Comments on: CCS worth pursuing, but not to the exclusion of surer bets

By: CCS worth pursuing, but not to the exclusion of surer bets | Eco Friendly Mag

Fri, 06 Mar 2009 02:23:48 +0000

[...] CCS worth pursuing, but not to the exclusion of surer bets [...]

By: JpWarren

JpWarren — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:24:33 +0000

Biochar seems a low-tech way to capture plant-inhaled carbon that doesn’t involve the possible leakage scenario hermetically-sealing gases into a chamber entails.

By: Milan

Milan — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:38:07 +0000

Even if CCS could be implemented rapidly and cheaply, it would not render the oil sands acceptable from a climatic perspective. The reasons for that are as follows:

1. CCS can only be used to capture greenhouse gasses emitted in concentrated form from large facilities. Not all oil sands emissions are of this type.

2. Even at large facilities, CCS is only expected to capture about 80-85% of emissions.

3. The emissions from burning the fuels being produced will not be captured. Even with fuels originating from oil sands bitumen, these are the bulk of total emissions.

The oil sands are touted as a resource equivalent to a second Saudi Arabia. This is the last thing the world needs. There are only so many fossil fuels we can burn while still having a decent shot of avoiding catastrophic climate change. As a result, fossil fuels are an industry with no long-term future.

By: B. Reynolds

B. Reynolds — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 01:25:03 +0000

We can read the collective writing on the wall or we can stick our heads in the carbon capture and storage storage chambers.

The US is NOT trying to ditch its addiction to oil because of some environmental epiphany.

The US is tired of being beholden to the whims of a select few who sit on vast pools of energy. Whether it is Saudis or Albertans or Texans, when the energy industry demands monopoly rents (read prices far in excess of the cost of production) for its products people get upset.

Alberta has had a red hot economy because it has been able to extract monopoly rents for its main product, oil. And anyone who is not in the oil industry is upset about it. That includes anyone who is not in the oil industry in Alberta.

In the long run people will not pay monopoly rents. They will find something cheaper.

So Alberta can remain a one industry province claiming it is invincible or it can recognize that the end of oil will come in most of our lifetimes and can try and diversify into things that are more sustainable.

CCS is merely a way for the oil industry to try and fool the public into paying excessive amounts for oil when viable alternatives exist. But hey, if they spend enough money trying to suppress information on the alternatives, maybe they CAN fool the public … for a while.

By: Pieter Knispel

Pieter Knispel — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:27:22 +0000

The thing that gets me about CCS is that it is just backwards, literally. Finding a place to pump carbon underground isn’t a real solution. Our energy and focus (other than trying to ditch carbon entirely) should be on how we prevent those emissions from happening in the first place.

Which of course brings about a great topic you have written about Tyler, geothermal. As you have suggested, geothermal could be a great means of diminishing/avoiding natural gas use. At this stage, isn’t this technology more of a reality than ‘pie in the sky’ CCS?

It is so frustrating to see that there are options on the table that will help reduce the environmental impact of the tar sands… some are expensive, and some are VERY expensive, but the bottom line is that many of the technologies could be valuable if commercialized at some point.