tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635760468963898155.post5715300703574942015..comments2023-09-17T03:50:33.380-04:00Comments on American Forum Op-Ed: Carbon Capture and StorageAmerican Forumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17399044240332629290noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635760468963898155.post-51480476956702971392010-04-27T14:24:52.181-04:002010-04-27T14:24:52.181-04:00I read the paper by Economides that you are talkin...I read the paper by Economides that you are talking about. The erroneous basis for his calculations is that no wells are drilled to remove the ground water displaced by the stored carbon dioxide "carbon dioxide sequestration is not generally envisioned to be associated with any production of underground fluids,"<br /><br />His paper is proof, if proof were needed, that relief wells will be required for many geological structures. Others have discussed the issues that these relief wells might raise. See http://scienceblogs.com/highlyallochthonous/2010/02/carbon_capture_and_storage.php <br /><br />It may well be true that windmills and nuclear are cheaper ways to generate electricity than coal with carbon capture, and energy saving often pays for itself if you can persuade people to do it. But when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration stops rising the oceans will continue to absorb only 6% of today's emissions so no matter how much energy we save or how many windmills we build if we burn more carbon than that we need to capture it to stop global warming. Refer http://jemsavestheplanet.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-on-global-warming.html<br /><br />It is only fair that all those (and only those) who burn fossil fuel should contribute to the cost of capturing the carbon dioxide produced. My proposal would be that fuel producers would place contracts for the capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide equivalent to an increasing proportion of the carbon in the fuel they produce. Inevitably the cost would be passed on to the consumer but if capture cost say $75/tonne of carbon dioxide, this would add only $32/barrel of oil, which is modest compared to price movements in recent years.<br /><br />Raising the cost of using fossil fuel would drive energy saving, renewables and nuclear in just the same way as a tax or a cap but without the intractable problems of agreeing emission limits for every sovereign nation. See my article at http://www.ngoilgas.com/article/sorting-climate-changeJem Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318806526167072946noreply@blogger.com