Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Carbon capture and storage is becoming a green strategy

With the world closely watching the climate meetings underway in Doha there is renewed interest in the only proven technology that can substantially remove carbon dioxide from the use of fossil fuels…

As demands to tackle emissions from fossil fuel power generation get stronger, green groups are giving CCS another go. David King

With the world closely watching the climate meetings underway in Doha there is renewed interest in the only proven technology that can substantially remove carbon dioxide from the use of fossil fuels; carbon capture and storage (CCS). Notably, much of that renewed interest is from environmental NGOs.

This week, the ENGO Network on CCS (an international group of environmental NGOs) released a report on CCS, advocating for its inclusion in the fight against climate change. In October at the National CCS Conference in Perth, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) advocated deploying CCS on existing power stations.

CCS involves capturing millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide a year from gas or coal combustion, then compressing it for injection and permanent storage in deep micro-porous rocks.

Whilst CCS has been slow in coming, it could be a valuable tool in the fight against climate change. Like all large resource projects, the lead times for CCS projects can be five to ten years or more, but these large projects offer the potential to keep very large quantities of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere in one operation.

There are eight industrial scale projects in operation around the world now and another eight in construction. There are many more on the drawing board.

With its reliance on fossil fuel use and exports, it is not surprising that Australia is one of the world leaders in such a technology. With the world’s largest CCS project in construction at the moment at the Gorgon LNG Project in Western Australia, this is an industry that we will see more of in coming years.

Last week, at its annual research symposium, the Australian-based Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC) formally closed off its second major subsurface carbon dioxide storage trial at the Otway Project in Victoria.

CO2CRC has been working on this technology for the last ten years, building a growing science and engineering capability for a new industry. It has also developed a capture technology that can reduce the cost of capture to a third of current technology and is building a demonstration pilot plant for this in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley.

The science on climate change is becoming ever-stronger and we are tracking at the upper levels of the modelling predictions on global warming. It is highly likely that over the next five to ten years we will see greater calls for action in Australia and around the world.

We will shortly reach a “tipping point” where more of the population is in favour of greater action on climate change than those against. This tipping point process plays out in many areas of major societal change and is well understood by those who study change processes. Gradually we see symptoms of change, with minority groups calling for action. This progresses to greater acceptance by a growing minority before a swing by the majority occurs. Recently we have seen some climate sceptic scientists switching sides.

Major NGOs are now demanding CCS be part of the action. It is the beginning of a policy tipping point on climate change when CCS becomes a green strategy.

With growing pressure on electricity prices and the need to cut emissions it is important that we secure the lowest cost pathway to emissions abatement. CCS is a vital part of that lowest cost pathway.

Estimates from modelling by the International Energy Agency and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (USA) show that holding the increase in global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius will be between 45% and 100% more expensive without CCS. It is clear that environmental policies of all parties must embrace CCS as a pragmatic part of their strategy.

Currently in Australia we have some $30-50 billion of support going into renewable energy and only $3-5 billion going into CCS, despite the continuing high growth in fossil fuel use globally.

We are inching towards a major change in the way the world responds to climate change. We will increasingly hear calls for urgent action and the deployment of renewable energy. But there must also be calls for a pragmatic approach that deals with growing fossil fuel use and the massive existing fossil fuel burning infrastructure. This approach includes CCS.

It is heartening to see that CCS is becoming recognised as a necessary part of a rational green strategy on climate change.

Articles also by This Author

Sign in to Favourite

Join the conversation

73 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

  1. John Newlands

    tree changer

    If we could lose half the 200 Mt of CO2 from our stationary generation sector that would dwarf the ~30 Mt cut (including transport) we've given ourselves several decades to achieve. In my opinion nuclear baseload is the way to go. However talk of CCS underscores the fact the big coal plants are not going anywhere soon.

