It may be akin to the Earth wrapping its lips around a tail pipe and inhaling deeply

[pscot]

, but it also viewed as one of the most promising technologies for curbing emissions of climate-killing gases. On Thursday, the German parliament voted to approve testing of controversial carbon capture and storage technology in Germany, which allows power plants that emit environmentally unfriendly carbon dioxide into the air to instead liquefy the pollutant and pump it into underground cavities. The Bundestag voted 306-266 on the issue.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been heralded by many politicians and researchers as one of the most promising technologies available today for eliminating carbon dioxide emissions. Many see it as one of the best means available to buy time while also emitting less pollution into the environment until renewable energy sources become more affordable and feasible.

The decision to test CCS in Germany is highly controversial, with many residents contesting the technology, which they believe is dangerous. Leaders of local citizens' initiatives who fear it will present a threat to humans, animals and the environment have been conducting a not-in-my-backyard campaign against the technology for several years now.

Jens Koeppen, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats in parliament, complained of an environment of scaremongering and "German angst" against CCS. In Germany, more than 40 percent of electricity is derived from fossil fuels, and without CCS, Koeppen warned, the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius would be unachievable. "There are few risks associated with this technology," he added.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,773196,00.html

[enough]

1. Again with the idea that the earth is our sewer, that if we can dump something somewhere invisible,

that means it's gone.

Burial doesn't "eliminate" anything.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. CCS may be a necessary evil

From James Hansen’s letter to Barack Obama:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20081121_Obama.pdf

…

Oil is used primarily in vehicles, where it is impractical to capture CO₂ emerging from tailpipes. The large pools of oil remaining in the ground are spread among many countries. The United States, which once had some of the large pools, has already exploited its largest recoverable reserves. Given this fact, it is unrealistic to think that Russia and Middle East countries will decide to leave their oil in the ground.

A carbon cap that slows emissions of CO₂ does not help, because of the long lifetime of atmospheric CO₂. In fact, the cap exacerbates the problem if it allows coal emissions to continue. The only solution is to target a (large) portion of the fossil fuel reserves to be left in the ground or used in a way such that the CO₂ can be captured and safely sequestered.

…

We should also urgently pursue R&D for carbon capture and sequestration. Here too this may be done most expeditiously and effectively via cooperation with China and India. Note that, even if it is decided that coal can be left in the ground, carbon capture and sequestration with other fuels still may be needed to draw down the amount of CO₂ in the air. An effective way to achieve drawdown would be to burn biofuels in power plants and capture the CO₂, with the biofuels derived from agricultural or urban wastes or grown on degraded lands using little or no fossil fuel inputs.

Opponents of nuclear power and carbon capture must not be allowed to slow these projects. No commitment for large-scale deployment of either 4th generation nuclear power or carbon capture is needed at this time. If energy efficiency and renewable energies prove sufficient for energy needs, some countries may choose to use neither nuclear power nor coal. However, we must be certain that proven options for complete phase-out of coal emissions are available.

…

From a recent interview:
http://werewolf.co.nz/2011/05/warming-to-the-idea/

…

Well, yeah. I think a lot of leading businessmen are saying: just give us a clear pathway and signal for what has to be done, and we can deal with it. What they don’t like is jumping back and forth – you’ve got a regulation, then you remove it. That’s why I say what you want to a gradual rising price on carbon – and if you tell the business community this is going to happen then they will make the investments. But they don’t like to make investments if the policies may flip again.

Interesting you say that. Because I’ve generally seen energy companies as being more interested in carbon sequestration than environmentalists – who have tended to treat CCS (carbon capture and storage) more as greenwash than as science. Do you see clean coal as being a false hope, or a genuine hope ?

Well so far at least in the United States – and perhaps other places – its been more of a gimmick for allowing coal use to continue while trying to create the perception that there will be a clean-up in the future. But that’s the sort of thing we should be deciding based on a price on carbon, rather than on giving money to develop the (CCS) project…I don’t know if it can contribute or not, to clean energy in future. I think energy efficiency via other clean energies are likely to win out over clean coal but not necessarily. If we can find a way to do it cheaply enough, it might be a competitor..

…

My position is very simple. A carbon tax : that is a carbon fee which rises over time, and will either cause carbon capture and storage to be part of the utilities business or else it will lead to different energy sources…. I don’t think we should try to prescribe which one. The marketplace should make that decision.

…

[wtmusic]

3. Dear Germans: my magic wand gets rid of carbon for a lot less money.

$1M/year to get rid of all of the CO2 those new plants will be generating. Here's how it works:

1) You save the CO2 in holding tanks until I can get over there with my wand.
2) Amid fanfare, you open the valves on the tanks, while I wave my wand and mumble something. Poof, carbon gone.
3) Don't believe me? Then prove that I'm wrong.
4) Don't believe your government is actually pumping the carbon underground? Then prove that they're wrong.

With either solution you get exactly the same result. Your conscience is clear, and my solution costs $billions less.

Payable to "wtmusic". Thanks.

[kristopher]

4. CCS in Germany is promoted by the same stakeholders that pushed extending nclear

And it is opposed by the same groups that opposed extending nuclear.

Don't believe me? Look it up.

My understanding is that local governments have blocked both the coal plants and the CCS plan.

[txlibdem]

5. It is customary for the accuser to provide the proof of his claim

"Don't believe me? Look it up," is not an accepted journalistic standard.

We'll need to see a link from you that backs up your claim. At this point I neither doubt you nor believe you as you've provided nothing but hearsay.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nederland]

7. If that were actually true...

...why did you bother to respond to his post?

[txlibdem]

9. It isn't what I believe or don't believe. You made a claim but provided no links to prove it

That's not "what I believe," it's straight out of English 101 as well as proper journalistic procedure.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt by leaving out any opinion of the truth of your claim till after I see the link(s).

[txlibdem]

8. Exactly correct: how will we ever know that the CO2 was ever pumped or is not currently leaking out

I have an idea for how they can ensure the CO2 will be stored in stable form and never leak. They need to put the liquified CO2 into a titanium vacuum bottle, kept cool night and day with liquid nitrogen, with that entire assemblage surrounded by marine grade concrete of the highest PSI rating possible. The EPA would need to monitor these casks on an almost daily basis --and it's only fair that the coal industry should pay the cost of the storage and the monitoring.

Or better yet: turn the gaseous CO2 into solid form. If they do the process right they may end up with carbon fiber, buckeyballs, or nanotubes -- all commercial products highly sought after now and into the future.

CCS, pumping CO2 into some underground repository is both a joke and the height of hucksterism.