Capturing Carbon
- Thread starter #juan
- Start date
Interesting article. One of the points raised was one of my first concerns when I opened this topic. Namely, that somehow that gas was going to find it's way back to the surface and do us dirt. I've read of a mountain lake in Africa where every once in a while, CO2 bubbles up and both animals and people die of asphyxiation http://www.scienceiq.com/ShowFact.cfm?ID=194
Perhaps as a way of mitigating the small amount which would escape from the aquifers, a bio-filter could be built on top of the well site. The beneficial bacteria could metabolize the CO2, heck maybe they could introduce the bacteria to the CO2/water mixture.
This is likely not a big problem. Both those lakes were above old volcanoes. A little care in selecting the injection sites could probably minimize that kind of danger.
I never got why this hasn't been mandatory for a long time.
You make a mess, you clean it up. Personal responsibility.
If a restaurant makes alot of garbage (and they do) it has to pay to dispose of mess, it can't just throw it in the street. If a restaurant can't afford to pay for trash delivery we tell it that it isn't a viable business then (revenue don't exceed expenses) and tell it to move on.
With alot of industries we let them take their waste and throw it into the street. Why the double standard for some businesses but not all?
You make a mess, you clean it up. Personal responsibility.
If a restaurant makes alot of garbage (and they do) it has to pay to dispose of mess, it can't just throw it in the street. If a restaurant can't afford to pay for trash delivery we tell it that it isn't a viable business then (revenue don't exceed expenses) and tell it to move on.
With alot of industries we let them take their waste and throw it into the street. Why the double standard for some businesses but not all?
I thought I'd crunch some numbers based on what this fellow in the OP said, and compare that against the gains in the carbon market. For the record, I don't think Canada should persue the carbon market as a means to reduce emissions, but as a means to off-set costs of emssion reduction implementation.
Using the OP figures the range for cutting these costs works out to anywhere between $4.6 Billion and $11.2 Billion, roughly. Just in the last year, the global Carbon trading market grew from $11 Billion to almost $22 Billion. Now the majority of that is being spent in China and India. As they are developing countries under this plan, so industrialized nations gain credit by paying for cleaner technolgy in place of cheaper dirtier technology. $19 Billion of that money is coming from the EU, who is using these credits to meet their pledge.
http://web.worldbank.org
Renewable energy and energy efficiency is emerging as the fastest growing aspect of the carbon market, jumping from 11 to 26%.
What is unknown is what will happen to the big dogs after 2012. Will China and India remain
exempt from the industrialized nations list. Perhaps could we enter an agreement with nations like Australia and USA, and perhaps the EU, whereby they could green their image or further their reductions by purchasing credits from us? Certainly if we develop the sequestration techniques and technology, hypothetically the credits they would purchase from us, assuming we pay the initial investment to make our targets, could help to offset our costs. Once we are below our own emission standards, countries could further reduce their emissions by purchasing more credits and we could give them our data/technology to use themselves.
If the trend continues, and global emission reductions are met by decreases in the more efficient larger emission countries, we could cash in on this market. I think this might be what Dion is thinking. By making our own fossil fuel industry clean, we can continue to use the infrastructure and energy available easilly to us. As our industry makes money off cleaner technolgy, we can begin to make the move by adding renewables, which only furthers the credits which other countries can purchase from us, and thereby giving renewable energy a larger market share to offset future shortages/cost increases in the fossil fuel industry.
Now this is assuming we use the Kyoto protocol as a cash generator, like I said to offset our own initial costs.
Theres plenty of unknowns in this ramble of mine, but for the time being, some food for thought.
Edit: I just now saw that Sir Richard Branson and Al Gore (snicker all you want) just announced a cash prize to the first scientist to develop the CO2 stripping techniques we're talking about here.