    $23 carbon tax is not enough to make wind power competitive without subsidies, hence the RET giving it a guaranteed market. Some kind of additional quota or subsidy would be needed for CCS. That is reinforced by the COAG determination to keep power bills low, also the earlier decision to allow dodgy $7 EU carbon credits. Therefore the carbon price will never hit $50 or whatever it takes for CCS to be viable.

    The other problem is that that of retrofitting and physical logistics of CCS. I doubt it can get past the demonstration phase before money runs out and NIMBY objections get too loud.

    report
    1. Michael Hay

      retired

      In reply to John Newlands

      John Newlands: The other alternative is hydro electric generation. We live in a land which is only partially sunburnt - the north is subject to wet monsoonal conditions and a fair number of wet tropical cyclones which tend to promote huge levels of flooding. Think of all that surplus water stored in huge dams and piped down to the Darling River. Think of all the hydro generators which could feed off this controlled water source. Think of the number of 'boat people' who could be gainfully employed building this structure. Think of the industry which could be built to provide the individual parts of such a great project. Why, it could be bigger than the Snowy Scheme - and we managed that well with post-war migrants. Is this not a lesson for today?

      report
  2. mike flanagan

    retired

    It is hard to see the above as little more than plea for more funds rather than an attempt to inform the public of the actual progress of the research.
    When we find a subterranean hole that can take over 200 million tons per annum ad infinitum for our coal fired residues,then it does appear CCS is at this moment a pipe dream and source of taxpayers funds for our rent seekers.
    I would suggest that redirecting the fugitive releases at Gorgon or the the Otways is very low hanging fruit indeed.

    report
  3. Sean Lamb

    Science Denier

    "Currently in Australia we have some $30-50 billion of support going into renewable energy and only $3-5 billion going into CCS, "
    Only 3 to 5 billion????? That is more than the Apollo program cost.
    You ought to be able to build a fairly decent prototype with 3 to 5 billion and if it is viable we can build more. But first you need to show it is viable.
    If you have a viable concept you should easily be able to realise it with 3 to 5 billion and if you don't, no matter how many more billions we pour into it won't make it so.
    Remember Hot Rocks? Where are they now?

    report
    1. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Sean Lamb

      Sean Hot Rocks (from what I can gather) are mostly to be found in day spas where they apparently replace actual massage by sitting warmly on someone.

      Lazy and an abuse of geological samples!

      report
  4. Anton Lang

    Retired

    Let's just look at just one large scale coal fired power plant, say, Bayswater.

    Let's then actually try and believe that this CCS technology can in fact be made to work.

    A plant like Bayswater burns 7.5 million tonnes of coal each year. Some units are offline during that year for scheduled maintenance, so that's not at its full 100% operation. At that full operation with all 4 turbine/generators turning and burning, the rate of burning of the crushed and powdered coal comes in at around one…

    Read more
    1. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Anton Lang

      Anton. I agree with your comment except for the last sentence.

      There is nothing green about CCS - it is a coal industry pipe dream.

      report
    2. Paul Wittwer

      Orchardist

      In reply to Anton Lang

      Anton, very good description of the impossibility of CCS ever becoming a useful part of GHG mitigation.
      You spoilt your post however with an unwarranted and incorrect slur against those who want to protect the natural world for ourselves and future generations, namely greens whether small g or large G.
      There is nothing green about CCS. It is a process which is anti-green and makes a mockery of all that environmentalists are seeking to achieve.

      report
    3. Dianna Arthur
      Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Environmentalist

      In reply to Anton Lang

      Thank you, Anton Lang for putting into reality the process of CSS. It is patently impracticable and being used merely as cover for the continuation of fossil fuel energy.

      My only disagreement is, (as with Mike Hansen) that it is not a "green" solution. Unless one considers it to be a green screen to hide the worst consequences of fossil fuels.

