Top UK climate scientist endorses Coal with Carbon Capture as only solution to AGW
By PROFESSOR MYLES ALLEN
The Transient Climate Response also happens to be a good measure of the warming we get for every trillion tonnes of carbon dumped into the atmosphere. If we emit the lot, we’re looking at well over 4C of warming, which everyone agrees would be pretty tough.
Fortunately, there is a solution. It is perfectly possible to burn fossil carbon and not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere: you have to filter it out of the flue gases, pressurise it, and re-inject, or ‘sequester’, it back underground.
Since the 1997 Kyoto agreement, world emissions haven't fallen, they've risen by 40 per cent
If you’re using fossil carbon to drive a car or fly a plane, you just have to pay someone else to bury CO2 for you.
The only thing that actually matters for climate policy is whether, before we release too much, we get to the point of burying carbon at the same rate that we dig it up.
...
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331057/Why-I-think-wasting-billions-global-warming-British-climate-scientist.html#ixzz2jfXFFbCy
And from the Guardian:
Myles Allen
<snip>
The problem requires a different approach. We started out before the industrial revolution with roughly 4 trillion tonnes of fossil carbon underground. We have dumped about half a trillion tonnes into the atmosphere, and have up to a trillion more tonnes to go before we commit ourselves either to warming substantially greater than two degrees or some form of geoengineering.
Given the extraordinary profits that can be made from the extraction and use of fossil fuels, no conceivable carbon tax or cap-and-trade regime is going to prevent a substantial fraction of those 2½ trillion "excess" tonnes from being burned somewhere, someday. Nor should it: what right have we today to prevent the citizens of India of the 2080s from touching their coal?
So the only thing that really matters for long-term climate is that we deploy the technology – carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) – to bury carbon dioxide at the same rate we dig up fossil carbon before we release too much.
Shell, in its latest scenarios, predicts that conventional measures will have only a modest impact on global emissions until about 2040, at which point rising concern about climate change will trigger a crash CCS programme, mopping up over 50% of extracted carbon in only a couple of decades. For the taxpayers and consumers of the 2040s – bearing the full cost, and risks, of such rapid deployment – this is the worst possible outcome.
It is revealing that Shell's scenario-builders envisage large-scale deployment of CCS only when it is made mandatory. ...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/05/bury-co2-problem-capture-store-carbon
= new reply since forum marked as read
It makes it seem like you support this bullshit and - from your other posts - I really don't
think that is the case.
Seeing as how necrophilia is apparently in fashion - this was first printed back in May - please
see the response to it (from June) in http://www.skepticalscience.com/MissbyMyles.html
Posting this sort of "Goody-goody! Wonderful magic will save us!" bollocks really isn't
a good move and leads me to reiterate the comment from the above rebuttal:
>> With this article, Allen could well have reinforced the sense of complacency that has
>> so far stymied action on climate, which we are sure was not his intention.
The same applies in the microcosm of E/E.
> The actual point of the post was to demonstrate that climate scientists are apt to find
> wholly unacceptable solutions such as CoalCCS, a wide-scale switch from coal to biomass,
> or nuclear to be perfectly wonderful absolutely essential ideas.
That was all that was missing and - had it been provided - provides the appropriate context
for digging up that particular heap of crap and starting a new thread with it.
> If you were paying attention you'd have noticed a lot of that the past 2 days.
My apologies for having a life that keeps me away from being on DU 24x7 and noticing
which OPs were posted at the same time. I have pulses of activity in which I try to keep
up to date but, as a result, will not often see the real-time threading of a distributed
narrative intended to make a point through correlation rather than by actually writing it.
... presumably to "celebrate" his dismissal of yet another opponent who wouldn't shut up.
Good ol' Kris, always willing to plug CCS, "clean coal" & "bridge fuel gas" whilst pretending to be green.
