IPCC endorses carbon capture and storage 27 September 05

We have to have a solution focus which is pragmatic and that may include many conceptual modes because the only way to have large populations of humans with any form of civilization intact is to employ as many means as possible at this global problem sooner than later.

Just like earth’s thermal inertia, our collective infrastructures can only change so quickly and I think that if we can reduce fossil fuel energy-use ahead of peak oil, then we are doing a good job. This still may not be sufficient but we cannot eliminate fossil fuels quickly or reduce our populations based on natural deaths quickly.

World population is still increasing and that may be the “real” problem which requires some control. The more we make the world livable, then the more people there are to gobble up the planet’s resources. As an engineer, I cannot solve this part of the equation but it does aggravate all aspects of a solution focus.

Moving to more renewable forms of energy is part of the long-term solution. In the meantime, increasing energy efficiency of our carbon sources, reducing their use, and sequestering that carbon may be vitally needed.

The mineral sequestration process seems to have other problems you brought to light but if those minerals are sequestered in the form of reflective road pavement, then this adds additional modalities to offsetting the earth’s heat imbalance.

I promote ideas which can have a greater impact. Using reflective minerals for road pavement sequesters carbon, reflects heat to space, and reduces emissions from reducing urban heat islands from the associated energy used for cooling which will increase further with GW. An assessment of the added value of a systems approach of using ideas along many modalities would be prudent.

I think that the acid test is that if we prevent sea level rise, then we win. Otherwise, we loose.

The fact that oil and natural gas are going to peak will influence the process to reduce fossil fuel use and encourage renewable energy more than altruistic forces will. You already know that pain.

It is all in the numbers Mark. What will it take to prevent large-scale sea level rise? What is the best way for us to get there? If we fail that, then it does not matter anymore about the side effects of employing solution concepts now which are not completely perfect.

Mark, if you have a pragmatic plan which you know can get us there, then I would love to hear it.

If we could ever prevent sea level rise, then at least humanity might stand a chance at developing a 90 percent renewable mode of energy utilization for later centuries.

We have no choice but to become more in balance with the planet but we may have to make decisions in this transition period which require a counter-balance to the damage we already caused.

It would help if we had world leadership to focus more of our resources in the right direction. I tend to think that any cost-effective way of decreasing the earth’s heat imbalance should be employed. We lack sufficient time and anything which can buy us more time is essential in my opinion.

I appreciate your ecological focus because that is so important. As your engineer on board, I say we have to choose the lesser of evils which help us prevent irreversible conditions that eliminate any options we may have left.

I think we just have to bite the bullet on some things we may have to do now and not overly procrastinate since we may be running out of time. Time is something we need to have more of to reduce emissions and build the world you and I want to see happen. More action sooner at all levels seems prudent if we are getting closer to runaway conditions.

One practical insight Mark is we haven’t even gone to the point of reducing our current annual emissions let alone the buildup of carbon which is really driving us to the brink.

Sequestration may be important enough even if we could accelerate the process to renewable energy with no emissions. We may have to go after the current carbon buildup at some point and that may require sequestration ideas including planting more trees.

All the very best,

Dan

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=00000819-0BA7-1306-8A6883414B7F0000

we could do with lots of these. When you end up with a skip-load of algae, the auther wonder what to do with it: use it as a fuel? How about mixing it with compost/waste fabrics/sawdust and using it as a soil conditioner to lock the carbon away in the soil again?

C’mon guys, the technology is out there!

cheers

Colin

We have to be pragmatic to move from talk to action.

What should be borne in mind with Carbon capture and storage is that:

1. Gas fields have held gas for many millions of years. There’s no reason why they shouldn’t hold carbon dioxide.

2. Below a certain depth (somewhere between 1 & 2 km) carbon dioxide is more dense than water, so it will stay down anyway.

3. less than a few grams of high level radioactive wast can be lethal. This cannot be said of carbon dioxide – the analogy is rather scare mongering.

4. By combining carbon capture and storage with biomass firing/co-firing, power plants could be designed (with currently available technology!) to provide net atmospheric REDUCTIONS in carbon dioxide.

Best Regards Martin

But Colin,

would the decomposing algae not emit methane which is 300 or so times more GHG potent than the carbon dioxide its just mopped up?

Martin

In which case, processing with other vegetable wastes such as domestic kitchen wastes in an anaerobic digester could yield Methane as a fuel, before the residue was composted or put through vermiculture.

A deserving case for some R&D funding to see what options are viable. Just burning it as a fuel, re-releases the recently captured atmospheric Carbon. It would be better if it could be returned as a soil conditioner for a much slower rate of release through biological decomposition. If this could be done, then there would be a small net reduction in the atmospheric carbon content over time.

Let’s hope someone takes it up and explores the possibilities.

regards

Colin

Dear Mark,

The urgency of climate change does not not allow us the luxury of excluding any option that reduces the levels of co2 in the atmosphere. However, as a society our focus should be on the transition to sustainable energy. Public investments should therefor be focussed on the transition to sustainable energy. CCS should be left to the companies emiting co2. This approach (in which companies rather than government pay for CCS) also fits within the principles of “internalisation of costs” and the “polluter pays”.

regards, Donald

Either way, it’s the same person who pays in the end.

The energy consumer – given that all taxpayers are energy consumers.

However, if the generators pay, it will be passed on as increased electricity prices – so those of us who use more energy pay more which is fairer than all taxpayers stumping up equal amounts. In that respect I agree.

In terms of a move to sustainable energy, CCS buys us time, which could well be in very short supply. CCS is in an early stage of development, and as such is expensive to impliment – competitive with the best renewables – but could become significantly cheaper with R&D achievements and once a few have been built. It needs some government support to get it off the ground. i.e. government funding for the advancement of technology & to help offset the very high risks in being amongst the first to impliment.

According to the Tyndall center, everyone must drop to zero emissions in the UK if emissions from aviation are to continue at current levels.

http://www.e-collaboration.co.uk/tyndall/media/news/tyndall_decarbonising_the_uk.pdf

I doubt this is likely to be achievable without CCS for quite some time to come.

I also doubt an appetite in the UK to give up low cost airlines.

Martin