      There are other cheaper, short term actions that can help while phasing in renewables:

      " There is, however, a short-term strategy. We can slow this…

      Read more
  5. Paul Wittwer

    Orchardist

    I think it is a bit deceptive for Richard Aldous to claim that "$30-50 billion of support going into renewable energy and only $3-5 billion to CCS"
    Fossil fuels are currently supported to the tune of around $11 billion per year
    and the accumulated support would be mind boggling.
    Contrast that with the "$30-50 billion" which is only recent and is also spread over many years. $10 billion of that is to be loans anyway so shouldn't be counted.
    If $3-5 billion has gone into CCS then that is more than 10 times what has gone into Geothermal support. Two CCS projects have failed completely while the Geothermal projects are stil operating - struggling from lack of funds - but still operating and still making progress.

    report
    1. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to Paul Wittwer

      And the basis for this 11 billion is? Please please please not another irrelevant reference or press report!

      report
    2. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Paul Wittwer

      Witter,

      I'd like to see the evidence for $11 billion support for fossil fuel electricity generation. I think you'll find it is negligible.

      report
    3. Dianna Arthur
      Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Environmentalist

      In reply to Paul Wittwer

      "Rich countries spent $58 billion on fossil fuel subsidies in 2011.

      That’s roughly five times the amount they spent on “fast start” financing for climate adaptation and mitigation in developing countries, according to an analysis released today at the Doha climate talks by Oil Change International."

      http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/climate-aid-vs-fossil-fuel-subsidies-guess-whos-winning-86052

      As long as there remain shills for the fossil fuel industry, no action will be taken just talk, talk talk.

      report
  6. Comment removed by moderator.

  7. jake wishart

    logged in via email @alliance.org.au

    Does anyone else find an obvious conflict of interest in the fact that Richard Aldous is the CEO of the "Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies" (CO2CRC), an organisation whose objectives, as listed on their website (http://www.co2crc.com.au/about/) are:
    undertaking leading research into and development of technologies for carbon dioxide capture and geological storage;
    decreasing commercial risks by demonstrating the practical application of carbon dioxide capture and storage…

    Read more
  8. Robert Merkel

    Lecturer in Software Engineering at Monash University

    I hate to criticize scientists and engineers hard at work developing a technology that, if it delivered on its promises, would go a long way to avoiding climate catastrophe.

    However...

    We've been talking about CCS for 20 years, and, still, nobody is prepared to deploy the technology at a commercial scale on power stations. Noone. CCS demonstration projects have been cancelled around the world, left, right, and centre.

    The track record of CCS as a commercially viable technology is right…

    Read more
  9. Peter Lang

    Retired geologist and engineer

    Many authors write articles promoting their own areas of work and their own pet beliefs. These are statements by advocates for a cause.

    We need some overarching articles to set the framework. I'd suggest the framework need to focus on the economics. As often, correctly, stated:

    "It's the economics, stupid".

    report
    1. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Nonsense.

      It is slavish adherence to the zombie economics of the right which has caused many of the environmental problems that we now face.

      The continuing belief in the mystical powers of the unregulated market in the face of AGW, the greatest market failure in human history is the hallmark of a crank.

      Try "Its the science, stupid".

      report
  10. Peter Lang

    Retired geologist and engineer

    “Currently in Australia we have some $30-50 billion of support going into renewable energy and only $3-5 billion going into CCS,”

    And $0 going into nuclear power!
    Is this rational?

    First, let’s compare how effective renewables, CCS ad nuclear would be at cutting emissions. Then we’ll look at the economics and the amount of subsidies required.

    Renewables (wind farms, commercial solar and geothermal):
    Subsidies: $30-$50 billion
    Emissions avoided: 41,850 GWh/a x 1 tCO2/MWh x 60% effective…

    Read more
    1. In reply to Peter Lang

      Comment removed by moderator.

    2. In reply to Peter Lang

      Comment removed by moderator.

  11. Gerard Dean

    Managing Director

    So Australia has only committed. '..$3-5 billion going into CCS.'

