no, the scale is the main problem.
BTW, how do you capture millions of car tailpipes and house chimneys?
EDIT: Norway and other place have tried compressing CO2 and storing it underground. The scale is not there and it is expensive and will not be economic without a subsidy or carbon tax. My take is that coal is already a form of carbon sequestration and it works for millions of years. So that form of capture is likely out.
As for some CO2 capture, there are some geoengineering efforts like Ocean algea, Bio-char or even artificial trees which I'm sure you are familiar with, but I'm not hopeful any of these can be commercially viable within 10 years.
Something that's actually scalable enough is at least possible. Carbon capture by stimulating ocean productivity through greater overturn shows great promise as a way of replenishing oceanic biomass we've lost to overfishing. Not adding external fertilization, just bringing deep waters that have more nutrients than they have CO2 to the surface. The upwelling areas that are natural examples of this are the most productive parts of the world ocean. I'm a little afraid that fears over geoengineering will interfere with ongoing experimentation in this regard. What I particularly like about the approach is that it's very controllable and likely to pay off economically as well as ecologically.
EDIT:
A technique that I should have mentioned is burgeoning now, no-till agriculture. There's not enough ag land to be a complete solution, but a few million hectares sequestering over a ton of carbon a year each will definitely help. Saves on fuel and fertilizer usage and soil loss as well.
Hi,
I do not think that a commercial carbon capture technique will be needed,
because I believe people will become more energy efficient and
plants of all types will grow faster due to higher carbon content in the air
including lumber as you mentioned.
I am not necessarily saying the earth does not need help, but
I know of various natural systems in place that occur which fight unnatural occurrences.
For example if warming happens, more water is released. If more water is released, more evaporation occurs conducting heat into the sky and out into space. Many processes people do not even think to look into.
I believe "Mother Nature" is not quite the push over some would make her out to be!
:)
There is a lot of coal out there and if there were a way to scrub out the CO2 and store it say in depleted oil fields, someone would get rich and getting rich is what it is all about.
The provincial government in Alberta has set aside 2 billion dollars to study carbon sequestration for coal fired power plants, this is their way of implementing an environmental program, which seems to score political points for them. If it was to even appear to work big coal would be happy as Alberta has 10 times the coal as it has oil.
We are capitalist here, and as such will sell you the rope to hang us. What concerns me is that Canadians are setting intensity goals as their solution to CO2 emissions, therefore as production skyrockets intensity means nothing. So anything that looked like carbon sequestration would be given the go ahead.
Well if carbon taxes are started in the US you will see industry quickly develop this technology because it will be cheaper to capture CO2 than pay the tax on it
It could be. Carbon dioxide could be stored in depleted natural gas reserviors. Since carbon dioxide has a higher critical temperature than methane, it is more compressible than methane under high pressures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of...
No. Too much energy required. Too much storage space.
And, putting all that CO2 underground would destabilize it and cause earthquakes.
I don't think it'll ever be an option, never mind 10 years.
Is there a bright side?
OH, how 'bout into the water table.
Free seltzer water for everyone.
no.
Assume coal, oil and natural gas prices at somewhere around today's level, and no new carbon taxes or cap and trade systems.
