Rachel:
I am wondering what people over here think of Myles Allen’s proposal to bury the carbon problem? – http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/26/green-levies-crap-carbon-burial-fossil-fuels
Has there been any discussion in the blogosphere about it from bloggers who do not accept the IPCC consensus? Feel free to comment at http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/myles-allens-proposal-to-bury-the-carbon-problem
Categories
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- August 2023
- June 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- September 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Ben Vorlich on Preparing for a nuclear war – government will not help
- Preparing for Nuclear war – issues of inside shelters | Scottish Sceptic on Preparing for Nuclear war – the 15minute shelter
- Pict1 on Preparing for Nuclear War II
- Ben Vorlich on Preparing for Nuclear War II
- Preparing for Nuclear war III | Scottish Sceptic on Preparing for Nuclear – Revised Scenario
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- August 2023
- June 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- September 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
Categories
- #GE2019
- 1/f
- Academia
- ADE
- Advanced Greenhouse Theory
- bbc
- Caterpillar
- Climate
- Cllimate Cult
- computing
- Coronavirus
- Covid
- Economics
- Enerconics
- Energy
- Environment
- Fails
- FGill
- Funding Imbalance
- General
- Geology
- Goat Toads
- greenblob
- History
- Humour
- Ice age
- internet Revolution
- Kyoto
- Light
- Media
- media
- My Best Articles
- Politics
- Proposals
- Sceptics
- science
- Scotland
- SO2
- Solar
- Survey
- transport
- UK
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Wind
Meta
Thanks Rachel.
The idea of trying to put CO2 in the ground is mad in the extreme. The cost is such that there is probably more energy going into the power station than coming out (when you account for all infrastructure costs).
From a policy point of view it would be an absolute nightmare, because there will be leaks. If you pump under the sea, most of those leaks will be hidden, and therefore you would have to actively monitor for leaks. But even if you find such leaks, what do you do? It is more than likely the cause of the leak will be some feature way beneath the ground. It will be impossible to judge whether the reservoir was over filled or whether a small earth movement has opened up the feature.4
The risk are therefore entirely unpredictable. The quality of the work is almost impossible to measure. (It’s the same IPCC problem – the only experts who will be allowed to testify in court are the group who are doing this and therefore it would be extremely problematic to prosecute anyone for technical incompetence).
But the main reason I’m against these hair-brained ideas is that the free market already uses energy far more efficiently than government could achieve. And because rising GDP is a result of rising energy use, the real choice is between cutting the size of the economy to stem CO2 emissions or living with more CO2.
There are two ways to cut the size of the economy.
1) Make us all poorer
2) Maintain our wealth but reduce the number of people
These are the viable ways to cut CO2.
In contrast hiding the CO2 in the ground to my mind INCREASES CO2 production and then if you really believe CO2 is a problem, it just stores this problem up for future (poorer**) generations to deal with.
**Poorer because you cannot cut CO2 without cutting economic wealth.
Thanks ScottishSceptic, I’ll follow the comments to see whether you get any other views.
I’m not averse to any plan that would work but…
To do any task of separating one gas from another, compressing it, pumping it into the ground and ensuring it stays there is a huge one, both technologically and energy wise. How inefficient would it make fossil fuel energy? Just because we still have lots of fossil fuels doesn’t mean we should waste them. Much of the support for CCS is based on something that doesn’t work yet.
All the current arguments about earthquakes from fracking would be valid for CCS only more so. More worrying, what would happen if the gas found a route to air? Under your home.
The best CCS we have is organic. It traps the CO2 in solid form. I know that there are experiments looking at speeding up the natural process. Perhaps GM might offer something?
Experimentation is good. Installation is bad if it doesn’t really do the job or there are major problems with it. There’s a terrible viewpoint from the consensus side that every little helps when it comes to cutting CO2. I strongly disagree because those little actions make people feel like they’re doing their bit. They mentally tick the job done box and move on. They also use up a large amount of money on very little, which means it’s not available for research, mitigation or aid.
If I had to choose between fracking, CCS or windmills in my area, I’d choose fracking.
“The cost is such that there is probably more energy going into the power station than coming out (when you account for all infrastructure costs).”
I’m not sure what you mean by this, and how cost and energy are related? Could you expand, please? The energy penalty for capturing CO2, post-combustion is around 8% points, so perhaps an efficiency reduction overall of 20%. This means that you think building and maintaining a pipeline. and the storage of CO2 would account for another 80%+ of the energy used in a power station?
