The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Out of sight out of mind is not the answer to carbon emissions > Comments

Out of sight out of mind is not the answer to carbon emissions : Comments

By Anita O'Callaghan, published 2/10/2008

Carbon capture and storage: 'there's only so long you can keep a fart under a doona'!

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I think stability of CO2 storage comes third in line of CCS critical failings behind the volume problem and the large energy penalty. Note that Texas has legislated to minimise liability for escape of CO2 from underground storage. Apart from climate change coal is now clearly a finite commodity. Despite claims of 200 years of reserves, the coal that is being mined now is in shallow, dry, thick continuous seams so we are picking the low hanging fruit. Recent large price increases (up to 70% a year) and the fact China is now a coal importer seem to underscore the finiteness of coal. However there is still enough to take us past atmospheric CO2 levels unprecedented for humans.

Therefore Rudd must not lose his nerve on the ETS and go for at least 25% carbon cuts by 2020. Reduce the share of the auction revenue squandered on futile CCS research. Cut the compo to trade-exposed industries as in reality most of them are still better off in Australia. I think in fact we could end up in front, not behind the rest of the world.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 2 October 2008 9:15:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do not think enough thought is given to the fact that recycling is natural. There is still the same amount of stuff on the earth but it is just in different places. Tim Flannery on Monday night in a piece of breath taking hypocrisy said how sea level were far lower 20,000 years ago without saying why? There was an Ice Age 15000 years ago but in fifty years the main ice melted and filled up the seas like Bass Strait. No one talks about this elephant in the room when Climate Change is discussed.
What you want is the power to push the rest of us around and tell us we are about to all dieand be paid for this. A prominent Melbourne climate Scientist lives at Southbank on the Yarra. Well do as you tell us not as you do and dont mention the Ice Age will you?
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 2 October 2008 9:44:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anita,

I wouldn't be so certain that biological sequestration techniques are the be-all and end-all. There's evidence, for instance, that using biochar in forested areas can increase soil microbial activity. Guess what, that releases much of the CO2 back again.

Furthermore, the insistence that geological sequestration *can't* work is a pretty big call. Aside from mineral sequestration, the fact is that natural gas fields have been storing CO2 for millions of years.

Finally, there are some essential processes - notably steelmaking - for which the only low-carbon approaches involve CCS.

So even if coal-fired power stations with CCS turn out to be a dud, we'll probably need CCS anyway.
Posted by Robert Merkel, Thursday, 2 October 2008 10:44:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In order to maintain the Earth's life support systems, we must prevent global warming from spiralling out of control." Hey, could you stop Tectonic (continental) Drift at the same time. This must be the flat earth society again you're coming from, climate change is natural, stop denying it and trying to stop a natural process. You'll want tides stopped next (and Tectonic Drift).

We need to spend money adapting to Natural Climate Change, whether it is warming or cooling, not trying to stop it. Talk about not being able to accept the bleeding obvious. Yes, it's change, accept it get on with your lives.
Posted by rpg, Thursday, 2 October 2008 10:46:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Tim Flannery on Monday night in a piece of breath taking hypocrisy..."

Tim also commented that methods to increase the carbon content of the soil (eg Agrichar, a pyrolytic residue from organic waste) have the potential to substantially, if not entirely, offset fossil carbon emissions. As a consequence the fertility of the soil is increased.

Surely such an option which is known to improve soil fertility and store carbon stably for thousands of years makes more sense than an unproven and costly technology without additional benefits?

Tim also spoke about flat earthers.....
Posted by Fester, Thursday, 2 October 2008 10:52:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe Romm has a good article on CCS at
http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/29/is-coal-with-carbon-capture-and-storage-a-core-climate-solution/
Joe identifies four fundamental problems: cost, timing, scale, and permanence and transparancy.

There is a risk that policymakers will provide CCS with a disproportionate amount of funding compared to other technologies in order to support the long term viability of Australia's coal exports. This would mean that less funding will be available for research, development, demonstration and deployment of technologies that do work or are likely to work. Technologies that are more likely to significantly reduce emissions include wind, geothermal, solar power (including solar thermal), wave power, energy efficiency, recycling and biosequestration.

