Reducing pollution is fine, but carbon dioxide isn't pollution. It's plant food. Expensive carbon capture and sequestration technology is needed only if you believe the anthropogenic global warming, AGW, hypothesis. There's no proof of AGW. We're supposed to accept this ideology on the basis of the precautionary principle! Where else does the left apply the precautionary principle?
it’s a “faith based” initiative.
While the near infinite energy potential of thorium is largely ignored, we fret about the amount of CO2 that burning of coal releases. I am far more concerned about the health effects of fly ash and the trace radioactivity that we are spreading along with it than I am about CO2, and that is for one simple question:
What is the optimum temperature? Taken over the last several glacial cycles, on average most of Northern Europe and North America would be under hundreds if not thousands of feet of ice. For short periods it has thawed enough to grow food crops.
We also now find, thanks to a very recent project to research Antarctic ice cores that it was warmer 800,000 years ago. Yet, nobody seems very interested in why it was warmer then than now.
Are we warmer than the optimum or cooler? Who gets to decide? I am not interested in much of the frantic climate news until those simple questions are addressed.
“The coal and iron oxide are heated to high temperatures...”
The article doesn’t state how the coal is heated in the first place.
Out of curiosity—how is carbon dioxide recycled? Fed to plants?
Must of been telepathy the minute I read your synopsis I was thinking the same thing. What a waste of money on a pseudo scientific premise. The only reason it may get pushed (patent patent patent) will be because we have a fascist goverment and there’s money in it for them. Let’s see what happens if this makes a mention during the inaugural. Outside of that what other application does this have ?
Won’t be good enough for the enviro-wackos including Obastard.
Their twist on the “Broken Window” fallacy.
You would think that a scientist would be smarter than that but then I am sure that he is being funded by a government grant to produce this technology.
How is making electricity more expensive by making the generation of the electricity less efficient going to spur the economy with jobs?
Yes you may produce a few construction jobs while you are building your white elephant of a coal plant but you are going to destroy jobs by making energy more expensive.
The best way to grow the economy is to make energy less expensive. You do that by reducing regulatory burdens that are counter productive. You do that by making it easier to build new modern generation plants and oil refineries. You do that by making it easier to license new coal mines nuclear power plants and oil fields.
This nonsense about carbon dioxide and anthropomorphic global warming is junk science and needs to be put in the dustbin of history.
Dolphins, spotted owls, baby seals, and the Dali Lama still exhale this pollutant with every breath they take. Until we find a way to exterminate these polluters, we’ll never be free of the carbon dioxide scourge.
It’s a good thing plants don’t think or liberal plants might be trying to eliminate O2!
Forget coal! It’s cold fusion that will give us all cheap energy......if only those machines can be tweaked just a tiny bit more. Some day.
Bump for later.
While I understand your point, CO2 is a valuable gas that has many possible uses. So there are other reasons for seperating and capturing the gas. One possible use would be to bubble through Algae tanks to produce bio-diesel or feedstocks for butanol production.