May 8th, 2006
According to an American Bar Association (ABA) newsletter on energy, CO2 concentrations ion the atmosphere are rising at 2 ppm a year (the newsletter article cites: The discovery of Global Warming). On a comparative basis in the 1700's CO2 in the atmosphere was at 290 ppm, in 1960 the concentration was at 315 ppm and it has increased to 370 ppm today. The threshold to avoid catastrophic climate impacts is 450 ppm. (35 years to critical at this rate)
As we can all see that there is no immediate relief in sight for reducing CO2 emissions and most likely our overall emissions of CO2 will rise as economies such as China and India continue to expand along with other country/economy infrastructure development.
In 2005, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report for policy-makers that outlines the critical issues, both benefit and impact, associated with the new CO2 capture technology. The report affirms that CO2 capture technology is both viable and necessary; in relation to this, the report also states that fossil fuels will continue to dominate through the middle of this century.
The ifenergy.com post FutureGen Generation Next Power explains CO2 capture technology and CO2 storage: FutureGen Generation Next Power Note that this article explains that there is an associated cost for the reduced emissions in the case of FutureGen it's about 10%.
Presently Norway, Canada and Algeria use industrial point source CO2 capture plants. New developments are underway in the U.S. as well as Europe. The potential for CO2 capture technology used in widespread application is estimated to be near an overall 40% capture of all global fossil fuel emissions.
The ABA newsletter cites that until a legal and regulatory framework is established the full potential of CO2 capture will not be realized. I agree without a legal/regulatory frame work, the added construction/operations costs of capture plants make the use of capture technology attractive only from an emission reduction or a climate change standpoint and not from a consumer or business standpoint.
Source: Dominick J. Grazizno; Article
May 9th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Blogcritics Comments:
Hoggle
Comments: Once the cost of removing CO2 is factored into the cost of production, the true cost of burning fossil fuels becomes apparent. Removing this environmental subsidy from the oil, gas and coal industries will make all of the alternatives, including capture, far more competitive, and the resulting market forces will drive the rapid change towards them.
But adding a charge for using the environment means regulation, and making it realistic means oil-dependant economies will see their costs rise. It must be done as rapidly as possible without destabilising the world economy. This is a difficult balancing act and requires that the general public accept periods of recession and negative growth.
A hard political trick, no matter which oil baron is in the Whitehouse.
P.S. Why is this under Sci/Tech? Surely it belongs under politics? Or would it be rejected by Mr Nalle?
Armin Siljkovic
Comments: Don’t mix the envirorment with “politics”. Politics is “you’re wrong I’m right”, tax, education, business etc.
There is no right/wrong when debating the global warming issue. It’s there, and it needs to be taken care of.
May 9th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Very good work. Furthermore, a new nice book sheds more light on this issue: China’s Global Reach: markets, multinationals, and globalization by george zhibin gu, which offers huge insights on current global affairs.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:37 am
Canadians believe that climate change is occurring and some action should be taken to address it, but the issue ranks low in importance compared with other national issues. Public knowledge of GDC was low, but after an introduction to the technology, including the benefits and risks, respondents were slightly supportive of GDC development in Canada. The most important benefits of GDC were seen to be its usefulness as a bridging technology while long-term climate change solutions are developed, the potential for its use as part of carbon dioxide (CO2)-based EOR, and its potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions faster and cheaper than alternatives, while the public was most concerned about unknown future impacts, contamination of groundwater, the risk of a CO2 leak, and harm to plants and animals.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Frankly, i avoid watching tv documentaries regarding global worming, because i am to afraid about what i could find out. I know that thing are getting worst and in my simple way i try not to contribute to Global Worming, i prefer to walk instead driving. The question is, how many people do that?