hello, I'm new here and just introduced myself in the other forum. I noticed this one, and tought I should share this with you guys. I work as a graphics designer in Belgian National Institute Of Natural Sciences, and am currently working with a team of scientists on the subject of Carbon Capture and Storage. in short, this means we are going to capture the CO2 from the major emitting Companies in Belgium, transport this, and store the captured, filterd CO2 in the ground. In old coalmines, aquifers, emptied gass-pits, ... We understand this is not an ultimate sollution. But you must see it in this way: All stored co2 is co2 not emitted in the environment. So emitted gass is less. In a few years (the faster the better), we hopefully will reach the goals of emitting less co2, so the environment can maintain stable. The stored co2 WILL eventually get back at the surface (speaking of hundreds or even thousends of years), but by the time it does, co2 emition will be much lower, so environment will be able to handle it. So it's not a sollution to get rid of co2, it just gives us more time to find effective sollutions for pushing down emitions. Here in Belgium, many people think it's a bad idea, and the complain and have actions and petitions for the locations where we want to store co2. The complain it being dangerous. Many people think co2 is like poisoned gass, or even can explode. but co2 is an inert gass (means it can't explode), and isn't poison. so it's not even dangerous at all. So many of our projects are being held back. ... what is your vision on this topic? and maybe your country's vision? regards and hope you understand my basic english Olivier
more atmospheric CO2 = more food for plants Nature will take up the slack like it always has done, the last time atmospheric CO2 levels were this low was when trees evolved. All capture / storage is going to do is create a new industry to service existing industry with something it doesn't need, kind of socialism by the back door if you look at it that way.
That's true. but envcironment can only handle a certain amount of co2 to consume in a certain time. all co2 more in the air, is co2 too much. so we need to go back to a lower amount of co2 that environment can handle, and therefor we need to decrease co2 production, so when stored co2 starts "leaking" in the air again, it won't do harm, because environment will then be able to handle it. so storage isn't that bad. true, it creates an industry and there is a huge economic advantage/disadvantage. but when viewed in an ecological point of view, it will be nessecary in coming years. I think it's the only sollution to get us some time to "invent" more ecological ways of living.
how much energy does it take (and waste create) to transport and store the CO2? I just wish we could find a way to neutralize it.
Welcome Oliver. I know the people who work with government efforts on climate issues are in a very uncomfortable position. I have acquaintances at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colo. USA. What we are focusing on here is sequestration, which is allowing the trees and plants to hold/use the CO2. Since biofuels are rising, that really is temporary. Grow the plant, burn the plant, re-releasing the carbon dioxide. I philosophically think that we should look at getting the CO2 back into the cycle, not simple storage where the gas just sits. I'm not up on the pro or con of storage, however.
storage of carbon is a waste of time why? because it takes more coal to produce power which is very good if you are selling coal. a powerstation has to use power to compress the waste gasses and then pump them deep into the earth. adding these systems to powerstations creates many complications that will affect the effciency of the powerstation. take it from me i have some first hand experience in this subject. it is more effcicient to produce power from the sun and wind than buggerise around with coal and radioactive sources.
So if the power is produced by renewables, where does that lead us, guy? I'm reading about electroreduction of CO2, and it seems the byproducts could become formic fuel cells, so that iPod would not have batteries that conk out in a couple years, requiring replacement.