“From a policy point of view it would be an absolute nightmare, because there will be leaks. If you pump under the sea, most of those leaks will be hidden, and therefore you would have to actively monitor for leaks. But even if you find such leaks, what do you do? It is more than likely the cause of the leak will be some feature way beneath the ground. It will be impossible to judge whether the reservoir was over filled or whether a small earth movement has opened up the feature.”
Ongoing monitoring is a part of the strict regulations which would apply to CO2 storage, and mitigation options are available (e.g. pressure relief), so this has been considered. Hardly a non-issue, but would be carefully planned. Any leaks subsea (as this is the issue you’ve raised) are likely to present a small, highly localised risk, based on the findings of the research done to-date.
“The risk are therefore entirely unpredictable. The quality of the work is almost impossible to measure. (It’s the same IPCC problem – the only experts who will be allowed to testify in court are the group who are doing this and therefore it would be extremely problematic to prosecute anyone for technical incompetence).”
The risk is predictable, and indeed researchers and companies spend a lot of time determining the risks involved to ensure that CO2 storage is as safe and permanent as possible.
All the current arguments about earthquakes from fracking would be valid for CCS only more so.
This is not right. I’ve asked someone who works in CCS about exactly this and they said that while fracking involves fracturing the rock to release coal-seam gas, for CCS it’s exactly the opposite: we don’t want to fracture the rock because we want the CO2 to stay there.
That might be the theory and when they’ve got something up an running they might be able to prove it. Geothermal energy isn’t supposed to fracture the rock either but it has. I don’t think it’s the major issue but people will jump on it in the same way they jump on fracking. NIMBY applies to ‘green’ technologies too. CCS truly is technology that breaks new ground. It might be viable, it might be another white elephant. Part of the technology should be a plan to pump some of the gas back out of the ground in case it all goes pear shaped.
So far the only successful CO2 injetion schemes I know about are those used to extract more oil from the ground. ie and alternative fracking subtance.
Pinning all our hopes on CCS and making huge commitments based on something that doesn’t work yet is a fools game.
I gave a whole talk about it in Stirling based on the article Enerconics. The cost should be seen as a proxy for energy consumption or indeed “stored energy value”.
“Ongoing monitoring is a part of the strict regulations which would apply to CO2 storage, and mitigation options are available”
This is just pie in the sky thinking. I was speaking to someone who tendered for building roads. It is widely known that some companies don’t properly fill in the base layers so that the roads will have a dramatically shortened life. But they keep getting the contracts.
This is where thousands of people will be easily able to see. The idea that any government official – and certainly not companies will care at all about CO2 leaks under the sea is so crazy it is mindbogglingly stupid.
And come the day when the organisation says it needs another £10,000,000 to do ongoing monitoring and a one off £30,000,000 to cap known leaks. The government will look at this “problem” where no one is dying and there is nothing at all to create publicity … and they will look at the roads … and they will look at schools that need repairing and hospitals that need replacing. And they will work out that if they didn’t spend so much money looking for leaks, they wouldn’t need to spend so much “fixing” the leaks
In fact I can already see the kinds of stories that will be on the news “Greenpeace claims oceans as fizzy as a fizzy drink … whales and dolphins being killed because … some idiot thought it a good idea to put this lot under the sea when there was no need”.
The whole thing will make our generation just look even stupider than it will already with the global warming scare.
Clearly you have no trust in government or authority and so I cannot provide you with an answer you will accept, so I’m not going to bother trying.
CO2 has been injected for storage at the Sleipner gas field since 1996 with no great technical, safety or environmental problems, and indeed the UK stores natural gas offshore in similar formations to those targeted for CO2 and has been quietly doing so for years. So nothing new, or controversial, but indeed the public are right to question the safety. So long as the risks are set out in an honest way and with context. I think the public would see that CO2 storage is not a dangerous technology e.g. Roberts et al (http://www.pnas.org/content/108/40/16545): “Risk of accidental human death from these CO2 seeps is calculated to be 10-8 year-1 to the exposed population. This value is significantly lower than that of many socially accepted risks.”
When you understand the motivation and methods of government and you know when they can and cannot be trusted.
I think the dig was the other way: “as dangerous as fracking” – that fracking isn’t dangerous.