If the extra funding that CCS receives is there to assist the coal export industry - and statements from senior members of government departments suggest that it is - then the funding should come from the coal industry, in the form of taxes on coal mining or coal exports.

There is nothing wrong with researching CCS but governments should not base their technology policies on "picking winners". The problems mentioned above mean that if they try this with CCS, they will end up wasting resources picking a loser.
Posted by drwoood, Thursday, 2 October 2008 12:37:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JBowyer, Anita is not paid for this - she makes large sacrifices in her life in dedication to making the biosphere a bit more sustainable for all of us (and I have never been paid a cent for climate activism either).

In contrast, there is a well documented letter-writing and net-trawling campaign paid for by the fossil fuels lobby. I'm not saying that the climate denialists on this site are paid, but it just takes a few voices of dissent to put the scientific consensus into question.

Once you all get degrees in climate science and get your theories about natural climate change published in peer-reviewed journals I'll be pay more attention to you than the entire scientific world (contrary to popular thought there is no real disagreement among climate scientists that climate change is happening and caused by human activity - there have been numerous studies which have shown that no peer-reviewed article in the past decade questions this assumption).

Tectonic plate movements do not put the majority of life on earth at risk - climate change does, and what's more, we can do something about it.

As Ross Garnaut said in his report this week, CCS doesn't have much time left to prove itself. If it can't, we need to know as quickly as possible so that we can begin an immediate transition to technologies which already exist. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to wait around to find out.
Posted by hopeleft, Thursday, 2 October 2008 12:38:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rudd loves to talk about making the tough decisions, but in reality his economic conservatism will see him going out of his way to help Australia's worst polluters and the lazy CEO's of Australian industry.

Kevin's efforts to accellerate renewables is highly questionable - the solar industry is in great uncertainty. Any realist can see that the cost, inefficiency and high risk of capturing burning coal gas and piping it into a suitable geological storage facility on a massive scale, is a moronic idea that is doomed to fail at huge expense to taxpayers.

This flawed policy comes at a catastrophic opportunity cost to the future quality of life on our planet. Rudd should be asking the coal industry to put up the proof of CO2 storage with their own R&D money, or face the inevitable wind up to a clearly, unsustainable resource.

The sickening realisation for many Australians is that Rudd is a Howard clone in so many ways. Concern at Rudd's handling of climate change will motivate tens of thousands of people to join the walk against warming rallies later this year. The message to Canberra is that Rudd has blown it - and he and his government will be held to account for his arrogance. My suggestion to Federal Labor would be to dump Rudd for Gillard as soon as possible and change direction before it's too late.
Posted by Quick response, Thursday, 2 October 2008 2:40:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now that the boom is looking shaky Governments are no longer going to accept the soothsayers who predict doom and gloom with very debatable (certainly not scientific) evidence of global warming. Anita obviously wasn't around when we went through the 'ice age' doom and gloom predictions in the 70's. Some of the same 'scientist' no doubt kept their funding by towing the line (a lie). As the young ones would say today we should just 'chill' a bit. Their are enough real issues facing people without inventing a few more.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 2 October 2008 3:48:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The whole argument is Hypocrisy Festa;
When Policies are set by morons who have suffered the indignity of having their intelligence removed through years of Proletariat full on frontal lobotomy’s at Universities; you can only expect to end up with a new age Idiot class of Looting witchdoctors , who's intent, and training are but Agitprop Post Hock Drivle, PhD’s in Lies and thievery –
You can say; In Fact – at least an armed robber is distinguishable and acts in an overt manor – These New Aged Proletariat Non National Socialist Armed Robbers act in a covert and in their clandestine mannerisms ; using propaganda and generational brain washing , and Rob you by Statute ,can now go about robbing you of any wealth ; as well as robbing you of your brains.
The biggest and natural CO2 spung is earth and water ; less the CO2 fused by natural means ,that then becomes CO3 ; oooo yes ; OZON;- Now whooodathunk it.

