If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our or .
| Sourced From |
Emerging Energy Resrearch’s new report says the carbon sequestration tech will get serous attention this year and may be at significant scale by 2016. The petrochemical industry is very interested in carobn sequestration as a way of making their products and processes produce less green house gas.
EER says the current financial crisis will slow down apoplication and expansion of carbon sequestration for now.
Burning coal is a huge contributor of CO2 to the earth’s atmopshere and thus to global warming. EER says the coal industry is eager for carbon sequestration yto work, if it can work on a large scale.
“If coal is to maintain its share in the global power generation mix over the next two decades, its
carbon emissions must be mitigated through the capture of CO2. However, carbon capture relies on commercially-viable solutions to store or sequester CO2 permanently. While sequestration solutions have been demonstrated on a trial basis, carbon sequestration’s commercial viability on a broad scale is still uncertain.”
As EER explains 2009 marks the start of a critical nexus for carbon sequestration tech, “More than US$20 billion has already been earmarked for spending on large demonstration CCS projects, with economic stimulus plans in Europe, the US, and Canada expected to increase this figure in 2009.”
EER counts nearly 120 carbon sequestration projects underway in a score of countries already. The primary focus is now on geologic storage of CO2, putting it underground where salt, water, natural gas, coal or oil once was…and then keeping it there.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
i am not sure but it seems that the discussed measures to sequester carbon from the atmosphere are misguided. maybe they are untrue and fraudulent altogether?
this link states …
“… water vapor is responsible for the vast majority of all greenhouse warming in the atmosphere (most scientists agree it’s about 98%, maybe more; recall that in an earlier memo to you I cited EPA’s own 94% figure). No one disputes the greenhouse theory, which is that an increase in the concentration of certain gasses in the atmosphere (i.e. those with high heat capacities) will lead to increased atmospheric warming. But, if water is 98% of it and we know we cannot control it, how much effect can the other gasses possibly have? Add to that the fact that the heat content of water in its gaseous state is far greater (by orders of magnitude) than the heat content of CO2 in its gaseous state, and we really have to wonder how much impact the non-water vapor gasses can have. It is clear the impact of the gasses that can be controlled is minuscule, and this alone should dispose of the global warming myth. But there is more bad news for the global warming groupies.
Of all the other GHGs in the atmosphere (mostly CO2 and CH4), the vast majority is non-anthropogenic. Ergo; how much of the total is really caused by humankind … It’s only a fraction of a percent!! Maybe 0.2. So let’s assume we stop ALL manmade CO2 emissions. How much impact could that possibly have on our atmosphere, when the reduction is only 0.2% of the total? That amount is within the error range of the instruments used to measure atmospheric variables, therefore a reduction of 0.2% in atmospheric CO2 …”
additionally, this related link goes on to claim….”In fact, there remains no evidence that humans would ever be able to emit sufficient carbon dioxide to cause a +1 °C warming — any more than failure to emit any amount could ‘prevent’ such an occurrence.
Of all the things people can do to the planet — and for sure we are capable of making plenty of alterations to suit ourselves — the temperature response from carbon dioxide emissions is simply too trivial to worry about.”
if co2 is such a small component of the atmosphere and as i have also read the the junkscience.com website, absorbs a rather small portion of the IR spectrum compared to non anthropogenic gases why is their any discussion at all about carbon sequestration?
also can anyone verify the above claim that humans would be unable to produce enough c02 to rise global temps 1C?
Leave a Comment