Carbon Capture and Storage: A blogosphere revew.
So what is the general mood out there about carbon capture and storage (ccs) at the moment?
Starting off we Treehugger we have a neutral article on planned ccs test projects by Vattenfall the swedish state owned energy company. De Smog blog is doing what it does best and cronicling the attempts of coal companies to sell ccs as there latest product but this article demonstrates a positive spin from the coal companies nothing more, and some notes of cautious support for the technology from Jeff Scachs of Columbia University. The article also linked to a post which highlights some of George Monbiot's latest work--and not i dont mean attempting to arrest John Bolton for war crimes. Celsias has an extensive and rather negative collection of peices on the technology; the line from Celsias is that this is all a well financed distraction and i`ve got that feeling in my stomach telling me that there may be some truth to that. IPS notes that green groups are devided over the technology, in perticular WWF australia are calling for more funds and more urgency whereas Greenpeace dont want to see any public funds given over to an already proffitable industrial complex of coal producers and consumers. That seems like an honest area for argument; if we persue this what should the incentives be? Treehugger mentions that although current ccs technology uses MEA as the carbon sequestering agent, an active carbon alternative may drop the costs significantly--perhaps from 45 to 30 dollars a tonne of co2. Celsias highlights a major report by greenpeace on ccs that has made waves, as does De Smog Blog. The Independent notes that Shell is supporting the £80 final stage of a canadian CCS experemental plant. The overwhelmingly positive article also has some notes about Nicholas Sterns position and the current EU commitments to the issue. De Smog Blog argues --using the coal industries own language--that ccs aint going to be here soon so we need to get over it. According to Carbonara the UK govornment is asking for applications to build a ccs plant in the UK. Greenormal finds a recent stunt connecting ccs and carbonated water ammusing, this was a very nicely done project, even if i think a tad of target. Treehugger also follows the story. De Smog Blog has what on the face of it is a devestating analysis of ccs from the perspective of timescale, this may be the killer issue. Carbon planet has an interesting post on a us economic analysis of the lieberman warner bill; this includes ccs references and the wider implications of the technology.Terence Berg on DeSmog Blog calls CCS an enduring myth. China Dialogue takes Europe to task for failing to guarentee ccs funding. Saudi Arabia and Norway are working together on ccs, in perticular to get it into the CDM...this is the sort of thing that puts people off ccs and makes others see how politically significant it is. FutureGen in the US was scrapped due to rising prices and then reassembled in a new and, well, different, form. Monbiot writes in China Dialogue about the new coal age in the UK. A broad look at the issues for developing nations in asia is taken in this treehuger post--very interesting to. Stern in China Dialogue on how this is funded. Treehugger on the costs that we all forgot. David Roberts on grist calls CCS a costly alternative to renewables not a transition to them. Treehugger on why ccs wont save us. The guardian takes a closer look.
So the blogosphere seems to be broadly against the technology with some exceptions. This is quite a contrast so some major influential economic and scientific publications. But there is atleast a strong critique of the concept that will make a good starting point for a report; can all the concerns be addressed? If not then things get very interesting, and a hell of a lot simpler!
Home
del.icio.us
Digg This!
Starting off we Treehugger we have a neutral article on planned ccs test projects by Vattenfall the swedish state owned energy company. De Smog blog is doing what it does best and cronicling the attempts of coal companies to sell ccs as there latest product but this article demonstrates a positive spin from the coal companies nothing more, and some notes of cautious support for the technology from Jeff Scachs of Columbia University. The article also linked to a post which highlights some of George Monbiot's latest work--and not i dont mean attempting to arrest John Bolton for war crimes. Celsias has an extensive and rather negative collection of peices on the technology; the line from Celsias is that this is all a well financed distraction and i`ve got that feeling in my stomach telling me that there may be some truth to that. IPS notes that green groups are devided over the technology, in perticular WWF australia are calling for more funds and more urgency whereas Greenpeace dont want to see any public funds given over to an already proffitable industrial complex of coal producers and consumers. That seems like an honest area for argument; if we persue this what should the incentives be? Treehugger mentions that although current ccs technology uses MEA as the carbon sequestering agent, an active carbon alternative may drop the costs significantly--perhaps from 45 to 30 dollars a tonne of co2. Celsias highlights a major report by greenpeace on ccs that has made waves, as does De Smog Blog. The Independent notes that Shell is supporting the £80 final stage of a canadian CCS experemental plant. The overwhelmingly positive article also has some notes about Nicholas Sterns position and the current EU commitments to the issue. De Smog Blog argues --using the coal industries own language--that ccs aint going to be here soon so we need to get over it. According to Carbonara the UK govornment is asking for applications to build a ccs plant in the UK. Greenormal finds a recent stunt connecting ccs and carbonated water ammusing, this was a very nicely done project, even if i think a tad of target. Treehugger also follows the story. De Smog Blog has what on the face of it is a devestating analysis of ccs from the perspective of timescale, this may be the killer issue. Carbon planet has an interesting post on a us economic analysis of the lieberman warner bill; this includes ccs references and the wider implications of the technology.Terence Berg on DeSmog Blog calls CCS an enduring myth. China Dialogue takes Europe to task for failing to guarentee ccs funding. Saudi Arabia and Norway are working together on ccs, in perticular to get it into the CDM...this is the sort of thing that puts people off ccs and makes others see how politically significant it is. FutureGen in the US was scrapped due to rising prices and then reassembled in a new and, well, different, form. Monbiot writes in China Dialogue about the new coal age in the UK. A broad look at the issues for developing nations in asia is taken in this treehuger post--very interesting to. Stern in China Dialogue on how this is funded. Treehugger on the costs that we all forgot. David Roberts on grist calls CCS a costly alternative to renewables not a transition to them. Treehugger on why ccs wont save us. The guardian takes a closer look.
So the blogosphere seems to be broadly against the technology with some exceptions. This is quite a contrast so some major influential economic and scientific publications. But there is atleast a strong critique of the concept that will make a good starting point for a report; can all the concerns be addressed? If not then things get very interesting, and a hell of a lot simpler!
Home
del.icio.us Digg This!
posted by Calvin Jones @ 9:48 PM
1 comments
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