    That is an outrage. Five billion dollars would build 5 major teaching hospitals, 20 high schools, major health initiatives for our indigenous people or 5 new strike jet fighters, all of which would be far better than blowing the money on a useless CCS technology that has delivered nothing.

    CCS technology is the same making jet fuel out of coal. The extra energy required to capture carbon from fossil fuel or make jet fuel out of coal is means far more carbon is burnt which defeats the aim of the project.

    Oh, I almost forgot something - naturally I would prefer to spend the 5 billion pulled from the CCS program on joint strike fighters or more Abrams tanks. However I could be partial to a fast train system from Melbourne to Sydney via Canberra. Anything would be better than the pathetic 19th century service now on offer.

    Gerard Dean

    report
  12. John Coochey

    Mr

    And the sources for carbon using energy being subsidized is? And these subsidies are composed of? And the world has increased by what in the last sixteen years? (It is politically incorrect to quote Bureau of Met figures but no one can tell me what the increase hasn't been.) And what percentage of carbon dioxide production is currently covered by Kyoto? Fifteen per cent I believe or is that also politically incorrect? Have you heard the one about climate scientists getting death threats?

    report
    1. John Coochey

      Mr

      In reply to John Coochey

      In response to the normal press articles which are usually used to substantiate these baseless assertions I will quote the first reference
      "From review of these reports, it is evident that the magnitude of subsidies to fossil fuels in Australia is still
      uncertain and that further work is required to arrive at an accurate estimate of these subsidies, using a consistent
      definition) "
      Once again hoist with your own petard!

      report
    2. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to John Coochey

      Paul Wittwer,

      From your first link (Section 7)
      "Subsidies for generation or use of electricity do not necessarily act as subsidies to fossil fuels."

      In other words, no identified subsidies for fossil fuel used in electricity generation.

      So either you haven;t a clue what you are talking about or you are intentionally being misleading.

      report
    3. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to John Coochey

      John - Can I suggest not cherry picking the one line of that report that you think supports your view?

      Did you read the conclusion? Do you think that is an accurate summation of the subsidies, can you see how the line you quote is used by the author to establish a rationale for the paper?

      In other words the quote you use is the very question the author sets up the paper to answer - as we see in the very next paragraph "This paper builds on and extends the earlier work on subsidies to provide a more complete and up to date description of the subsidies to fossil fuel production and consumption in Australia and a new estimate of their magnitude."

      Sigh.

      report
    4. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to John Coochey

      Peter Lang - why not put the entire quote from the start of section 7? This would be the honest approach to discourse.

      "Subsidies for generation or use of electricity do not necessarily act as subsidies to fossil fuels. However, fossil fuels are used to generate about 91% of Australia’s electricity. As a result, a large proportion of any subsidy that supports electricity consumption effectively supports fossil fuel consumption."

      report
    5. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to John Coochey

      Grendellus Malleolus,

      The statement you quoted is silly. The subsidies are not for fossil fuels, they are for electricity (no matter how it is generated). They would apply for any electricity. Renewables get very large subsidies. These are specifically for renewables.

      It is misleading to imply the subsidies for fossil fuels are high compared with subsidies for renewables. The opposite is the case. Subsidies are almost non existent for fossil fuel electricity generation but ridiculously high for renewables. In fact, according to the lead article, they are $30-$50 billion for renewables (I have previously calculated the $30 billion cumulative 2011 to 2020; I am not sure of the basis for the $50 billion). Using the $30 billion figure works out to be about over $100/MWh of subsidies.

      Do you now see that you have a misunderstanding about the subsidies for fossil fuel electricity generation.

      report
    6. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to John Coochey

      "The statement you quoted is silly. The subsidies are not for fossil fuels, they are for electricity (no matter how it is generated). They would apply for any electricity. Renewables get very large subsidies. These are specifically for renewables"

      Silly - really? that is the best you can offer?

