Browse
Engage
Research
If you like the BP oil spill...
...you're going to love carbon capture and storage.
Carbon capture and storage, or CCS, is the technology that offers the best hope of generating electricity from coal in a way that doesn't further heat up the planet. When people talk about "clean coal" -- a phrase that deserves quotes because coal is never entirely clean -- they're often talking about CCS.
CCS technologies, which can be applied before or after the coal is burned, are designed to capture carbon dioxide, transport it to a secure location, typically deep under the ground, and then sequester it safely for a long, long time, with little or no risk that it will ever escape.
Get the connection? Just as the oil industry assures that they can safely drill for oil a mile under the ocean, the coal companies and utility industry are very confident that can bury CO2 deep under the ground, with little or no risk that it will ever escape.
Do you want to take them at their word?
I asked Mike Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club and a leading anti-coal activist, about BP and CCS. He replied by email:
The BP deep water oil disaster is an example of how seeking out new and riskier ways of feeding our addiction to fossil fuels leads to new and more catastrophic problems.... If there's a lesson in this, it's that relying on unproven and complicated methods to sustain our dependence on oil and coal has disastrous consequences.
You may be surprised to learn that CCS isn't favored just by the coal guys or the utilities. Some environmental groups like the technology, too. David Hawkins, the estimable head of the climate program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which strongly opposes conventional coal plants, says it's essential that we figure out CCS. Here's his very thoughtful argument on behalf of CCS, from NRDC's Switchboard blog:
As a community, we have achieved great success in blocking new coal plants one by one but we need a comprehensive coal policy as well. Showing CCS is an available tool helps us to convince policymakers that they should oppose construction of coal plants that do not capture their carbon. Is such a policy as attractive to many in our community as a law that says no more coal plants, period? No. But we need to ask ourselves -- what are the realistic odds of getting Congress or any significant coal-using state to adopt a "no new coal, period" policy in the next handful of years? I have fought the coal industry for 40 years and in my judgment the odds of a total ban on new coal plants are not large.
The Obama administration is also an enthusiastic supporter of CCS on a grand scale, in the form of a controversial, costly project known as Future Gen. Just a week ago, even as oil was spewing into the gulf, Obama's DOE announced that it would spend up to $612 million in recovery act money (to be matched by $368 million in private funding) to demonstrate large-scale CCS from industrial sources (not power plants, although the technology is similar).
I fail to see carbon capture
I fail to see carbon capture as an unmitigated evil, for two reasons.
First, carbon capture is not just one thing. It refers to a whole host of technologies, many still under development, some of which are bound to be much better and safer than others. The author's blanket assessment doesn't do justice to what's going on in the field.
Second, humanity is in a difficult position. We need to reduce the CO2 we put into the atmosphere very quickly, possibly more quickly than we can transition to clean energy. If so (and I don't know well enough to say so), CSS may be a better-than-nothing transition technology.
What annoys me is that
What annoys me is that someone with no credit (other than a probable bird-nest hairdo and an obviously tenuous grasp of basic economics) will come out and mindlessly criticize an environmental technology - only to feed his own ego and his need to automatically dismiss energy producers as pure evil.
It isn't as though this is a willy-nilly project to drill some holes in the ground and pump something in. A tremendous amount of research and development (y'know, science, facts, all that other annoying stuff that makes it tougher to disseminate lies for a cheap dose of righteousness) has shown that, in certain geological formations, the approach will succeed. So jam that in your pipe, smoke it, and go play hacky sack - and try to pick up some humility and rational demeanor while you're at it.
are you an idiot?
do you have any idea how carbon sequestration works? did you know that carbon dioxide is PLANT FOOD?
carbon sequestration is a BRILLIANT SOLUTION for disposing of carbon.
"Sequestration practices may have positive effects on soil, air, and water quality, be beneficial to wildlife, and expand food production. On degraded croplands, an increase of 1 ton of soil carbon pool may increase crop yield by 20 to 40 kilograms per hectare of wheat, 10 to 20 kg/ ha for maize, and 0.5 to 1 kg/ha for cowpeas."
carbon sequestration is already used for creating peat moss out of peat bogs. this HELPS PLANTS GROW.
i can't stand idiots like you who blog about stuff with no damn research behind it to make the oil companies look like big evil corporations.
Are YOU an idiot?
"did you know that carbon dioxide is PLANT FOOD?"
No shit, Sherlock. That is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of climate change. The fact of that matter is that humans and most life on the planet has evolved and gotten used to the conditions that created by a certain range of carbon dioxide levels and thus temperature levels and ocean acidity over millenia. Life on earth, including humans, can and do adapt to an ever changing environment. However, these changes are occurring and going to continue to occur far faster than usual, and while life will continue and eventually thrive again, this "adaptation process" will be very painful compared to modern living standards. When you have 6 billion humans and unknown trillions of organisms on earth, each adapted to a certain niche of environmental conditions in their regional area, you cannot just change all the conditions overnight and not expect to have a major catastrophe.
So when you dig up and burn all the oil and coal, putting all of that carbon back into the atmosphere, there are profound effects on the environment. Many plants will probably thrive in this rich C02 environment, however the negative consequences are far worse than anything positive that could come from it.
First and foremost, increased C02 will lead to increase global temperatures. The increase in temperature will have a range of effects that vary by location:
* desertification of crop land and crop failure leading to famine and possible conflicts over food supply
* flooding, droughts and major changes in fresh water supply leading to possible conflicts over water resources
* big changes in disease and pathogen activity. Rising temperatures and changing weather patterns will allow tropical diseases and organisms to migrate away from the equator into areas that have never seen them before, and have no immunity.
