Real-Time Discussion
Categories

Subscribe to my Feed

About Chris
Links & Blog Roll
The Fine Print

Entries in carbon capture (2)

Thursday
Dec172009

Is CCS the answer? Maybe not, according to the UN.

DateThursday, December 17, 2009 at 7:50AM

Firstly, I will readilly admit I only have an average understanding of Carbon Capture and Sequestration, and must contend that it could be a very viable option for Alberta in meeting global and national reduction targets. But this article from the UN Climate Change Conference is very unsettling when we consider having $2 Billion going into the technology.

Here is the article, which is worth a scan:

Carbon capture is put on hold

As some countries have reservations on carbon capture and storage (CCS) the emerging technology is not likely to be added to the UN-backed carbon reducing mechanisms here in Copenhagen.

Morten Andersen (article corrected) 15/12/2009 22:15

Capturing carbon dioxide at coal-fired power plants in order to store in it the ground is not likely to become a measure supported by the UN-backed Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) this year. A committee under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has discussed the issue, but delayed any decisions for summits to come, according to Bloomberg.

A draft text by the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice “recognizes that carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations has been proposed by some Parties for inclusion under the CDM”, but also “recognizes that other Parties have registered concern regarding the implications of this possible inclusion.”

Some countries advocate of the emerging technology. However, other countries have concerns over “the long-term liability for the storage site, including liability for any seepage”, the draft text displays.

The draft text specifies that the Subsidiary Body will continue to work on the issue in order to produce a more detailed suggestion for summits to come. 

 

We can argue all we want that it is a solution, but unless said solution is endorsed as an internationaly recognized standard, we are simply pissing into the wind. Another issue, for maybe another day, is that the same deep-caverns used for this proposed storage have been used for decades in Alberta to dispose of certain hazoudous waste, like dangerous oilfied wastes and landfill leachate.

We'd be wise to fund some big-ass science in this area, and soon.

AuthorChris LaBossiere | CommentPost a Comment |
tagged , , , in
Monday
Dec072009

Innovation maybe the only answer to Global Warming.

DateMonday, December 7, 2009 at 10:10PM

I have watched the Global Warming discussions online this week with much interest. The UN Global Warming conference in Copenhagen Denmark is getting serious attention from around the World. The science behind this issue is extremely complicated, but not nearly as much as the politics.

I am not a doubter, and believe that there is compelling evidence of a century long trend in global warming due to accelerated human production of CO2. That said, I am practical enough to know that no individual or even national based CO2 reductions will make the difference if the developing nations of billions like China and India don't make significant changes in their economic development; which frankly won't happen and might also have catastrophic effects on global economies if they did.

So, I am reduced to hoping for visionary leadership on the issue, and the creation of new ideas to combat the problem. It will be the natural tendency for energy rich economies like ours to ignore the problem, or come up with extremely expensive and untested programs. The natural tendency will be to politicise the short-term and fight for what will keep people employed. For emerging economies, it will be nearly impossible to check the demands of the growing middle class.

So again, I don't have the answer and I will argue that there may not be one that fits every political, geographic and demographic region of the world. What I DO think can make a difference would be a dollar for dollar mandate to spend on technological advancement in combating the problem, vs simply attempting to reduce the CO2 emission of the World. I do believe that the human race has the capacity to find solutions to problems that aren't necessarily answerable with what we know today. Considering that this might be the only way out of this problem, perhaps that is the best way to try and combat Global Warming.

As an afterthought, it may seem an oversight to assume that innovation will come without CO2 restrictions. I am not proposing that we must completely relax efforts to reduce emmissions, but I guess I am suggesting that these will never be enough, if the situation is as dire as many say and the pressure from developing nations will drag these efforts down. In fact innovation will be an outcome of restrictions. I am just suggesting that MORE effort on innovation is needed.

Also, I am not suggesting that Carbon Storage is NOT the answer, but I do seriously wonder what would come of spending $2 Billion in RESEARCHING alternatives to carbon emmisions that can be applied globally, than spending $2 Billion to simply bury our own small percentage of the problem.

AuthorChris LaBossiere | Comment4 Comments |
tagged , , , in ,