      I might be more moved to accept your point if you offered something substantive. For example I would agree that you cannot assume that because 91% of generation (in 2003) is from fossil fuels that also…

      Read more
    7. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to John Coochey

      Grendellus Malleolus,

      Face up to it. You are wrong. You've just written eight paragraphs of bla bla bla without a single dollar value, no evidence of subsidies for fossil fuels for electricity generation, unsubstantiated assertions and if statements. It's total nonsense. If you had some fact's you'd be able to substantiate them. You'd be able to show the amount of subsidy in $/MWh of electricity generated, You'd be able to show it is more than the >$100/MWh of subsidies already committed to renewable energy to 2020. You can't. You are wrong. Do you have the integrity to admit when you are wrong?

      report
    8. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to John Coochey

      Peter, please cut and paste the quote where I claim that there are subsidies for fossil fuel generation of electricity. I was pointing out that subsidising production has the effect of subsidising generation. Please, fault my economic here.

      In any case you are wrong. I don't know about other states and territories but WA pays nearly half a billion dollars to Synergy and Horizon in operating subsidy payments and I know that the Qld government has a gas subsidy to support use of LNG and coal seam gas - both are fossil fuels.

      I would be willing to bet there are other subsidies around australia.

      report
    9. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to John Coochey

      Maleous,

      You are clearly wrong. Admit it. Acknowledge you were wrong. Or don't you have the integrity to admit when you are mistaken.

      report
  13. Peter Lang

    Retired geologist and engineer

    Isn't it telling how the Conversation hasn't mentioned the Doha climate chat. If Doha had been a success it would be being splashed all over the leftist media like The Conversation. But, because it has been such a major failure, there's not a mention of it. That shows the extent to which ideological bias controls our media and academia. The bias really is disgraceful.

    <b>Doha climate talks end with a wimper.</b>
    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/doha-climate-talks-end-with-a-whimper-20121209-2b34i.html

    Read more
    1. In reply to Peter Lang

      Comment removed by moderator.

  14. Ken Fabian

    Mr

    CCS has been very successful - in convincing politicians that promoting the ongoing growth of fossil fuel use is not only okay, it's all good. Hard decisions are averted by the creative use of wishful thinking and clever marketing. But for each tonne of Carbon burned there will be 3 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide. Even a politician should be able to do that arithmetic. If the reality is that CCS at effective scale will never be cheap enough, the illusion of CCS in order to prevent regulatory impediments…

    Read more
  15. Ken Winter

    Consultant

    Richard,

    in all discussions of CCS no mention is ever made of the safety of these processes. Particularly, when the major implementation would be in a Valley. Processing the billions of tonnes of CO2 generated in the LaTrobe Valley, including compression, transport and injection of CO2 as a liquid or supercritical fluid represents immense risk for the following reasons:

    1. the relatively low critical temperature and pressure of CO2 means that it will likely be above this point during most handling…

    Read more
  16. Comment removed by moderator.

    1. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Brian Boss

      Brian Boss,

      You say renewables actually work and quote the ABC - hardly an authoritative or unbiased source on matters climate and renewable energy.

      You may have missed the comment below which in summary says:
      Comparing renewables and nuclear: for 1/3 the subsidies nuclear would deliver about 5 times the CO2 savings.

      report
  17. Alex Cannara

    logged in via LinkedIn

    CCS -- "capturing millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide a year from gas or coal combustion, then compressing it for injection and permanent storage in deep micro-porous rocks."

    Sounds like an idea, but...

    1) With every C atom we sequester, we kiss byebye to 2 Oxygen atoms -- atoms produced by living organisms from water above ground.

    2) Even in the N. American continent, there are suitable storage geologies for only about 60% of CO2 emissions, and only for a few decades at most.

    3) Given…

    Read more
    1. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Thanks for the link Peter.

