Significant carbon capture and storage (CCS) is physically, financially and politically impossible.
Read Myles Allen’s “Climate change: let’s bury the CO2 problem.”
Significant carbon capture and storage (CCS) is physically, financially and politically impossible.
Read Myles Allen’s “Climate change: let’s bury the CO2 problem.”
Nature does this all by itself. Notice how the CO2 numbers have dropped this spring. Nature is scooping the CO2 out of the atmosphere since all of the dormant plants are growing again in the northern hemisphere. Silly idiots.
CO2 is plant food.
Any policy based on the idea of carbon dioxide being harmful to climate is presumptively wrong.
If there’s a market for sequestered CO2 to do something useful, then a mechanism will form to harvest CO2 and deliver it. It should be based on commercial value because commercial value is the best marker for human value — if people won’t pay for it, it means they don’t want it.
I’m all for considering CCS. In air permit applications, the EPA requires doing BACT analyses on GHG emissions and consideration of CCS. Since there is no available CCS infrastructure and BACT considers costs, Best Available Control Technology is atmospheric discharge. It is an easy exercise. Currently, this is under the heading of “if it weren’t for this idiocy, I’d have to find honest work.” Sooner or later our environmental masters will decide it has to be done and the price of everything will skyrocket or we will be doing interpretative reliving of the 13th century.
It may seem odd, but in some circumstances it is both physically and financially possible, and politics has nothing to do with it (except by way of its absence):
http://wikimapia.org/523629/Acron
The trick is that nitrogen pays for it. They claim to be selling “mineral” fertilisers, simply because there is no established ontology for all the stuff you suck out of the air. That stuff includes “Carbon”, whose oxide is sold as “dry ice” (and maybe also catalysed into other useful products; I know they sell acetic acid and PVA, among other things). But all that is driven by the demand for ammonia and its derivatives.
The peculiar circumstance in Russia making this process feasible is that Russia does not have access to sufficient quantities of mineral fertilisers, and hauling them from Chile would apparently be more expensive than making them out of condensed air using relatively cheap energy form the generators unmolested by climate fraud.