No money in my bank account for being honest ay- Post moderism is great if you are a looter.
Posted by All-, Thursday, 2 October 2008 7:03:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Farts, doonas, bungees, fake jewelry, teenage boys' rooms, cupboards, black holes...Forget carbon, urgent metaphor sequestration required. A revealing insight into where the interests of the Youth Climate Coalition really lie. Have fun, kids.
Posted by fungochumley, Thursday, 2 October 2008 7:39:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hopeleft - Anita is running a social club, lots of folks do that in our society without being paid, see Rotary, Lions etc.

It's good to hear you're not being paid for activism, why is that relevant - or is to prepare for the snide comment "I'm not saying that the climate denialists on this site are paid, but it just takes a few voices of dissent to put the scientific consensus into question." Some folks are just motivated by what they see as common sense, I don't need to be paid to say that your consensus is not real. If it was real, then there would be no dissent - obviously. So there is some doubt, which is healthy in science. Climate denialist - no, I'm not a climate denialist - what on earth would that be? Someone who says there is no weather? I'm a Man Made Climate Change skeptic, just as you are a Natural Climate Change Denier (or skeptic, except you're not skeptical are you - you really are in denial that there is a natural process)

Tectonic Plate movements do put a lot of life at risk, think volcanoes, or tsunamis - there was a tsunami some years ago Boxing Day 2006 that killed over 100,000 people.

I hope you don't wait around to find out. It's good for people to have a hobby, you should enjoy it - but leave the paranoia out of it, not everyone who thinks differently to you is being paid off by the fossil fuels lobby, that's verging on delusional.
Posted by rpg, Friday, 3 October 2008 5:13:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg

If you see your scepticism as common sense, then say why. What is frustrating is to see sceptics like yourself paint their position as sensible, yet offer previously debunked reasons or no reasons as justification. This now seems to be the case with biosequestration, with Robert Merkel raising a couple of phoney arguments, which I will respond to.

"the fact is that natural gas fields have been storing CO2 for millions of years"

This is a bit like finding an intact ancient Greek olive jar on the seabed and concluding that ancient Greek olive jars last for thousands of years. The fact is that most natural gas escapes, and a gas field is the exception.

"There's evidence, for instance, that using biochar in forested areas can increase soil microbial activity. Guess what, that releases much of the CO2 back again."

Research has been done to compare the carbon loss from degraded agricultural soils with and without the addition of charcoal, and using natural forest as a control. The researchers found that while the agricultural land released more carbon than the forest, the charcoal treated soil released 2.75 t/ha/yr less carbon than the untreated soil.

http://ciifad.cornell.edu/activities/initiatives/biocomplexity/kimetu/kimetu0407iaipster.pdf
Posted by Fester, Friday, 3 October 2008 8:49:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Even if there is no global warming,or it is natural,or if we cannot do anything about it,do we still want to use ALL the fossil fuels so quickly?.
Use fossil fuels less,they will last longer.
Use solar instead ,it will last 1000,000,000 years if we use it or not.
Posted by undidly, Friday, 3 October 2008 11:08:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg,
I'm not saying that all climate change denialists are paid by the fossil fuels lobby - I'm saying that some historically have been.
I'm am not a natural climate change sceptic - it happens, and the scientific consensus agrees with that. The scientific consensus also agrees that this natural process is being augmented by human activity (little surprise when you consider that in the last century and a half, we have destroyed almost all the forests, mined almost all of the easily accessible fossil fuels, polluted the oceans and emitted all sorts of synthetic pollutants into the atmosphere. Not all of these things cause climate change, but it is little wonder that our activity has had some effect).
I think most sceptics would be horrified at the way in which people brand themselves as sceptics today. Scepticism is a time-worn and respectable tradition which says that truth claims about the world need to be verified through experiment and that hypotheses need to be tested rather than relying on blind faith. The hypothesis about anthropogenic climate change has been verified so far in that the expected changes according to the hypothesis have now been observed in reality.
Denialism is something completely different - it's to stare the whole body of scientific research in the face and refuse to accept it based on blind faith in the ability of the Earth to cope with what we have done to it, or a fear of the consequences of our actions. IF we can get over our fears then there is a small chance that we can act in a way which could save the biosphere.
I never argued that tectonic plate movements don't kill large numbers of people, I said that they don't put the majority of life at risk. Strawman arguments do not lead to healthy debate.

