re the Crikey article on geosequestration - unfortunately I couldn't get the rest of it up as I let my Crikey sub lapse early this year.I'm not too fond of paying for large dollops of bullshit.
A few thoughts - carbon capture seems to me like a scam.Doubtful technology,high energy cost to implement,big question mark over long term integrity of storage,long time lag till even partially operational.
For good reason it is being pushed by King Coal.What pings me off is the troglodyte federal government wasting taxpayer's money on pilot projects.These same cave dwellers have seen fit to means test PV for private houses.
Money spent on subsidizing coal would be better spent on solar thermal plants for remote towns currently struggling with escalating fuel bills for diesel generators - just one instance and it is a proven technology.
If we wish to spend big bucks on reducing greenhouse gas, then nuclear power would be more rewarding than carbon capture.Again-proven technology and some a lot better,like molten salt reactors, waiting in the wings. Instead we have a Labor party wedded to an anti-nuclear policy.But not so wedded that they refuse to sell uranium overseas.Hypocritical,and,more importantly,insane to reject one of the many solutions to the coming climate crisis.They just don't get it.Supposedly intelligent people - go figure.
Then we have Garnaut and the crowd of wafflers debating carbon trading.They might as well debate as to how many bloody angels will fit on the head of a pin.
The geosequestration article was just the view of the coal lobby - thought I'd throw it in for information's sake.
I like Crikey - I think its worth supporting independent media outlets - otherwise you'll end up with 3 vendors of information, all pushing a version of the party line with varying degrees of subtlety - Murdoch, Fairfax and the government (ABC).
While the big 3 can occasionally do real reporting, its often lost amidst the need to push an ideological wheelbarrow - even the ABC can be a lot less objective than you might imagine (as their role in the takedown of Mari Alkatiri proved, much to my dismay).
I have grave doubts about some of the currently proposed geosequestering techniques. However there are other ways.
One candidate that may work:
Grow plankton somewhere sunny (in shallow brackish water, sewage, or whatever). Let it die (let the water evaporate). Move the dead algae to land you want to improve. Char and bury.
Plankton (algae) grows at astounding rates. In geological history, it was often responsible for variations in CO2 levels. It could be again.
re the Crikey article on geosequestration - unfortunately I couldn't get the rest of it up as I let my Crikey sub lapse early this year.I'm not too fond of paying for large dollops of bullshit.
A few thoughts - carbon capture seems to me like a scam.Doubtful technology,high energy cost to implement,big question mark over long term integrity of storage,long time lag till even partially operational.
For good reason it is being pushed by King Coal.What pings me off is the troglodyte federal government wasting taxpayer's money on pilot projects.These same cave dwellers have seen fit to means test PV for private houses.
Money spent on subsidizing coal would be better spent on solar thermal plants for remote towns currently struggling with escalating fuel bills for diesel generators - just one instance and it is a proven technology.
If we wish to spend big bucks on reducing greenhouse gas, then nuclear power would be more rewarding than carbon capture.Again-proven technology and some a lot better,like molten salt reactors, waiting in the wings. Instead we have a Labor party wedded to an anti-nuclear policy.But not so wedded that they refuse to sell uranium overseas.Hypocritical,and,more importantly,insane to reject one of the many solutions to the coming climate crisis.They just don't get it.Supposedly intelligent people - go figure.
Then we have Garnaut and the crowd of wafflers debating carbon trading.They might as well debate as to how many bloody angels will fit on the head of a pin.
The geosequestration article was just the view of the coal lobby - thought I'd throw it in for information's sake.
I like Crikey - I think its worth supporting independent media outlets - otherwise you'll end up with 3 vendors of information, all pushing a version of the party line with varying degrees of subtlety - Murdoch, Fairfax and the government (ABC).
While the big 3 can occasionally do real reporting, its often lost amidst the need to push an ideological wheelbarrow - even the ABC can be a lot less objective than you might imagine (as their role in the takedown of Mari Alkatiri proved, much to my dismay).
I have grave doubts about some of the currently proposed geosequestering techniques. However there are other ways.
One candidate that may work:
Grow plankton somewhere sunny (in shallow brackish water, sewage, or whatever). Let it die (let the water evaporate). Move the dead algae to land you want to improve. Char and bury.
Plankton (algae) grows at astounding rates. In geological history, it was often responsible for variations in CO2 levels. It could be again.
The Chinese Olympic Sailing venue is already on the case!
