carbon capture is billions of waste JUST LIKE the synfuels fiasco of the carter administration.
There is NO scarcity of carbon as an input in industrial processes. so producing it through the MOST inefficient means , just like making FUEL OUT OF ETHANOL , is not just unprofitable and dumb, but environmentally destructive and stupid.
capturing carbon is just making it more expensive to burn more carbon based fuel. capturing carbon means you are getting a lower EROI on the input energy. so you are actually winding up getting a more carbon intensive energy production as a result Albeit ----some of that carbon is going to be 'captured'. BUT this means the more carbon capture you achieve, the more carbon intensive your energy source!!!!! moral hazard anyone?
the support for carbon capture amongst the greenies is one of the best examples of internal inconsistency and thoughtlessness amongst the greens. the total rejection of nuclear power on any and all terms, is the another.
but let's get on with it.
consider that all this 'captured carbon' will just be magically stored underground or somewhere else it won't escape for a 100 million years. MASSIVE VOLUMES in the atmosphere, cheaply and easily 'CAPTURED' and now of course, we assume it can all be stored perfectly. just like nuclear waste right!?
no. that was sarcasm. c02 sequestration is the biggest joke of all. despite the nonexistence of effective sequestration methods ( which all COST ENERGY, and are thus more carbon intensive ) ------why not assume it already exist.
ok what then, consider that within 100 years, any given earthquake let alone the basic erosion of nature will eventually lead to this carbon somehow coming back to the atmosphere one way or another.
so now , the final piece of stupidity is introduced, let's take the carbon and use it for industrial production instead of sequestering it. yes , PERFECT!!!!! LET'S INVENT NEW THINGS THAT DON'T EXIST AND ARE UNPROFITEABLE EVEN IF THEY DID AND USE THE MOST EXPENSIVE THEORETICAL SOURCE OF INPUTS OF CARBON TO MAKE THEM.
this is how sovietized economies reason, based on a goal centric output, rejecting ALL COMMON SENSE about investment to achieve the perfect recipe for optimal levels of destructive malinvestment.
-----------------------
let me break it down for you liberals. the only effective way to sequester carbon is to plant trees, or otherwise encourage nature to run her own course (perhaps by stopping clearcutting trees to begin with) , because natures' course naturally consumes oxygen and sequesters carbon by way of...THE CARBON CYCLE!. seeding the ocean with iron for algea has not worked because our science is lacking in the area. we know SO LITTLE about the ocean, including to what extent it controls our atmosphere. YES, every year a whole new ton of research comes out about the oceans previously unknown influences on the atmosphere. why is this? because it is deep and huge. and so much of the ocean has not been subject to study without physical penetration in many different simultaneous locations ( like the worlds biggest scientific gang bang ) . Only now are we even beginning to understand ocean currents below the surface of the ocean ( where 99.999 percent of the ocean's water exists )
as for carbon, capturing it from smokestacks is just stupid. It is uneconomical let alone more carbon intensive. please by all means continue to pursue your interests in renewable energies. but stop being dumb. carbon capture for the sake of smoke stack 'cleansing' is a cruel joke.
Maybe there's a coherent train of thought in here. But the random ALL CAPS and unnecessary politicization ("let me break it down for you liberals") just makes your entire comment come off as "THANKS OBAMA".
There is NO scarcity of carbon as an input in industrial processes. so producing it through the MOST inefficient means , just like making FUEL OUT OF ETHANOL , is not just unprofitable and dumb, but environmentally destructive and stupid.
capturing carbon is just making it more expensive to burn more carbon based fuel. capturing carbon means you are getting a lower EROI on the input energy. so you are actually winding up getting a more carbon intensive energy production as a result Albeit ----some of that carbon is going to be 'captured'. BUT this means the more carbon capture you achieve, the more carbon intensive your energy source!!!!! moral hazard anyone?
the support for carbon capture amongst the greenies is one of the best examples of internal inconsistency and thoughtlessness amongst the greens. the total rejection of nuclear power on any and all terms, is the another.
but let's get on with it. consider that all this 'captured carbon' will just be magically stored underground or somewhere else it won't escape for a 100 million years. MASSIVE VOLUMES in the atmosphere, cheaply and easily 'CAPTURED' and now of course, we assume it can all be stored perfectly. just like nuclear waste right!?
no. that was sarcasm. c02 sequestration is the biggest joke of all. despite the nonexistence of effective sequestration methods ( which all COST ENERGY, and are thus more carbon intensive ) ------why not assume it already exist.
ok what then, consider that within 100 years, any given earthquake let alone the basic erosion of nature will eventually lead to this carbon somehow coming back to the atmosphere one way or another.
so now , the final piece of stupidity is introduced, let's take the carbon and use it for industrial production instead of sequestering it. yes , PERFECT!!!!! LET'S INVENT NEW THINGS THAT DON'T EXIST AND ARE UNPROFITEABLE EVEN IF THEY DID AND USE THE MOST EXPENSIVE THEORETICAL SOURCE OF INPUTS OF CARBON TO MAKE THEM.
this is how sovietized economies reason, based on a goal centric output, rejecting ALL COMMON SENSE about investment to achieve the perfect recipe for optimal levels of destructive malinvestment.
-----------------------
let me break it down for you liberals. the only effective way to sequester carbon is to plant trees, or otherwise encourage nature to run her own course (perhaps by stopping clearcutting trees to begin with) , because natures' course naturally consumes oxygen and sequesters carbon by way of...THE CARBON CYCLE!. seeding the ocean with iron for algea has not worked because our science is lacking in the area. we know SO LITTLE about the ocean, including to what extent it controls our atmosphere. YES, every year a whole new ton of research comes out about the oceans previously unknown influences on the atmosphere. why is this? because it is deep and huge. and so much of the ocean has not been subject to study without physical penetration in many different simultaneous locations ( like the worlds biggest scientific gang bang ) . Only now are we even beginning to understand ocean currents below the surface of the ocean ( where 99.999 percent of the ocean's water exists )
as for carbon, capturing it from smokestacks is just stupid. It is uneconomical let alone more carbon intensive. please by all means continue to pursue your interests in renewable energies. but stop being dumb. carbon capture for the sake of smoke stack 'cleansing' is a cruel joke.