Kyoto just got a tad easier to meet
A new way to capture CO2
- Brian Timlick's blog
- Login or register to post comments
GREEN PARTY OF CANADA
PO Box 997, Station B
Ottawa, ON K1P 5R1
Green Party of Canada | Important information and privacy policy | Terms of Service
Comments
Brian Timlick, nominated
Brian Timlick, nominated candidate, Charleswood-St.James-Assiniboia
Brian Timlick, nominated candidate, Charleswood-St.James-Assiniboia
but at what cost?
At first glance that sounds like badly thought out sci-fi to me. Capturing CO2 on a molecular scale is going to require one heck of a lot of nanovalves to make any impact on a global scale. And what will be the environmental cost of making this material?
Digging a bit deeper I find a more useful article from UofC:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/february2008/nano-storage
The paper's abstract is freely available here:
http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/vaop/ncurrent/a...
I can see how this might form the basis for temporary storage until the device can be discharged and the gas sequestered permanently, but I fail to see how it would be of much use beyond that. The basic science seems fine, but the applications sound like something dreamed up after a long session in the student's union.
Derek Andrews
Nova Scotia
Lets not crush the seeds of creativity
This is a starting point. Who knows what the final cost will be, but crushing it before it gets a chance to grow, in my mind, isn't the way to go.
Brian Timlick, nominated candidate, Charleswood-St.James-Assiniboia
Brian Timlick, nominated candidate, Charleswood-St.James-Assiniboia
can we crush the headlines instead?
I am the last person wanting to crush creativity or science. My main objection is the over-hyped headlines like "U of C nanovalve discovery could be used to cut greenhouse gas emissions". Google that headline and you will find it published verbatim all over the web. The danger is that many more people are going to read the headline and think all our problems are solved, than will read the whole article, do further research and think about it for themselves.
The researchers are no doubt working with the best possible intentions in mind, and I hope that this publicity helps them secure funding for further work. But at this stage, linking this work to GHG emissions in a headline is absurd.
Derek Andrews
Nova Scotia
Space?
If the gas is being captured in crystal in a non-pressurized state, wouldn't that mean it would take up a huge amount of space? That would prevent it being much use for hydrogen fuel cells (one suggested use) or carbon sequestration (another use).
If this becomes one stage in the carbon capture and sequestration process, then we'll let the fossil fuel burners worry about cost, practicality, etc. of this method as compared with others. Our job is to impose a strong carbon tax and/or cap and let them figure out the best way to reduce emissions accordingly.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
Barrie, ON
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada - the same goes for all other people's posts & comments.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
carbon-capture, it's still just a research idea
"At first glance that sounds like badly thought out sci-fi to me. Capturing CO2 on a molecular scale is going to require one heck of a lot of nanovalves to make any impact on a global scale. And what will be the environmental cost of making this material?"
The technique is in the research and proof-of-concept stage... not yet either scientifically or economically viable yet.
In contrast, hydro, wind power, and ground heating are known to be scientifically and economically sound.
So, why go to something that is just "a thought" at this point?
Answer, talking about research ideas is a good delay tactic that does not slow oil production or cost the government infrastructure money.
I.e. do nothing and spend next to nothing and divert attention from the task at hand.
Note that the Harper communication team does think in these terms. To them, the environment is just a messaging challenge and not something they actually care about. Their mandate is to boost oil consumption and revenues – that is their support base and who they answer to.
Cheers,
Coffee (aka Walkswithcoffee)
Existing capture/storage tech already works
There is already existing technology being used for carbon capture, transport, and storage in Norway, the US and Canada. We should let the market research & adopt appropriate improved technologies as taxes and caps create cost incentives, in the meantime expanding use of existing methods. Our job in government is to impose the taxes & caps that will drive this process.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
Barrie, ON
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada - the same goes for all other people's posts & comments.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
Does carbon capture exist - as in micro values - does it help?
Erich,
Respectfully, you are mistaken. Carbon capture (as in micro values to extract) is still in the early experimental stages.
Carbon capture from large polluters is possible but is not new or revolutionary - we used to call it scrubbing. And we know from past experience that retrofitting old plants not designed to carbon capture (scrubbing) is problematic. It costs as much as you gain.
And, the real issue of scrubbing carbon pollution downstream from say, homes, factories, and automobiles is also not helped by scrubbing as the cost to produce scrubbing equipment and maintaining them is as environmentally damaging as the C02 being scrubbed.
Numerous Discovery Channel shows are available for public consumption. Or go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_st...
Go hydro, wind power, and ground heating. Those would reduce our emission by 40% (net reduction).
Cheers,
Coffee (aka Walkswithcoffee)
Carbon capture, may I state it another way?
There are those that ask the question, "how do we keep pollutants out of the environment - any pollutant". After much study, the answer usually is "don't allow it in the first place". Clean-up after the fact can be as costly as the mess itself.
In the case of "green-house gases", the answer is to not put them "out there" in the first place. Use power sources that don't generate gases. Hydro, wind power, ground heating; all can work without dumping significant amounts of gases into the environment upfront. And, we know those technologies are economically sound.
We have tried and proven solutions that will address our gas emission problem.
Cheers,
Coffee (aka Walkswithcoffee)
It takes the guts to make the laws
Greetings Greens,
Some very good posts here....thanks.
I often think about the fact that finally after 40,000 deaths per year to Americans impaled on their own steering wheels and after... oh i think about 60 years since the invention of the automobile .....enough law suits and then finally only through government law did we get seat belts.
That's why I am Green to end the stupidity and to address either stupid laws or stupidly omitted laws.
I believe Canada can lead the way and the world in Green Technologies and its economy but only with sane policy becoming law.
Cheers
juror.ca
endprohibition@telus.net
Political Parties Are Not Tech Talent Show Judges
There is not enough information in that article to tell whether this is a great idea or that it will go nowhere.
Derek Andrews is probably right that making a difference on a global scale would likely require a pile of “nanovalves” (solid engineered material) and a boatload of money. It’s stability in that form would be another concern. Does it require low temperatures (which might require a pile of energy to maintain)?
However, as a political party, I think Erich Jacoby-Hawkins’ point is principal. Governments (and the political parties that wish to govern) should not play favourites and can not effectively judge technologies. They should create (propose in the case of opposition parties) an environment in which the best technologies rise to the top and improve our lot. The policies should be based on fact and numbers rather than emotion and conjecture. They should be general enough as to not rig the game. They should be strong enough to ensure a postive outcome.
Mike Sherrard
CCS and other high-tech solutions
There will be a big push for high-tech, very expensive solutions like carbon capture, nuclear, and geo-engineering. (I would say there is a big push for this, but I think we've seen only the start of concerted action.) The reason for this focus is, as Eugene says, to stall.
However, when it becomes obvious that some action will have to be taken, big government, big corporations, and likely big unions will want big solutions. The reason being that big and centralized maintains the status quo, just with different technologies. That is, we will still need grossly overcompensated CEOs, energy will still be centrally-controlled, and so on. Nobody who is currently king-of-the-hill wants distributed energy generation, small-scale solutions, or, heaven forbid, conservation, but those are the only sensible ways to go.
This discussion on CCS is a useful one to have, so that we can speak intelligently to the issue.
Brian Gordon
Nominated Candidate, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Green Party of Canada
Trained Presenter
An Inconvenient Truth
People - Planet - Prosperity
The New Green Economy