Perhaps the most concerning effect will be the melting of glaciers at the north and south pole, the Greenland ice sheets, and other areas that contain a massive amount of frozen water --- leading to a rise in sea levels.
When you think about the fact that the vast majority of the world's population lives very close to the oceans of the world and the fact that most distribution of goods and trade is conducted in these locations at ports and, it is easy to see the potential problems that result from raising the ocean level by a few feet to many meters.
Around the world, there are large regions of densely populated land and sparsely populated land used for food crops that will be lost if the sea level rises even by a small amount. There are thousands of islands and island nations that will be completely lost to the sea. Many countries in Asia, most prominently Bangladesh (one of the most impoverished and densely populated countries in the world), will stand to lost a huge fraction of their land mass to the sea with even a few feet in sea-level rise. Many countries around the world with large areas of low-elevation land (western Europe and the eastern coast of North America is a good example) already battle flooding. Without an enormous investment in truly epic scale construction projects to protect their cities, they would be greatly impacted by a rise in sea level. Manhattan, among other cities, would be totally lost to the ocean, and 1/3 of Florida and the Florida Keys would be gone.
The other major potential consequence of increased C02 is the destructive acidification and increase in temperature of the ocean. The first threat is that increased C02 in the air gets absorbed into the ocean and turns into carbonic acid. To make matters worse, the oceans warm up as the air above warms up. Already, we are the seeing the "bleaching" (destruction) of Coral reefs as the coral animals cannot thrive in this new environment. The acidification has can have many devastating effects on ocean biology, and a lot is still unknown. Any sea creature with a shell is affected, as the lower PH level messes up the process of creating their calcium-carbonate based shells. Increased ocean temperatures also lead to a host of consequences with much still unknown. The combination of these factors on microorganisms like plankton, coupled with the current polluted and overfished state of the world's oceans could lead to the collapse of the food chain in the ocean or other unforeseen catastrophes.
These potential consequences and the confirmation that global warming is occurring and is primarily caused by the anthropogenic means of burning fossil fuels is supported by the vast majority of climate researchers, and in fact, every national academy of science equivalent and major scientific organization in the world supports this consensus ---- even the engineering organizations associated with the geology and extraction of petroleum and coal.
This is no joke. With the over-populated state of the earth and factors such as the current systems of governance around the world, the current limits of technology, and basic human nature, no one is prepared to effectively deal with major disruption(s) in areas such as the food or fresh water supply, flooding of cities and regions near the coast, desertification of crops, incidence of infectious disease, etc. These situations will no doubt result in societal breakdown, anarchy, panic, and "every man for himself" psychology. It is relatively easy imagine major, even global-scale conflicts and wars over resources. The peace and stability of societies, and thus the peace and stability of the world is intimately intertwined with the adequate availability of critical resources. Chaos, anarchy, panic, and armed conflict could easily consume even a relatively prosperous, bountiful country like the United States if you disrupt the supply of vital resources to the people.
If you care about the planet and the lives your children and grandchildren will lead, then you need to become informed and support political action on behalf of the planet.
you are an idiot
Copy-paste from your prayers book, mate? Haven't seen such collection of bulshit in one place for a very long time. Even those who taught you do not speak these things anymore. No, seriously:
- life evolved under so much wider range of CO2 concentration that you can imagine (if you actually understand what "parts-per-million" means at all)
- "increased C02 will lead to increase global temperatures" -- bwahaha, sure, mate -- just keep repeating it, it might become true
- "melting of glaciers at the north and south pole" -- you moron, there are no glaciers at North pole, and ice mass in Antarctica is growing every year since maybe 60s, melting of entire north pole won't raise sea level a millimeter -- that ice is already floating
- "major potential consequence of increased C02 is the destructive acidification and increase in temperature of the ocean" -- ocean is cooling over last 3 years (see Argos figures), "ocean acidification" is such a bullshit that it pains
- "confirmation that global warming is occurring" -- I am sure you mean recent discoveries of tampering with global temperatures records? Ask Hansen -- he knows a lot about this, he is doing it for last 20 years
- "over-populated state of the earth" -- you are probably Malthusian's student, right... These bozos running around screaming for a very long time... since society started producing enough food so that morons like you have anough free time to run around and scream about doom and gloom
- "stability of societies" -- aren't you trying to destabilize one right now?
- "If you care about the planet and the lives your children and grandchildren will lead, then you need to become informed and support political action on behalf of the planet." -- are you sure you want ppl to become informed? because if they do -- heads of morons like you will roll...
and btw -- "carbon sequestration" is such a joke...
TL-DR
nice try on the straw man argument.
i have NEVER refuted climate change in my posting. climate change is obviously a valid field of study and will play an important role in the development of mankind.
have you seen that the glaciers are 'back no normal' ? and there is 'no explanation for this' ?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-back-to-its-previou...
our global climate is massively complex and we constantly are presented with radical changes of events we CAN'T EXPLAIN.
carbon sequestration is a POSITIVE thing for climate change enthusiasts. its a way to safely store carbon through a natural biological process. before you attempt to wow people with fancy words and mumbo jumbo do some research of your own.
Arctic sea ice
That chart shows a one year cycle of arctic sea ice. OF COURSE there will be ice buildup during winter following a minimum during the summer. This doesn't give us any indication of the long term trend. This, however, does: http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100608_Figure3.png
fyi: wattsupwiththat Isn't exactly a good place to do research.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/07/noaa-ncdc-is-the-us-temperature-re...
yeah, especially when....
you're getting paid by those companies to write misleading comments.
Future of Coal
Another problem with CCS is the amount of extra coal it will use. This is one aspect of a piece on viable coal reserves that I wrote recently for SolveClimate.com:
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100507/policy-and-rhetoric-ignore-real-li...