Eric Worrall writes: Carbon Capture and Storage, the most terrifying technology in the green arsenal of deadly stupidity, has once again reared its ugliness on The Conversation.
![CCS_DP[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/ccs_dp1.jpg?quality=83)
According to Howard J. Herzog, Senior Research Engineer at Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
“Pumping CO2 underground can help fight climate change. Why is it stuck in second gear?
To deploy CCS on the scale required is a monumental task. We need to store billions of tons of CO2 annually. However, this is the level of effort needed to address climate change. Similar efforts will be needed with other climate mitigation technologies, such as renewables, nuclear and efficiency. There is no silver bullet; we need them all.
As of now, however, CCS is used very little, nowhere near the scale required to make a meaningful dent in emissions. Why? The reasons have less to do with technology maturity and more to do with government policies and the commercial incentives they create.”
Herzog makes no mention of potential risks of concentrating large quantities of CO2. Why do I think CCS is so terrifying? The reason I am frightened of CCS is, the world has already experienced what happens if a large quantity of CO2 is abruptly released.
In Africa, in 1986, an abrupt release of an estimated 100,000 – 300,000 tons of CO2 killed 2,500 people up to 25km (15.5 miles) from the source of the release.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos#1986_disaster
Concentrating large quantities CO2 in one place is dangerous. A similar release to the Lake Nyos disaster, near a major city, however unlikely, however elaborate the safety precautions, could potentially kill millions of people. The CCS concept involves the concentration of billions of tons of CO2 per annum in thousands of locations near major industrial centres. Can anyone imagine nobody will ever make just one mistake, with an operation on that scale? Just one release of a minute fraction of this concentrated CO2 could be as devastating, in terms of loss of life, as the detonation of a small nuclear bomb.
I suggest there is a very good reason CCS is “stuck in the slow lane”. The reason, in my opinion, is that it is total lunacy.
Hey! I have a great idea!
We should bottle the excess CO2, mix it with water and distribute it to the
drought stricken areas in Africa. This would reduce carbon emissions and help quench their thirst.
PS actually also provides low cost fuel and building materials and agricultural produce.Anything else
A lot of food comes from trees.
It is usually called carbon sequestration. But it would be better called oxygen sequestration. After all, each CO2 molecule contains twice as much oxygen as it does carbon. The funny thing is that, while plants breath CO2 to live, I breath oxygen. So I can either starve from lack of food, or suffocate from lack of oxygen.
Limited by their “one-track” minds, the proponents of CAGW haven’t figured that out yet.
This CCS reminds me of the story about the “kurplunk”. To make a long story short. Briton was in a deep depression. The government turn to a famous economist. He came up with a plan called “kurplunk” but nobody knew what it did. Hundreds of thousands people went back to work developed and manufactured the “kurplunk” all paid for by the government. The day came to test the “kurplunk”. It was a 4″ x 2″ cigar shape, high quality, finely polished piece of metal. The famous economist took the object to the middle of a bridge above the Thames river and dropped it in resulting in the sound “kurplunk”. When asked “Is that all it does?” He said yes, make another one.
Don’t tell Obama that story or he will fund a similar program immediately and appoint a cadre of partisan Democrats to oversee its success.
Not looking good for CCS technology any time soon. Also note that the EPA proposed rules use CCS as their suggested means of achieving the reductions they are recommending.
http://www.nature.com/news/us-government-abandons-carbon-capture-demonstration-1.16868