How about this - even if you disagree that human actions are causing climate change, what's wrong with the large-scale roll-out of renewable energy to replace coal? Look at it as a positive opportunity rather than an economy-destroying theory.
Posted by hopeleft, Friday, 3 October 2008 11:48:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hopeleft you are following in the footsteps of Tim Flannery. All the projections have been based on computer modeling and that is breathtaking in itself. The metrological people cannot even get tommorows forecast right so we are suppossed to trust 10, 20 years hence? The last ten years the temperatures have been stable.
Over thirty years ago Sting confidentally predicted the Amazon rain forest would be gone by 2000 and in the late 1990's the year 2000 bug would destroy computers. I have heard this fluff all my life (Born 1947), that we are all going to die very soon but! It will happen to me and it will happen to you eventually but these silly hysterical scares do not bother me one bit lol. You enjoy yourself and if you ever have a minute read the story of Don Quixote there is a lesson there for you and the other kids.
Posted by JBowyer, Friday, 3 October 2008 12:58:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JBowyer:
I understand that climate science is a confusing minefield. I'll try to respond point by point:
* There is a big difference between weather and climate. Often people respond to climate change by saying "Ah yes, but this January was hotter than last January" (in fact, the Australian even made similar claims this year). The obvious problem here is that climate change has to do with long-term trends, not the meteorigical forecast for tomorrow.
* Regarding your claim that the past decade's temperatures have been stable: the facts are clear enough. The NASA global surface temperature record shows that the decade spanning the 1980s was, on average, +0.26C above the 1950-1980 reference period. The 1990s were +0.402 degrees Celsius (C) warmer, and the ‘cooler’ 2000s (through to June 2008) have been +0.625C hotter than the reference period. The global warming rate from the 1980s to 1990s was +0.141C per decade and has increased to +0.223C per decade in the first decade of this century. This is cross-confirmed by the other three global temperature monitors. Furthermore, this concerns global average temperatures, which smooths out the extreme differences. The number of extreme weather events has also multiplied in the past 15 years.
* It would be a different story if we were referring to a theory which was shown by history to be wrong (for example, the more alarmist claims about the effects of the Y2K bug). Unfortunately, the most "alarmist" claims about climate change have been shown to be far too conservative, particularly with regards to Arctic ice melt. Last week's global greenhouse emissions summary was shown to be worse than the worst-case scenario predicted by the IPCC. I'm not saying these things to be alarmist, but simply to demonstrate that the reality of what is *currently happening* in terms of climate change and greenhouse emissions (i.e. not disputable and easily observable) is not comforting. It is an alarming situation, but we need to respond with action rather than fear.
Posted by hopeleft, Friday, 3 October 2008 2:26:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hopeleft - I see JBower has played into your hands by responding on why your denial of natural climate change is irrelevant - it gives you the chance to attack him with your strange logic, to be disparaging and to quote all sorts of things to back up your own faith, you're clutching at straws and looks it even from afar. If it's all so obvious, why are you in such a flap about it?

My own "common sense" which fester demands I back up with data (so you can attack it, I presume) is the result of living through multiple scares, being frightened as a child of things alarmists of the day bleated on about. I didn't develop common sense by reading articles or papers by scientists with personal gains at stake, who sold books (Tim Flannery) or made PowerPoint Movies (Al Gore) as you seem to. It was living through all this and studying history and realising there have always been false prophets, and they are always wrong - no one can predict the future.

