"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Carbon storage premise 'totally erroneous'

Carbon capture and storage is a nonsense and a new paper confirms what any   rational person would know intuitively . Of course the fact that Kevin Rudd has committed 2 billion dollars to this green fairy tale speaks for itself.
A RESEARCH paper from American academics is threatening to blow a hole in growing political support for carbon capture and storage as a weapon against global warming.

The paper from Houston University says that governments wanting to use carbon sequestration have overestimated its value and says it would take a reservoir the size of a small US state to hold the carbon dioxide produced by one power station.
The research has serious implications for Australia, which has invested heavily in developing the technology, though it has not stored carbon from a power plant
.

The aim is to be able to capture the carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants and pump them safely underground, so they do not add to global warming.

Previous modelling had hugely underestimated the space needed to store carbon dioxide because it was based on the ''totally erroneous'' premise that the pressure feeding the carbon into the rock structures would be constant, Michael Economides, professor of chemical engineering at Houston, and Christene Ehlig-Economides, professor of energy engineering at Texas A&M University, argue.
''It would be hard to inject carbon dioxide into a closed system without eventually producing so much pressure that it fractured the rock and allowed the carbon to migrate to other zones and possibly escape,'' Professor Economides said.
The paper said that carbon capture and storage ''is not a practical means to provide any substantive reduction in carbon dioxide emissions''.
The whole Carbon Capture and Storage industry is ideologically driven and is obtaining huge research dollars for a non-existent and impractical technology.

10 comments:

  1. When the CO2 finally escaped it wouldn't escape evenly but large amounts would escape in small areas. Because CO2 is heavier than air we would see deaths of animals and possible humans like what happened in Cameroon in 1986. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

    ReplyDelete
  2. Australia's Prime Minister desperately wants a seat with the big boys and girls at the UN, and has been furiously selling out his country to the globalists to get it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The only sensible way to sequester carbon dioxide is to pump it into a closed system containing growing plants, such as a giant greenhouse or algae growing in water which is flowing through glass tubes. That way the CO2 actually does something useful, promoting the growth of the greenhouse plants or of the algae which can then be used as fuel or as animal feed. Of course that would be too sensible, so it will never happen.

    ReplyDelete
  4. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It does not need to be "captured". This would be hilarious if it weren't so insane.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The purpose seems not to be to remove carbon, or carbon dioxide from the environment, but money. Carbon sequestration appears to be an astonishingly good way to remove money from the environment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What a horrifying scenario. Is there nothing that "politicians" (i.e. elected criminals) won't stoop to?

    The very idea of "storing" carbon, which almost everything is made of, is ludicrous. Is everyone going to be issued an appropriate gas mask?

    Since plants depend on CO2, won't the reduction of CO2...perhaps even by tiny percentages...lead to crop failures around the world?

    How do we know that the "palm yellows" aren't caused by already-reduced CO2 from reduced manufacturing in the United States? The death of palm trees and their critically-important products and by-products must already be damaging populations that depend on them around the world.

    Since plants take in CO2 and give off oxygen, couldn't declining levels of CO2 and resulting decline of plants result in less breathable oxygen for all aminal species including humans?

    Is reduction of carbon really a plan to reduce the world population by 90%?

    It certainly could do it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Quote: ...pump it into a closed system containing growing plants...
    Unquote

    Far too intelligent for political consumption. Makes too much sense. Killing scores of people and animals is a better idea.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Quote:
    CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It does not need to be "captured". This would be hilarious if it weren't so insane.
    Unquote

    Yep. Inmates have captured the asylum.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's interesting to see how the comments keep coming in Baron.

    This story obviously has legs with its ability to attract further comments more than 2 weeks after its original post date.

    As you correctly point out in your lead into the story, people intuitively know what is nonsense and carbon capture is right up there as the most nonsensical of theories, making this an ideal story for your aptly named blog.

    Here's hoping 'Common Sense' does prevail and that the governments of the world wake up before they blow even more billions on this totally useless exercise; billions of dollars that could clearly be put to so much better use in a world plagued by undeclared wars, poverty, starvation and sickness.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I read today that the Bundaberg Fishing Club is inviting anglers to attend a 'Carbon Footprint' night. It is described as "details of Global Warming and how to reduce carbon emissions". On the basis that they think they are acting in an educational role it is difficult to condemn them however they no doubt will be talking to the ill informed and moreover in an attempt to 'save the world' they will be making the whole situation worse by simply using the words Global Warming; Carbon Footprints and Co2 Reduction. "Common Sense" says these words/phrases should now be banned.

    ReplyDelete