Comments on: The Politics of Air Capture http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4187 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: JamesG http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4187&cpage=1#comment-8903 JamesG Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:46:23 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4187#comment-8903 RogerC Many people, like yourself, are also furthering their own nuclear power agenda on the back of the global warming scare. I am also pro-nuclear but I accept that a lot of people are even more scared of nuclear proliferation than higher global temperatures. Iran's desperate want of nuclear weapons is enough to worry anyone, as is the recent polonium poisoning in London. Nuclear technology remains the ultimate terrorist weapon. Also Uranium is neither renewable or plentiful and fast breeders using plutonium are a non-starter. Probably the Thorium reactor idea should be hyped up more as, being largely clean and safe, it stands more chance of acceptability, perhaps even one day by Greenpeace. RogerC

Many people, like yourself, are also furthering their own nuclear power agenda on the back of the global warming scare. I am also pro-nuclear but I accept that a lot of people are even more scared of nuclear proliferation than higher global temperatures. Iran’s desperate want of nuclear weapons is enough to worry anyone, as is the recent polonium poisoning in London. Nuclear technology remains the ultimate terrorist weapon. Also Uranium is neither renewable or plentiful and fast breeders using plutonium are a non-starter. Probably the Thorium reactor idea should be hyped up more as, being largely clean and safe, it stands more chance of acceptability, perhaps even one day by Greenpeace.

]]> By: JamesG http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4187&cpage=1#comment-8902 JamesG Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:29:16 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4187#comment-8902 Roger You may see the Greenpeace position as making no sense but if you analyse it a bit more then it makes perfect sense. Greenpeace stand for a clean pollution-free environment hence they primarily advocate clean, renewable non-nuclear energy sources. However, owing to cheap fossil fuels it seemed the only way to convince people to move to renewable energy was to overhype the dangers to the planet of excess CO2. Whether they actually believed it or not is irrelevant from that perspective. Now the chickens have come home to roost and many people are now so scared they are advocating both CO2-free nuclear power and CO2 capture, neither of which encourages alternative energies or any real reduction of pollution. Ironic really! Also, Greenpeace know just as well as Jim Clarke or indeed anyone, that CO2 enriches plant growth and hence a small overburden is probably even good for the environment but industrial CO2 always comes along with a pile of more nasty pollutants so trying to remove the good stuff without at the same time removing the real toxins is just a stupid move. Personally I am in two minds: I hate the overhype, the bandwagon science and the reliance on extremely dubious computer modeling but I'm happy that finally we have been focusing on alternative energies. Developing a CO2 capture solution would just encourage people to continue using gas guzzlers and wasting precious energy resources. Why not capture the water vapour instead? According to all AGW theories it is the additional water vapour that causes the main warming via positive feedback and clean water is what humans will really lack in the coming years. A Win-Win situation perhaps? For the record, I am an ex nuclear engineer, an ex oil engineer, a CO2-free fuel cell designer, a developer of accurate computer modeling software and an ardent environmentalist so I am all over the place on this issue. Maybe I have more perspective? Roger
You may see the Greenpeace position as making no sense but if you analyse it a bit more then it makes perfect sense. Greenpeace stand for a clean pollution-free environment hence they primarily advocate clean, renewable non-nuclear energy sources. However, owing to cheap fossil fuels it seemed the only way to convince people to move to renewable energy was to overhype the dangers to the planet of excess CO2. Whether they actually believed it or not is irrelevant from that perspective. Now the chickens have come home to roost and many people are now so scared they are advocating both CO2-free nuclear power and CO2 capture, neither of which encourages alternative energies or any real reduction of pollution. Ironic really! Also, Greenpeace know just as well as Jim Clarke or indeed anyone, that CO2 enriches plant growth and hence a small overburden is probably even good for the environment but industrial CO2 always comes along with a pile of more nasty pollutants so trying to remove the good stuff without at the same time removing the real toxins is just a stupid move.

Personally I am in two minds: I hate the overhype, the bandwagon science and the reliance on extremely dubious computer modeling but I’m happy that finally we have been focusing on alternative energies. Developing a CO2 capture solution would just encourage people to continue using gas guzzlers and wasting precious energy resources. Why not capture the water vapour instead? According to all AGW theories it is the additional water vapour that causes the main warming via positive feedback and clean water is what humans will really lack in the coming years. A Win-Win situation perhaps?

For the record, I am an ex nuclear engineer, an ex oil engineer, a CO2-free fuel cell designer, a developer of accurate computer modeling software and an ardent environmentalist so I am all over the place on this issue. Maybe I have more perspective?

]]> By: Roger C http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4187&cpage=1#comment-8901 Roger C Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:07:24 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4187#comment-8901 Two comments: The 90,000 tons of CO2 a year is about what a 400 MW coal-fired power plant emits a week. I am very frustrated by individuals and organizations that are using global warming and CO2 reductions to further agendas. For example, those who say we have to cut CO2 but no nukes are acceptable are making it difficult to really address this problem. If in fact the potential for catastrophic problems means we have to act now why should any potential solutions be taken off the table. Two comments:
The 90,000 tons of CO2 a year is about what a 400 MW coal-fired power plant emits a week.
I am very frustrated by individuals and organizations that are using global warming and CO2 reductions to further agendas. For example, those who say we have to cut CO2 but no nukes are acceptable are making it difficult to really address this problem. If in fact the potential for catastrophic problems means we have to act now why should any potential solutions be taken off the table.

]]> By: Jim Lebeau http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4187&cpage=1#comment-8900 Jim Lebeau Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:14:59 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4187#comment-8900 They had nice CO2 scrubbers on the submarine I was on over 25 years ago. So I am not too impressed. A simpler solution to this "problem" would be to produce a great deal of biomass, render it to charcoal, and sequester the charcoal. All of the carbon in the charcoal would have come from the CO2 in the atmosphere. Charcoal is easier to sequester than CO2. They had nice CO2 scrubbers on the submarine I was on over 25 years ago. So I am not too impressed. A simpler solution to this “problem” would be to produce a great deal of biomass, render it to charcoal, and sequester the charcoal.
All of the carbon in the charcoal would have come from the CO2 in the atmosphere. Charcoal is easier to sequester than CO2.

]]>