      I say we put BP in charge of all sequestration wells.
      ;]

      report
  18. Peter Lang

    Retired geologist and engineer

    Richard Aldous,

    How can you,with integrity, advocate CCS given that:

    1. The cost of electricity would be nearly twice that of nuclear (according to AETA 2012 costs; see Table 5.2.6: http://bree.gov.au/documents/publications/aeta/Australian_Energy_Technology_Assessment.pdf)

    2. The CO2 abatement cost would be more than twice what it would be with nuclear

    3. Nuclear is a proven, safe technology (57 years of operation, 15,000 reactor years of operation and lowest fatalities rate amount of electricity produced of any electricity technology http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html).

    4. Nuclear would avoid pollution from fossil fuel power station that CCS would not remove. Based on USA figures from the link above, replacing coal with nuclear in NSW would avoid 900 fatalities per year. CCS cannot do that.

    Therefore, I ask you how you, with professional integrity, can advocate CCS?

    report
    1. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Just for the record, the demonstrated safety of nuclear power is illustrated here...

      http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l (PSI ENSAD)
      http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
      www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

      And, all these LWRs are based on a 1946 patent. Advanced fuel cycles are safer & more efficient, even able to make carbon-neutral fuels for aircraft, etc.

      report
    1. aligatorhardt

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Contamination from nuclear power is also a big threat to aquatic health. A history of dumping nuclear waste in the oceans has contaminated areas all over the world. Mining of uranium is a huge source of water contamination. Instead of only measuring construction effects, the whole life cycle and operation of a power system must be considered. wind power runs with no ongoing pollution or emissions. Solar power is cheaper than nuclear, and has no environmental damages in use. http://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/article/est-data-shows-increase-in-average-savings-20121108

      http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/954262--solar-power-outshines-nuclear-power-study

      report
  19. Comment removed by moderator.

  20. John Coochey

    Mr

    Hey I have just had a thought, all this carbon sequestration is all irrelevant anyway. All our problems are going to be solved by solar liquid salt power generation like they have in Spain. So what is all the argument about?

    report
    1. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to John Coochey

      John, you gripe about comments against you, but you clearly don't read.

      CO2 emissions are great to stop, say today, but that will not stop ocean acidification, already threatening food supplies, especially in Nordic regions.

      report
    2. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to John Coochey

      John Coochey,

      Good question. I'll answer it for those who might think you are being serious.

      "It's the economics stupid!"

      Solar is uneconomic and cannot provide reliable power supply (even with storage).

      The latest and largest solar thermal plant in the world, now being built in California has 6 hours storage and will cost $19/W average power supplied. That's about three to four times the cost of nuclear.

      And it is not a baseload power plant. It would need about 100 h storage to be a reliable baseload capable.

      report
  21. Peter Lang

    Retired geologist and engineer

    I posted a comment yesterday comparing the subsidies for renewables, CCS and nuclear and comparing these technologies on the basis of cost of electricity, amount of subsidies required, amount of CO2 avoided and CO2 abatement cost. The comment is still in place.

    However, it is a bit long and since it is not possible to put formatting on this web site it may be a bit hard to follow. So this morning I summarised it with a dummed down version. It's been deleted, so I'll repost a reworded version:

    "Support committed so far for renewable is $30-$50 billion; that would achieve about 27 Mt CO2 avoided per year.

    However, $10-$20 billion support for nuclear would achieve about $147 Mt CO2 savings per year.

    For 1/3 the subsidies nuclear would deliver about 5 times the CO2 savings.

    report
    1. aligatorhardt

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Nuclear power has high emissions in the supply chain and does not make a significant reduction of global warming for many decades, even with a large increase in the number of reactors. The mining and contamination impacts of nuclear power as well as the high economic cost make nuclear a very poor choice. The best way to reduce emissions is at the source, by installing renewable energy systems that do not raise emissions, and also do not contaminate or create high health damages. It is ridiculous to complain about the slightly high cost of renewable energy, then advocate CCS, which is even more expensive, and has failed to show good results in pilot projects. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/02/cbo-carbon-capture-efforts-arent-going-so-well/

      CCS is just an excuse to avoid phasing out coal use.

      report
    2. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Aligatorhardt,

      You make many assertions using adjective like "high, 'many", "large", etc. It's all meaningless without context.

