Comments on: Carbon capture technology: climate superhero or rort?

By: a bed

a bed — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 09:39:37 +0000

Australia Institute has no media release on this, nor report to justify their decision.

By: Person Ordinary

Person Ordinary — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 06:23:31 +0000

Yeah - waiting for “the average global Joe Blow” to understand that the danger is real and immediate is not an option.

Complacency is self comforting delusion …

By: Paddy Forsayeth

Paddy Forsayeth — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 05:16:07 +0000

Here’s an inteesting point. Several years ago a couple of Jap. scientists in the US explored the thermodynamics of the reaction between CO2 and zeolite (calcium and magnesium silicates). This is a natural process in which CO2 winds up as calcium and magnesium carbonates, i.e. chalk. Unfortunately this chemical reaction is extremely slow. Maybe these chaps or others may find the catalyst which will enable this reaction to be sped up so the CO2 from power stations can be captured in the form of chalk which is environmentall benign.

Pardon my cynycism but I think the average global Joe Blow regards global warming as a minor nuisance.I think our grandchildren are going to have a hard time of it!

By: chpowell

chpowell — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 02:10:33 +0000

“Howard wasted millions, billions on carbon capture”

Ever tried to catch a fart in a bottle?

By: Person Ordinary

Person Ordinary — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:07:14 +0000

Set a global price on emissions and get out of the way. No bureaucracy, no subsidies, no picking technological winners or negotiating anything. Just set the price and let the market do its thing.

Too many people are making a living, or feeding their ego, by participating in the climate change discussion industry, through all points on the political spectrum.

By: Joel

Joel — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 10:33:44 +0000

Well, I’m sure that in 20-30 years, when some government proposes an alternative means of implementing emissions reductions, CCS will be almost ready for a field trial. Almost. So there’ll be no need for those new laws - we already have CCS almost ready! Almost!

By: Malcolm Street

Malcolm Street — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 08:21:36 +0000

James Butler - “toxic chemicals used in their high capacity batteries” - the current generation of batteries, replacing Nickel-Metal Hydride and Lead Acid, are Lithium Polymer and Lithium Iron-Phosphate and have absolute sod-all in the way of toxic waste.

By: Hugh (Charlie) McColl

Hugh (Charlie) McColl — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 07:43:03 +0000

James Butler, how do you know that “… the rest is just nature”? What evidence do you have to support this viewpoint? Are you saying that because it’s only 3% it doesn’t mean much and wouldn’t have much effect? Where did you get that idea?
By the way James, “future technologies” haven’t been ‘presentised’ yet. How can you use something, from the future, you haven’t actually invented or developed yet?
Also, what are you doing about sea level rise? You can’t explain that without referring to atmospheric CO2 increase - or can you? Has our mass media failed you on that one?

By: James Butler

James Butler — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 06:40:13 +0000

Its important to expose the various delusions of radial environmentalists programs and schemes. Carbon trading is linked to a for-profit trade designed to make investment bankers rich rather than protect the environment. Recent research just found that electric cars will pollute the earth 50% MORE than current gasoline cars? inlcuding all the toxic chemicals used in their high capacity batteries which environmentalists have no idea how to get rid off. Simply google these facts and other environmental agendas and you’ll realize how bad all these schemes are.

Its sad to see the world constantly deceived by self deluded environmentalists who may have “good intentions” but have no idea of how real science and economies work.

I am FOR protecting the environment, but rather using science based facts and implementing future technologies. Global warming isn’t even a VALID term anymore, now converted to “climate change” which has NOTHING to do with human pollution anymore, but our Mass media fail to deliver that message. Human pollution only contributes to 3% of climate change (possibly) and the rest is just nature.

By: Simon Mansfield

Simon Mansfield — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 06:24:49 +0000

Trees work pretty well at capturing carbon - or so says NASA’s James Hansen. But what would he know.

By: Bo Gainsbourg

Bo Gainsbourg — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 05:16:33 +0000

I really think some environment groups are repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot. If CCS was viable coal companies would be seriously investing in it. Not using it, as they will with this report, as another excuse to block renewables and stave off any real action themselves. Climate Institute would be better off getting NSW and Vic to drop their ridiculous windfarm restrictions and actually trying to get some coal power stations replaced. Without that we can’t get past square one. Coal PR people will be cracking the champers tonight.

By: a bed

a bed — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 04:24:13 +0000

CCS is political cover.

The energy companies aren’t doing any more than the very mimimum R&D. Australia has one small research plant that vents the CO2 extracted (and doesn’t bury it).

No one is going to let them pump the CO2 into their region anyway - and have you seen the geological maps for suitable regions? None is near the power plants anyway, so you have to truck it anyway!

Regarding using it for geomass, do you realise the difficulty of converting tonnes of CO2 into algae? The size of the ponds? The equipment to harvest it? Its simply impractical.

The real answer is reforming society to consume less energy, and to allow investment of renewable energy start-up companies. Both of these are achieved with my voucher approach to innovation.

http://www.ceisys.com

By: Apollo

Apollo — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 04:22:17 +0000

There isn’t a need for carbon capture anyway, the alternatives already exist. There are already companies that recycle green house gas to feed algae for electricity generation and food production. Green house gas also can be re-hydrocarbonise to become fuel again through a process of polarisation for separation of elements and recombining with others.

By: geomac62

geomac62 — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 03:18:49 +0000

Howard wasted millions, billion ? on carbon capture and nothing of substance has eventuated . After all this time there is still no way to capture/store the carbon without using two thirds of energy or is it one third of the energy ? that a power plant produces . Then there is the question of safety in ensuring the carbon doesn,t erupt out at some stage . CCS is a way to hold back clean technology while using old methods but promising ” new ” methods that are unsustainable to producers and their customer base .
Living in the Latrobe Valley we get promises of exporting brown coal , CCS and various other new developments and they all fall flat because no bank will touch them . Not because the banks are too timid but because there is no sound business base to back them . Pie in the sky ideas that are thought bubbles hoping for Howard like subsidies that keep them in money and deliver zilch . Thats the plan though , make out something is being done while delaying progress of clean renewable energy . Victoria has gone backwards at a rapid rate but is good at spin , well not quite . Two miles distance before you can put up wind turbines but you can have a coal mine 200 yards from private residences . Apparently coal dust etc is ok but wind noise is dangerous even though beneficiaries of turbines don,t get ill but non beneficiaries complain of ill affects . Placebo wind ?

By: macadamia man

macadamia man — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 03:16:30 +0000

Pie from the sky CCS and deferred disaster Nukes. Oh, dear. Looks like “hope they work out ok” is all we have left if the carbon-cult really can’t be cured…