digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at redgreenandblue.org

EPA Drafts Rule for Geologic Carbon Sequestration

redgreenandblue.org — The EPA announced on Tuesday a first draft of a rule that will govern the geologic sequestration of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from power plants. Geologic sequestration of global warming gases, viewed by many as a critical component of a climate change policy portfolio.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tbhurst, on 07/16/2008, -2/+13Now if we only knew how to do it a little better.
  • tbk123, on 07/16/2008, -1/+15They should plant a million trees around each plant, then it will REALLY be a Power Plant. Ha ha
    • DrJG, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Plant a few around each building and along roads, highways, and so on; that should be a good beginning.
  • MattgUP, on 07/17/2008, -1/+14I'm all for using CCS as a bridge to reduce carbon emissions of our current plants while we shift to cleaner sources of power, but it should not be justification for creating more coal burning plants. Come on, burrying CO2 underground? Yeah that's a great long term solution.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 07/17/2008, -0/+6This is a very bad rule that will never be implemented.
    • MarkusGarvey, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2i agree..."“A cornerstone of this rule is that the carbon dioxide stays where it is put, and not leak or be released to the surface,”...this seems to be the main problem with CO2 from what i see...trees the ocean plants and plants absorb CO2 but always ends up being released to the environment once they expire...we are creating more CO2 than the earth can deal with...
      • yaddayaddayoda, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3The idea is that you have to chemically bind them... turning them into "rocks".
  • quiggibub, on 07/17/2008, -2/+7For some reason, the idea of putting polluted CO2 underground where it can react with ground water, potentially polluting massive quantities of usable fresh water, seems like a bad idea.
    • pbrubaker, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Depends if the gas that they put in the ground is pure CO2. If it is pure CO2 it cant be polluted with anything else. However we should probably figure out a way to convert this into one or more inert elements and release it back into the environment as mentioned above.
  • invoker, on 07/17/2008, -5/+7That is very racist. They should let carbon ride at the front of the bus like everyone else.
    • DrJG, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1It is. It is going to take over the planet and bury all life.
  • atdrago, on 07/17/2008, -0/+5i don't quite understand how putting pollutants into the ground in liquid form is any better than letting them float away in gas form. in the end they're all the same pollutants just in different form ending up in different places, right? so in essence what this is accomplishing is nothing more than a delay of the effects of those pollutants.

    maybe i'm just not getting it.
  • scoottie, on 07/17/2008, -1/+5i blame al gore
  • Fatherspirit, on 07/17/2008, -1/+3Al Gore Had Done Great Works But Is He Really The Eco-Friendly Messiah That So Many Preach About!?
  • kosser, on 07/17/2008, -1/+4Carbon is NOT the cause for global warming!!!! It IS the cause for plant growth....
  • MarkEarhart, on 07/17/2008, -2/+4I have a better idea. Let's pump all of the carbon dioxide up Al Gore's ass!!!
  • FURBjr, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3I read a story the other day about the potential of parts of the seabed off the coast of Oregon to sequester carbon emissions. Also, I watched a documentary about how the seabed, in many areas, naturally sequesters CO2, and, as ocean temps have been rising as of late, the CO2 has been release, in huge plumes of CO2 bubbles, killing aquatic life as it makes it way to the surface.
  • JackDarkholer, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1dugg
  • AnotherBrian, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Ok, here's a stupid question:
    How much energy does it take to gather, compress, and transport the CO2 to the bottom of the ocean?
    I would not be surprised if sequestering X tons means you will be releasing more than X tons to do it. In other words, could a power plant sequester all it's CO2 output and still have plenty of power left over? Let's say that it requires half the energy, now you have just doubled the other pollutants released from the plant and doubled it's fuel cost for the same amount of power. Fantastic.
    I have a feeling that this is just as well thought out by our politicians as ethanol. In my exposure to this subject I have yet to see any efficiency figures, which should be front and center (as with ethanol).
  • TheUngod, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2And they do this under what authority? I'm quite sure the EPA does not have the authority to do this.
  • bsmeteronhigh2, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Putting carbon underground seems sort of like sweeping dust under the rug. I say we pump the carbon dioxide into one of the Great Lakes. Add a bit of root beer flavoring and viola! Enough soda pop to quench our thirsts brought on by rising global temps! Genius!

    Seems like planting more forests could be good. But then, there's not much money in trees since the housing crash.
  • DrJG, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1It is not clear if this is a good but small step, or a sop.
  • bincoder, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2bah. The EPA can't even figure out that a few redesigns of common roadways in major cities would cut gasoline use by half and do that a lot faster than waiting 10 or 50 years for a magic technology to come along and make it all better.
    Sitting in slow traffic eats gas. I don't care if you drive a prius or a hummer and get 100,000 miles per gallon. While your motionless you still get negative miles per gallon. An inefficient system of roads will keep wasting fuel and time forever unless that is changed.
  • anniegarrison, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1Quelle FARCE!!!! There is no clean coal. For one thing you have to mine it, wash it and move it around before you can burn it and that takes both water and power. And burning coal, even if you can "sequester the carbon," as you migh at about two geologic sites in the world, still wastes huge amounts of water. For one, all these power plants run steam turbines. They have to have water to heat.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.