global warming and carbon sequestration... any views or opinions?

Let's start a debate!

7 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Their are still large reserves of coal and natural gas. Carbon sequestration technology may involve using some thirty percent more of these resources to produce the same power output but the cost and speed with which they can be developed, in comparison with renewables and nuclear, makes them an attractive, if not essential, interim measure if we are to keep the lights on whilst global warming is combated.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Unfortunately, every time a plan for carbon sequestration is proposed, the Green movement attacks it. Now we find that even trees aren't useful since they do absorb CO2 but the methane they emit more than makes up for that. Pumping it underground, into tanks, into the ocean, none of those will work they say. Maybe they'll only be happy when no one has a car, no one has electricity and we're living a less technological lifestyle than they had in the 1700s. Or maybe they'll still have cars and lights, just not us unwashed masses who don't care enough for the planet.

    They're even unhappy about the OneCAT which runs on compressed air, since you still need power to make the compressed air. Which is odd since you can make that with electricity from renewable sources the last time I checked.

    If planting trees is bad for the environment then get out your chainsaw. Since air pollution has slowed warming, pollute more. Don't cry for the rainforests since their loss has also slowed warming. Basically it's the old saw, everything you know is wrong.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    There are two main problems with carbon sequestration.

    First, you must separate the carbon from the fuel, or the CO2 from the flue gas. Both methods involve expensive process that are actually quite energy intensive.

    Second, once you have the CO2, you must have a place to put it. This has proved to be difficult. I know of several projects of this type that have failed because there was no place to put the CO2.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • hkyson
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    I think that we are in danger of extinction because of global warming. I seriously doubt that we have the political will to make more than token efforts to stop it.

    The big problems are that the United States, China, and India are unwilling to deindustrialize. All three countries will soon be fiercely competing for the diminishing supply of the world's resources, especially oil.

    This competition could easily lead to a third world war, which will probably be fought with missiles and atomic weapons.

    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • A Guy
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Global warming is bad, and carbon sequestration is at least a temporary partial solution.

    They use "climate change" to include ocean acidification, rainfall changes, etc.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    carbon is not the problem, water vapor has 100x the global warming potential. and carbon sequestion (they just completed a trial plant in northern michigan) is just like deep injection wells if you ask me. stuffing poison into the ground for someone else to find and deal with later.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    carbon sequesteration is a must stratgey to reduce golbal warming

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.