Skip to main content

View Diary: Sea Urchin offers path to Cheap Carbon Sequestration (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  CCS works, is preferable to more baseload nuclear. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ybruti, Joieau, noemie maxwell

    The US DOE has already found  carbon sequestration sites all over the US capable of storing 2500 billion tons of CO2. The US produces 6 billion tons per year.

    http://www.netl.doe.gov/...

    "There are more than enough discovered hydrocarbons to fry the planet," Lord Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics and Political Science told Scientific American.

    "You can do CCS or you can bust two degrees [Celsius of warming].-Sir Nicholas Stern"

    •  Riigggggggggggght ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, bartcopfan

      ... alas, burning + capture and sequestration is not cheaper than renewables, efficiency, an agriculture that builds soil carbon rather than destroying it, or, for that matter, trees.

      But, it'd sure be spiffy for the coal industry if we could just keep shopping or go to sleep, as long as we get to keep burning coal.

    •  And where will the energy (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, ManhattanMan, bartcopfan

      necessary to run this whole scheme come from?

      This is just like the Ethanol scam, where the net ROO (Return On Oil) is negative (it takes more oil to produce the Ethanol than the Ethanol replaces).

      Energy is produced when you burn coal.  It takes that energy, and more, to "unburn" it.  And if you don't unburn it you've got billions of tons of gas to store ("sequester") into the far indefinite future.  Don't expect it to stay wherever you put it (quite apart from the energy necessary to capture and get it there).

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:32:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Chalk doesn't burn. (0+ / 0-)

        I am not a chemist.

        But because you can't light chalk on fire, I suspect that it doesn't take much energy to make. It's not like we are turning the CO2 back into coal or oil.

        But you raise a valid concern.

        Maybe we just farm sea urchins?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site