Posted on 05/23/2010 12:06:17 AM PDT by neverdem
ON Wednesday, John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman introduced their long-awaited Senate energy bill, which includes incentives of $2 billion per year for carbon capture and sequestration, the technology that removes carbon dioxide from the smokestack at power plants and forces it into underground storage. This significant allocation would come on top of the $2.4 billion for carbon capture projects that appeared in last year’s stimulus package.
That’s a lot of money for a technology whose adoption faces three potentially insurmountable hurdles: it greatly reduces the output of power plants; pipeline capacity to move the newly captured carbon dioxide is woefully insufficient; and the volume of waste material is staggering. Lawmakers should stop perpetuating the hope that the technology can help make huge cuts in the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions.
Let’s take the first problem. Capturing carbon dioxide from the flue gas of a coal-fired electric generation plant is an energy-intensive process. Analysts estimate that capturing the carbon dioxide cuts the output of a typical plant by as much as 28 percent.
Given that the global energy sector is already straining to meet booming demand for electricity, it’s hard to believe that the United States, or any other country that relies on coal-fired generation, will agree to reduce the output of its coal-fired plants by almost a third in order to attempt carbon capture and sequestration.
Here’s the second problem. The Pacific Northwest National...
--snip--
By contrast, carbon dioxide is a worthless waste product, so taxpayers would likely end up shouldering most of the cost...
--snip--
The third, and most vexing, problem has to do with scale...
--snip--
In other words, we would need to find an underground location (or locations) able to swallow a volume equal to the contents of 41 oil supertankers each day, 365 days a year...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I just love these Friday Silliness threads!
Is carbon a hazard? No. It's an essential component of life here on planet Earth. We are 'carbon based lifeforms' and the plant life we depend upon require carbon dioxide for us all to live. Why would we want less? How stupid is that?
Does carbon cause the planet to warm? I learned about the green house effect in grade school, but I've since learned that water vapor is the real mover and shaker in the world of green house gases. Carbon dioxide is a tiny percentage of our atmosphere and it's a stretch to give it such prominence.
Besides, we have more than enough data showing that temperature leads carbon dioxide concentration. So, if we use the theory the global warmers are using, does that mean that temperature increase 'causes' carbon dioxide increase? And, if we need carbon dioxide to live, lets warm things up!
Bottom line? Cap and trade is another way for politicians to tax the stupid with the added benefit of having the stupid demand that politicians take their money. Sweet deal.
An attempt to deprive the plants on earth a means for life.
Thanks for the ping!
Global money.
Wont be long before you will need a couple thousand carbon credits to grow a garden on your property
J Fn K is more of a pollutant than CO2 will ever be!
In 50 years, people will look back at this era of mass hysteria and won’t be able to believe it. History repeats...and....repeats
Seems to me that most of the synthetic hysteria is found in people who plan to make a whole, big bunch of money on this idiotic scheme.
Yucca Mountain?
Storing carbon dioxide underground?! Who comes up with this stuff?”
Plants need carbon dioxide-—& they don’t grow underground. They also need sunlight & water.
What plants will grow when the carbon dioxide is lowered??
Thank you!
You are most welcome. It needs to be understood that there is no greenhouse effect. The atmosphere just doesn’t work that way.
Hey T. I was taking a stroll down freeper memory lane and stumbled upon this old riff between you and I. I had completely forgotten about it so reading it again I laughed my ass off yet again. “you may call me Manbearpig, want to buy a carbon credit?”. LOL. Has it really been over 2 years in a battle well fought?
Oops. Forgot to include the link:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2012049/posts
Thanks for the ping ND.
LOL I was on a roll that day. No, I can’t believe it has been two years either. Us carbon-based life forms are so inefficient at tracking time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.