil fuels