tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post4377555688419677045..comments2024-03-26T21:47:45.016+00:00Comments on MEI's Barry Wills: Carbon Capture and Storage: more research, or none at all?MEIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14834780351452765156noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-22391283453027093262015-03-24T11:08:20.912+00:002015-03-24T11:08:20.912+00:00Thanks Charles. An excellent response to The Times...Thanks Charles. An excellent response to The Times discussionsMEIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834780351452765156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-7469880118475837452015-03-24T11:04:39.949+00:002015-03-24T11:04:39.949+00:00Thanks Rafael. I like your analogy with wastewater...Thanks Rafael. I like your analogy with wastewater treatmentMEIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834780351452765156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-33089872002308704632015-03-24T00:53:05.486+00:002015-03-24T00:53:05.486+00:00Views attributed to Matt Ridley and Frederick Bell...Views attributed to Matt Ridley and Frederick Bellringer underline the confusion that surrounds climate change risk management and the uncertainty as to climate change outcomes in the minds of the public and voters; even those that have a scientific background. Such narrow vision is regrettable and parallels some of the arguments raised by fossil fuel power generators with the goal of resisting rapid and necessary change. It is doubly regrettable because the fossil fuel power generators will be major beneficiaries of a shift to lower carbon intensity. And they do not have to be subsidised with tax-payer money to achieve it.<br /><br />In my view the technologies needed to dramatically reduce carbon intensity, including CCS, are available today. In addition the most sensible solution to climate change risk includes maintaining access to fossil fuel power generation; the climate risk problem is not caused by burning coal and gas, it is caused by releasing the associated CO2 to the atmosphere and thereby to the seas. The notion that adding CCS reduces the efficiency and net generating capacity of a power station is quite wrong; it can be done without affecting power station performance other than in eliminating its CO2 emissions.<br /><br />A narrow examination of the cost of CCS will conclude it to be expensive; examination of the potential consequences and costs of climate change, and the uncertainty (which includes that the outcome might be worse than predicted) indicates those impacts will far outweigh the cost of CCS; impacts will not only be rising temperature and sea levels but also a rise in refugees displaced by lack of food and water, damage to cities and infrastructure by extreme weather and increased geopolitical instability.<br /><br />Neither fossil fuel use nor CCS need be forever, but they both need to be for now and the next 50+ years. CCS needs to start now, not after the next election, not in 5 years time, but now.<br /><br />Governments should encourage the new technologies of a low-carbon future by participating in international agreements and setting legislation such that private sector solutions are encouraged; this is governments' job and government can and should provide the necessary framework without use of tax-payer funded subsidies. The reality is that low-carbon energy technologies including CCS, in addition to combating climate change, will underpin development of a new energy industry sector worldwide. Consumers ultimately meet the costs of CCS in the goods that they need to buy, but they will find those cost affordable because the shift to low carbon energy outcomes, with the proper vision and commitment, will serve them well. Massive investment is needed for this transition and rather than being a burden it will create a new industrial activity with profitable businesses, jobs, economic growth, higher standards of living, greater equality and less poverty.<br /><br />Problems are not solved by waiting for perfect solutions and certain outcomes - it's time for government and the private sector to do their respective jobs and for the end consumers to show both sectors what they expect through the ballot box, their purchase decisions and their investment decisions. Sensible solutions exist, we need to use them.<br /><br />Charles U Jones<br />Resources&Energy Evolutions<br />Melbourne Australia<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-49378038994675174602015-03-24T00:13:16.470+00:002015-03-24T00:13:16.470+00:00Here's a way of thinking about the problem.
T...Here's a way of thinking about the problem.<br /><br />Today I asked the following question to my students on a test: "Explain how wastewater treatment mimics nature?". This question stems from the fact that wastewater treatment processes are accelerated versions of "treatment" processes that happen in nature: sedimentation, biological decomposition, adsorption, etc.<br /><br />What engineers have done is taken those natural processes and put them to work in plants all over the world. We could, rather, pipeline all wastewater to "storage" sites, such as lakes and oceans. In fact this is still done in many places. At first this works, but eventually the resulting environmental problems force us to find better solutions.<br /><br />The same story applies to CO2. In the case of CO2, the "storage" we are currently using is the atmosphere. Researchers are looking for underground storage sites, but this still constitutes storage, not treatment, and it's not how nature does it. Nature is used to "treating" CO2 via biomass growth at shorter time-scales, and via mineral carbonation at longer time-scales. Nature turns CO2 into minerals, hydrocarbons and organic molecules. Mimicking nature is therefore a reasonable solution to the CO2 problem.<br /><br />The challenge is that nature is much slower at treating CO2 than it is at treating sewage, hence engineers need to do much more "acceleration" to mimic nature at industrial time-scales. Evidently, this is a tough challenge to solve, and something actively being researched in the ACEME (accelerated carbonation for environmental and materials engineering) and CCU (carbon capture and utilization) communities.<br /><br />Rafael M. Santos<br />ACEME 2013 Organizer<br />Professor in Applied Chemical and Environmental Sciences<br />Sheridan College Institute of Technology, Brampton, CanadaRafael M Santoshttps://twitter.com/Rafael_M_Santosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-2373843260721512272015-03-23T13:51:02.171+00:002015-03-23T13:51:02.171+00:00Basically all the debates come from our inconfiden...Basically all the debates come from our inconfidency in the future of our planet. We know CO2 is increasing in our atmosphere continuously, but not sure its consequence. Whether we should take actions or just do nothing? If some actions are required, when should we do, how can we do, who do it ? Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology is not mature, but it is a technology under development. <br />Dr Yinghui Liu, Newcastle, AustraliaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com