CCS
stoat | April 13, 2012Or so says reuters and a whole host of others repeating the same story. The source is draft ELECTRICITY GENERATION POLICY STATEMENT from the shouty Scottish government. You won't be surprised to hear that I don't believe a word of it (I've been pretty sniffy before), but lets read on. Oh, but first, why so sniffy? Because, its not economic (if it was, we'd all be doing it, der). Nor do I see any sign of it becoming economic in the next 10-15-20 years. But who knows, I could be wrong. Lets read on...
They say: The Scottish Government's policy on electricity generation [nd: this is indeed about…
hrynyshyn | September 29, 2009The arguments against carbon capture and sequestration are legion and the list of reasons not to invest more resources in the technology just keeps getting longer. Here's a new analysis from Canadian journalist Graham Thomson. Some of his figures-- on global carbon emissions, for example -- are less than accurate, and this isn't peer-reviewed science, just a journalist's compendium commissioned by the Munk Centre for International Studies University of Toronto. But even allowing for that, Thompson manages to hit the proverbial nail on the head:
The very promise of CCS, whether delivered or…
illconsidered | November 17, 2008As the CO2 in the atmosphere continues to climb, already at a dangerous level, and the argument about doing something about it seems to have only just begun in the power circles, I fear that actively removing it is rapidly becoming an imperative.
But is this doable?
I don't know...I sure hope so. And not just for climate change, but also for ocean acidification. Removing CO2 directly from the atmosphere is really a form of geoengineering and part of a principal that I find extremely worrisome. I would have counted myself deadset against geoengineering of any sort before reading an essay…