I was the GF over the mountaineer power plant CCS test unit. It was stored ten thousand feet deep in a sand stone formation. The technology works great and needs to be used.
While I'm sure all of this information is paramount you guys need to work on your delivery and outreach, getting the message out to more people online. Do a video series so the videos are shorter, show the person talking, have bright colors, cool transitions between scenes, maybe do an interview around one of these plants, and make sure people know this is only temporary and not at all a permanent solution.
this might be silly, but the CO2 is coming from fossil fuels (hydrocarbons). Upon burning, we get CO2 and H2O. That's a lot of oxygen leaving as either water or going underground. Is that a problem?
What about the oxygen? We are taking stored carbon, combining it with twice as much oxygen and are proposing to store the product, CO2. Surely it would be better to do what the world’s flora does and store the carbon while releasing the oxygen back into the atmosphere. CCS in the long term will be destructive. Due to the current global climate disaster It must, however, regrettably be implemented as a short term measure while we are working out how to do what the plants do rapidly and economically enough using renewable energy sources to split the CO2 back into C and O to restore and maintain the CO2/O2 balance in the atmosphere. Or is that a dumb idea?
Dear Potholer, I already wrote something, but it disappeared in the cyber space. So, this time only a short list. First my disclaimer: I have published some 100 peer reviewed papers and reviewed about twice that number. In other words, I know how to read science. 1. When you cite publications, do you suggest that climate change Journals publish articles that provide solid data negating the “consensus”. How was Michael Mann’s hockey stick paper published in Nature despite its fatal statistical errors? Peer review… Climate “science” reminds me more of singing in a church choir than serious research (which is about skepticism by nature). There is no consensus in science. Your so called “debunkings” are mainly based on looking for the choir notes. 2. Droughts! We’ll our land usage (growing crops) is catastrophic. It erodes the soil to a point that disasters become inevitable. The major reason for this is the plant-based diet, which is the reason for such land usage. Let’s go back to natural forestation and eating ruminants pastured in their natural environment. That would cure the soil of the planet at once. 3. I think that we can agree to some extent that ~1800 was about the coldest time of this interglacial period. It also coincides with the use of thermometers for temperature records after that period. The records before that are from proxies. That a record relating to one point is simply a consequence that the proxy is available only there. There are no ice cores available for the equator. Now we are going to warm 7C by the year 2100. That equals to 0.09C per year globally. That is way outside of the measuring accuracy. It would be so also if we take a 10-year period. So, I warmly recommend learning the measurement instrumentation specs and taking a course in measurement uncertainty determination.
are there any CCS projects that have been running successfully and profitably for power generation? any at all?
I was the GF over the mountaineer power plant CCS test unit. It was stored ten thousand feet deep in a sand stone formation. The technology works great and needs to be used.
While I'm sure all of this information is paramount you guys need to work on your delivery and outreach, getting the message out to more people online. Do a video series so the videos are shorter, show the person talking, have bright colors, cool transitions between scenes, maybe do an interview around one of these plants, and make sure people know this is only temporary and not at all a permanent solution.
Can we access the slides?
this might be silly, but the CO2 is coming from fossil fuels (hydrocarbons). Upon burning, we get CO2 and H2O. That's a lot of oxygen leaving as either water or going underground. Is that a problem?
We need to remove around 0,1-0,2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere which contains up to 21% of oxygen, so not really.
Great presentation. Thanks
What about the oxygen? We are taking stored carbon, combining it with twice as much oxygen and are proposing to store the product, CO2. Surely it would be better to do what the world’s flora does and store the carbon while releasing the oxygen back into the atmosphere. CCS in the long term will be destructive. Due to the current global climate disaster It must, however, regrettably be implemented as a short term measure while we are working out how to do what the plants do rapidly and economically enough using renewable energy sources to split the CO2 back into C and O to restore and maintain the CO2/O2 balance in the atmosphere. Or is that a dumb idea?
You’re right. It is nothing but a scam.
Dear Potholer, I already wrote something, but it disappeared in the cyber space. So, this time only a short list.
First my disclaimer: I have published some 100 peer reviewed papers and reviewed about twice that number. In other words, I know how to read science.
1. When you cite publications, do you suggest that climate change Journals publish articles that provide solid data negating the “consensus”. How was Michael Mann’s hockey stick paper published in Nature despite its fatal statistical errors? Peer review… Climate “science” reminds me more of singing in a church choir than serious research (which is about skepticism by nature). There is no consensus in science. Your so called “debunkings” are mainly based on looking for the choir notes.
2. Droughts! We’ll our land usage (growing crops) is catastrophic. It erodes the soil to a point that disasters become inevitable. The major reason for this is the plant-based diet, which is the reason for such land usage. Let’s go back to natural forestation and eating ruminants pastured in their natural environment. That would cure the soil of the planet at once.
3. I think that we can agree to some extent that ~1800 was about the coldest time of this interglacial period. It also coincides with the use of thermometers for temperature records after that period. The records before that are from proxies. That a record relating to one point is simply a consequence that the proxy is available only there. There are no ice cores available for the equator. Now we are going to warm 7C by the year 2100. That equals to 0.09C per year globally. That is way outside of the measuring accuracy. It would be so also if we take a 10-year period. So, I warmly recommend learning the measurement instrumentation specs and taking a course in measurement uncertainty determination.