Belly>> SOG I will continue to like you as an Irish bloke.
And laugh about your views and assurance you can contribute so powerfully to debate by ignoring truth, science and common sense.
Well done!<<

Faster than a speeding acolyte,
More powerful than an indoctrinated babble,
Able to leap small minds with a single bound,
Look…., down in the colonies, it’s a bird, it’s a plane,
It’s the Irish Bloke,
Strange visitor from another continent with powers and abilities far beyond simple souls,
The Irish Bloke….who can change the course of mighty propagandists,
Bend policy in with his mighty keyboard,
And who disguised as Sonofgloin hangs around OLO because thus far his IPP has not been blocked.

Luv you Belly, you’re a funny bloke china….are you a protestant?

579>> The major players in wind and solar are the power generators, where there is no carbon tax.
There is no reason for this move to change, while we have a carbon tax and forecast to get dearer. That is a pretty good reason.<<

579 old fruit, wind and solar generators are subsidized by the governments of their host nation. Without the citizens taxes there would be no industry.

Financially, wind energy is a losing proposition for most everyone who does not directly profit from the manufacture, siting, servicing, removal, financing or taxing of turbines. So everybody in the loop gains except the consumer/taxpayer.

We would be better off taking the money spent on Wind Turbines incentives and devote all those resources to planting trees that would sequester carbon, and simply forgo the huge hidden carbon footprint associated with turbines.

But that won’t happen, because band wagon jumping has become a religion of itself, saves thinking.

Will take more than trees to sequester carbon, There is no sideline occupation to justify the use of fossil fuel.
Do the power generators get govt; assistance for turbines, i can't see that. One of them is a NZ power company.
Old growth trees take in little to no carbon, it's the newly generating growth that needs carbon. maybe we need more bush fires.
There is no quick fix, Stop the co2 quickly as possible, especially brown coal as it is worse than black coal.

Yet despite all of the benefits and precautions being taken, the fact remains that there are still too many uncertainties and potential dangers attached to carbon sequestration and this process should not be used or promoted. One possible threat is very important to consider, largely due to the fact that it is likely to manifest itself into a very real problem. Carbon sequestration has the capability of changing the chemical composition and habitable qualities of the oceans.

These alterations might sound impossible or extreme, but they have a very high likelihood of occurrence, and if they take place, the consequences would be severe. Even if companies check to make sure that there are no faults or weak spots within the areas where the CO2 would be stored, there is always the possibility of change. The earth’s plates shift and move, and pressures can build beyond expected measurements. Life and nature change. Such flexibility is part of their very definition. And if the security that an oil company was depending upon alters, the company’s actions will not only affect themselves, but the whole world. Deep-sea life is extremely sensitive to change. As Seibel and Walsh stated in their article “Potential Impacts of CO2 Injection on Deep-Sea Biota,” “…in the deep sea they [CO2 concentration and pH] have been stable for thousands of years, and organisms are highly attuned to this stability.” The steady leak of CO2 into this secure environment would throw this balance into chaos. An increase in CO2 would make it much harder for seas life to receive the needed amount of oxygen, which would put their survival under a strain. They would have to work harder to acquire the necessary levels of oxygen, yet higher CO2 levels also decrease their metabolism rate, and as a result, the rate at which they move and function. Creatures’ abilities to synthesize protein would also decrease, which could negatively impact their ability to use their muscles and their means of mobility.

If CO2 levels continued to be released into the water, deep sea life would be fighting to maintain cellular pH and chemical balance, but eventually the strain would become too much. The ocean’s chemical balance would be altered, and mass death of sea life would occur. Not only would these extinctions be a tragedy in themselves, but this change would also affect people around the globe. Fishermen might face an end to their occupation, and sea food, a large source of nourishment for much of the world, would become severely strained. This scenario might sound a bit drastic, but taking another look the situation shows it is possible. Many of the companies interested in using carbon sequestration are intending to store anywhere from 8,000-14 million tons of carbon underground. That is 14 million for just one company. There are multiple companies looking at carbon sequestration as an alternative to releasing the gas in the air. If all of this carbon was stored underground and under the ocean, the scene created above does not seem so absurd.
Not only is marine life potentially threatened by carbon sequestration, but human life as well. If CO2 rapidly escaped from its storage pockets, it “could result in low-lying areas near the breach filling with CO2 and people becoming asphyxiated” (Dow-Jones, 3). This sounds like a good premise for a horror movie, but a real-life threat? Come on, right? This actually has happened though, and the loss of life was incredible.
The year was 1986, the scene of the tragedy was Lake Nyos in Cameroon. People were going about their daily lives when death struck; a large amount of CO2 exploded from Lake Nyos and more than 1,700 people died. When medical examiners came upon the scene they found bodies sprawled everywhere, many with clothes shredded and half-torn, a last attempt to relieve the suffocation of asphyxiation. Cattle had died, and those who had survived had been a comatose state for hours. Skin was seared, bronchial tubes were burnt, and lungs filled with fluid. It was surely a quick way to die.

579>> The year was 1986, the scene of the tragedy was Lake Nyos in Cameroon.
a large amount of CO2 exploded from Lake Nyos and more than 1,700 people died.<<

What did you throw that in for? What does it mean?

A 400 year build up of CO2 generated by magma explodes into a cubic kilometer of gas weighing up to 300,000 tons and you are its neighbour...of course it going to kill you....in that volume so will the vast majority of gasses on the periodic table .

You heart string puller you 579.....Horrible CO2...no matter that it protects us against that vile rust and decay promoter Oxygen.