| Sourced From |
Emerging Energy Resrearchs new report says the carbon sequestration tech will get serous attention this year and may be at significant scale by 2016. The petrochemical industry is very interested in carobn sequestration as a way of making their products and processes produce less green house gas.
EER says the current financial crisis will slow down apoplication and expansion of carbon sequestration for now.
Burning coal is a huge contributor of CO2 to the earths atmopshere and thus to global warming. EER says the coal industry is eager for carbon sequestration yto work, if it can work on a large scale.
Related posts:
- MSU shares in $1.4 million grant for carbon sequestration research
- US DOE Team to Monitor Carbon Sequestration Project Using Underground Apparatus
- Zurich Creates Policies for Carbon Capture and Sequestration Needs
- Research and Markets: Alarming Levels of CO2 Emissions in the Atmosphere Have Led To Emergence of Innovative Technology Namely Carbon Sequestration
- Oil Industry Must Step Up Cooperation on Carbon, Executive Says
scott t
on Feb 6th, 2009
@ 6:39 pm:
i am not sure but it seems that the discussed measures to sequester carbon from the atmosphere are misguided. maybe they are untrue and fraudulent altogether?
this link states …
“… water vapor is responsible for the vast majority of all greenhouse warming in the atmosphere (most scientists agree it’s about 98%, maybe more; recall that in an earlier memo to you I cited EPA’s own 94% figure). No one disputes the greenhouse theory, which is that an increase in the concentration of certain gasses in the atmosphere (i.e. those with high heat capacities) will lead to increased atmospheric warming. But, if water is 98% of it and we know we cannot control it, how much effect can the other gasses possibly have? Add to that the fact that the heat content of water in its gaseous state is far greater (by orders of magnitude) than the heat content of CO2 in its gaseous state, and we really have to wonder how much impact the non-water vapor gasses can have. It is clear the impact of the gasses that can be controlled is minuscule, and this alone should dispose of the global warming myth. But there is more bad news for the global warming groupies.
Of all the other GHGs in the atmosphere (mostly CO2 and CH4), the vast majority is non-anthropogenic. Ergo; how much of the total is really caused by humankind … It’s only a fraction of a percent!! Maybe 0.2. So let’s assume we stop ALL manmade CO2 emissions. How much impact could that possibly have on our atmosphere, when the reduction is only 0.2% of the total? That amount is within the error range of the instruments used to measure atmospheric variables, therefore a reduction of 0.2% in atmospheric CO2 …”
additionally, this related link goes on to claim….”In fact, there remains no evidence that humans would ever be able to emit sufficient carbon dioxide to cause a +1