Re: Coal
Thanks, Helen.
This idea is also called “carbon sequestration” (as in a jury. . .).
One has to be careful, of course, about articles in the Times. This article presents as a given that, since (it assumes) we won’t cut back on burning coal, carbon sequestration is going to have to play an important part of any solution to our emergency. I’ve read a bit about this, and there’s a school of thought that says we shouldn’t be wasting valuable time and resources of this technnology–that the problems it presents in comparison with the possible good it provides doesn’t justify it. This significant school of thought is excluded by the article.
(One of the problems with sequestration: the “storage” capacity will have to involve a vast system of pipelines, to move the captured carbon to places where the geology will allow “safe” storage–and that the building of this huge infrastructure will require awful lot of energy, which will be supplied by. . . .what? coal? As with biofuel, one has to look at the carbon fingerprint not just of the consuming of the fuel (or of the “clean” technology) but also of its production–a sort of cost-benefit view. . .)
That school of thought would say we might be better advised to concentrate on developing ways of generating energy that don’t involve burning fossil fuel, and, of course, on figuring out ways of using/needed less energy to begin with. . .
whee!
LZ