Using the OP figures the range for cutting these costs works out to anywhere between $4.6 Billion and $11.2 Billion, roughly. Just in the last year, the global Carbon trading market grew from $11 Billion to almost $22 Billion. Now the majority of that is being spent in China and India. As they are developing countries under this plan, so industrialized nations gain credit by paying for cleaner technolgy in place of cheaper dirtier technology. $19 Billion of that money is coming from the EU, who is using these credits to meet their pledge.
http://web.worldbank.org
Renewable energy and energy efficiency is emerging as the fastest growing aspect of the carbon market, jumping from 11 to 26%.
What is unknown is what will happen to the big dogs after 2012. Will China and India remain
exempt from the industrialized nations list. Perhaps could we enter an agreement with nations like Australia and USA, and perhaps the EU, whereby they could green their image or further their reductions by purchasing credits from us? Certainly if we develop the sequestration techniques and technology, hypothetically the credits they would purchase from us, assuming we pay the initial investment to make our targets, could help to offset our costs. Once we are below our own emission standards, countries could further reduce their emissions by purchasing more credits and we could give them our data/technology to use themselves.
If the trend continues, and global emission reductions are met by decreases in the more efficient larger emission countries, we could cash in on this market. I think this might be what Dion is thinking. By making our own fossil fuel industry clean, we can continue to use the infrastructure and energy available easilly to us. As our industry makes money off cleaner technolgy, we can begin to make the move by adding renewables, which only furthers the credits which other countries can purchase from us, and thereby giving renewable energy a larger market share to offset future shortages/cost increases in the fossil fuel industry.
Now this is assuming we use the Kyoto protocol as a cash generator, like I said to offset our own initial costs.
Theres plenty of unknowns in this ramble of mine, but for the time being, some food for thought.
Edit: I just now saw that Sir Richard Branson and Al Gore (snicker all you want) just announced a cash prize to the first scientist to develop the CO2 stripping techniques we're talking about here.
Last edited:
Excellent post
For all it's faults, Kyoto contains a certain amount of genius, if countries want to work with it. Rather than the economic Albatross that the right wing are claiming it is, it can be a boon if all the countries work together to moderate CO2 levels.
I've always been convinced that if all countries worked together, hypothetically, we could not only reduce emissions, we could even reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels is not the only culprit in this equation. The pace at which we are cutting down the rain forests, (that are the natural launderers of our atmosphere)is also a big factor, along with population growth.
Kyoto is utterly useless because no one whom it will harm will sign it.
It would be like free health care, if you only had to pay the portion of your taxes used for it IF you wanted to. Otherwise you could just get your own health care.
Everyone who would pay less using government health care would sign up for it, everyone who would pay more would say screw it and buy cheaper private insurance.
Net result? No one would have health care since the only people who sign up are one or two stupid people and those who would profit from it.
Thats Kyoto.
It would be like free health care, if you only had to pay the portion of your taxes used for it IF you wanted to. Otherwise you could just get your own health care.
Everyone who would pay less using government health care would sign up for it, everyone who would pay more would say screw it and buy cheaper private insurance.
Net result? No one would have health care since the only people who sign up are one or two stupid people and those who would profit from it.
Thats Kyoto.
I was kinda hoping you were joking as the top 10% of the rich in Canuckville fork over more than 51% of personal income tax collected.I place myself in that same "middle class". I am not rich, I had a good financial manager...my wife.
Who pays for the bulk of everything? The middle class of course. The same class that does most of the worrying about these things.
The poor worry about more basic things..food, shelter, etc. while the rich have people to worry for them...Joking...
I was kinda hoping you were joking as the top 10% of the rich in Canuckville fork over more than 51% of personal income tax collected.
True if they can't find suitable tax dodges. The more money you have the easier it is to juggle it into a tax shelter.
Personally I'm not too concerned with CO² at the moment.
Although I may disagree with some things he says I'm not willing to dismiss the bit about CO².
- http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Although I may disagree with some things he says I'm not willing to dismiss the bit about CO².
But there are limits. Which is why they pay the bulk of taxes here. I'm sure it is similar in the STates. It isn't just true for those who can't find tax deductions, dodges, etc. There are only so many the gov't lets you use and there's a cap on each of those.
