To geoengineering, I always notice that CCS seems to attach itself to "bio" and "bioenergy with" to give itself a natural aura. Is this warranted or greenwashing?
On another occasion when I was critical along these lines Olaf Schuiling emailed me to say that converting CO2 to carbonates is what has been happening for billions of years. Is this in fact what happens when pressurized CO2 is injected into underground formations? Or is that conversion such a slow process that we have an expensive engineered time bomb in the interim? These facts don't appear in any discussion I've seen, and as a layman I think they are central to evaluating CCS. Without knowing whether injected CO2 verifiably creates stable carbonates I tend to think CCS is ill-conceived, and photosynthesis is by far my preference for managing CO2. Brian On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 11:57:12 AM UTC-5, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > > > http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/insights/authors/AliceGibson/2015/11/25/importance-bio-ccs-deliver-negative-emissions?author=MTU0Nw%3D%3D > > The importance of bio-CCS to deliver negative emissions > < snipped > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