      Big picture: nuclear is the cleanest, safest and least cost way to reduce emissions. Its also by far the fastest way to reduce emissions by the amount advocated.

      I suggest you are reading the hype and nonsense put out by the so called 'environmental NGOs' and other anti-nuclear groups and you are not seriously considering the veracity of what you are reading.

      report
    3. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Alligator -- you need to study up on what actually goes on in mining and nuclear porcesses.

      There are no emissions from a nucleasr plant when it's in operation, except for perhwps a little Tritium, las is used on your watch and alarm clock dials, because its emissions can't penetrate plastic.

      The emissions from mining are under the control of the govt., just as they are for any mineral or fuel production business.

      In fact, the combustion industry here in the USA is allowed to emit not just…

      Read more
    4. Alex Cannara

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Gator, are your straw men as fake as your name? No one's advocating CCS as a solution.

      report
  22. John Coochey

    Mr

    I note that Paul Wityer has still not produced the information I challenged him to do. I also note his clearly defamatory comment is still up despite my earlier protest being removed. Does the Conversation have legal insurance for such matters?

    report
    1. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to John Coochey

      I support John Coochey in this quest to get the comment removed. I'd support him if he demanding an apology be posted on line.

      I suggest it is very bad that someone can call him a liar, not substantiate the assertion, and the Conversation allows the comment to remain.

      I find this is a clear demonstration of a partisan bias in deleting comments. The conversation frequently deletes comments posted by those who do not accept the Left's ideological beliefs, but does not apply the same rules to those who apparently share the Conversation's clear bias towards Left ideology.

      report
  23. Dave Phillips

    logged in via Facebook

    The politics of fear drive the climate change debate, it is hijacked by vested interests, and the carbon being talked about is part of the system of carbon that has been cycling through the environment for millennia, it isn't "new" carbon, it isn't "extra" carbon, it is trapped carbon, then released carbon, then re-trapped or dissipated through the closed loop cycle of the environment. Man has just released some of the trapped carbon, and suddenly it is the biggest thing since sliced bread and is…

    Read more
    1. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Dave Phillips

      Dave, Sure - I get your point. The carbon got sequestered, we are releasing it, and it will get sequestered again. And you are probably right, that cycle will occur. The problem with your argument is time scales. It took how long for all that coal, gas and oil to be stored? The coal we burn was formed 300-400 million years ago - over millions of years and at a time when the seas were massively more sulfurous than they are today. We are releasing what took hundreds of millions of years to store in just a couple of centuries. We are releasing carbon faster than it can be re-sequestered. it will take hundreds of millions of years this time - just as it did last time.

      report
  24. Zvyozdochka

    logged in via Twitter

    The least expensive form of CCS from future emissions is to leave it in the ground in the first place!

    report
  25. John Coochey

    Mr

    In reply to Maleous and others I do not have time to read interminable links which are worthless it is clear that the second reference which seeks to support the existence of subsidies for carbon use is a worthless press article and the other one is equally so. So summarize these so called subsidies and put your name and reputation to them and then explain how they are unique to the carbon industry as opposed to all established industries. What are they unique tax incentives, direct grants or just wishful thinking on the part of the Greenies?
    But as I have pointed out it is all irrelevant anyway because molten salt will solve all our problems I read it on the Drum so it must be true! Wonder how long before this comment is deleted?

    report
  26. John Coochey

    Mr

    Regarding to Institute for Sustainable futures paper on so called subsidies to the fossil fuel industry a couple of more quotes

    "It is not clear from the report whether the indirect subsidies were only to fossil fuels or to the energy sector as a
    whole.

    In the developed world, most energy subsidies are more than offset by special taxes on fossil fuels"

    BOM BOM, I think that about says it all. Once again I have wasted my time following a link which says the reverse of what it is supposed to say.

    report