You cherry pick events to suit your panic - it's all too familiar to me and others like me who look at these things and see them for what they are - natural events we have no control over and get on with our lives. I feel sorry for you, as some time in the future when you realise it's all been for nought, your religious zeal, your campaign for the climate to stop as you demand it should do, for all the countries in the world to stop and pay attention to some spoiled brats from down under who demand everyone look at them, because they're right (what egos you have), comes to nothing.

Renewable energy, like Nuclear? Really that's the only AVAILABLE energy resource we have, but that's not palatable to the religious deniers is it? Or are you talking about some future energy that we'll invent and everyone will be happy, come on, really do you believe that? Fairies at the bottom of the garden?
Posted by rpg, Friday, 3 October 2008 8:13:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you RPG, you said all I wanted to say although spoiled brats is a bit much. Pretentious adolescents would be better, yes I know it's the same but it sounds better. These brats need all the education we can drill into them.
Posted by JBowyer, Friday, 3 October 2008 10:46:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder of Anita knows what a Luddite is? Maybe she should read "Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide" published in 2004 by the Geological Society in the UK - special publication 233. And maybe she needs to understand that new technologies often take years to prove that they do or don't work, so one has to wonder why she's not prepared to give carbon capture and sequestration a chance to prove itself, one way or the other.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Monday, 6 October 2008 7:16:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Surely the question is specification writing? How much carbon per kw/hr will your 2012 then 2020 power station produce? Then all else being equal, even if you sequestrate successfully and yet your competitor produces zero or less, you still lose and the lesser carbon emitter wins?

Zero beats farts under the doona anytime?
Posted by SapperK9, Monday, 6 October 2008 9:25:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In reply to rpg, nobody is proposing technologies that don't exist yet. Today's renewable technologies can supply 100% of our energy. This was not the case 5 years ago. However, if this wasn't the case, surely we'd still choose the biosphere.
You believe that climate change is a myth, but you'll excuse me if I believe the overwhelming scientific and public opinion instead of somebody I have never met from an internet forum.
In reply to JBowyer, I am neither adolescent nor pretentious (not that that is any excuse for ageism - we should not dismiss our younger people). As far as I understand education, it's about a search for empirical knowledge, rather than a grab for whatever conspiracy theory is winning the day.
In response to Bernie, thank you for your post. It seems to be a lot more civil than many of the posts here. I think it would be fantastic if geosequestration were available in time. Unfortunately, for the moment we need to urgently reduce our greenhouse gas emissions using currently available technologies. If sequestration becomes available in twenty years' time, then we can use it then, but we need to reduce emissions now, not in twenty years' time.
Thanks for your pragmatism, SapperK9.
Posted by hopeleft, Monday, 6 October 2008 9:39:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hopeleft, I think the current global recession which we're just entering into will do more to reduce the rate of increase of GHG emissions than all the ETS schemes that are currently being talked about. It should buy us time to come up with the technological advances that I'm confident are just around the corner (but there still remains the need for political support of course).
Posted by Bernie Masters, Monday, 6 October 2008 9:58:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hopeleft - every day in the media are stories proclaiming that we'll all get rich by selling new technologies to reduce CO2 footprint, so we should all get on board, look around. These are the technologies that don't yet exist, that we want to set up research centres to develop, it's exactly what people are proposing. Maybe you personally are not, but it's what endless media time is spent on.

In fact no one is saying we should sell existing technologies overseas, we don't have any - and the sequestration thing is a failure so far, we can't keep CO2 underground, the dang stuff leaks out! If there was something better, we wouldn't be trying something as flaky as CCS.

The existing technologies cannot supply 100% of our requirements, there is no room, or infrastructure or many other reasons - but the bottom line is cost - the existing technologies cannot compete, ergo they are not good enough yet. Are you seriously saying there is technology, deployable today that could supply the energy needs out into the future of Sydney? That's great, you should share it with the rest of us as no one else seems to know about it. Just repeating as a mantra "but we have the technologies now" will not make it a world saver, you have to actually do stuff to be successful, not just talk.
Posted by rpg, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 12:46:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy