[Timetrvlr]

How do you feel about this? I think it is a realistic plan that will sequester a lot of Carbon Dioxide.

$2B carbon capture and storage plan released

Last Updated: Friday, February 1, 2008 | 11:08 AM MT

CBC News


A $2-billion carbon capture and storage plan aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions was released Thursday by a task force established by the Alberta and federal governments in March 2007.

Carbon capture and storage means that the CO2 emitted from oil and gas operations, coal-fired power plants and industrial facilities is injected deep into the ground rather than released into the atmosphere.

The report, called Canada's Fossil Energy Future: The Way Forward on Carbon Capture and Storage, examined what needs to be done to move ahead with the technology in Canada.

"The report has specific recommendations that could move us off neutral, where we've been stuck on carbon capture and storage," said task force member David Keith, who is the Canada Research Chair on Energy and the Environment at the University of Calgary."There's been endless talk and hype about this, but nothing has been done," he said.

The report's main recommendation is for the federal and provincial governments to provide $2 billion in funding to get five new carbon capture and storage facilities operating by 2015.

Critics question use of public money

Taxpayers should not have to pay to reduce the pollution created by industry, said John Bennett, executive director of Ottawa-based environmental group ClimateforChange.ca when asked about the recommendation.

"The crux of the matter here is that for some reason the oil industry feels entitled to both pollute and, when we ask [it] not to pollute, to ask for you and me to pay for it. That's not acceptable," Bennett said.

[Mick]

not as good as it sounds takeing something bad in one place in putting it outa the way" or "int the closet" so to spec is only good short term. This idea clear has no long term planning or reaserch. I could imagen 100s of potental fatal flaws with this plan.

[Timetrvlr]

Originally Posted by Mick

not as good as it sounds takeing something bad in one place in putting it outa the way" or "int the closet" so to spec is only good short term. This idea clear has no long term planning or reaserch. I could imagen 100s of potental fatal flaws with this plan.

I disagree. We have taken fossil carbons out of the ground, burned them, and released carbon into the atmosphere. It makes sense to now take carbons out of the air and put them back underground in long term storage.

We are already doing it in Weyburn, Saskatchewan in old oil wells. The well owners are pumping carbon dioxide thousands of feet underground. Carbon dioxide is a heavy gas, it finds its way to the bottom of the oil formation underground and forces remaining oil and gas up and out of the formation. So it helps in recovering the last traces of hydrocarbons in existing wells. Then the wells are capped, sealing the carbon dioxide in the formation.

Statoil of Norway is also doing this in their off-shore oil wells and selling carbon credits throughout Europe. They are also using the carbon dioxide to scavenge the remaining oil in their wells.

[sjohnson2]

Originally Posted by Mick

not as good as it sounds takeing something bad in one place in putting it outa the way" or "int the closet" so to spec is only good short term. This idea clear has no long term planning or reaserch. I could imagen 100s of potental fatal flaws with this plan.

I just voted 'other' for the poll & part of the reason is because I agree with what Mick here said. I think we should determine our individual carbon imprint & offset it with wind energy. There are already systems in place for this & it would turn things around for our environment. Wouldn't it? Sam

[HereToday]

While there may be potential flaws, it appears to be a way to begin to tackle the problem. We're going to make mistakes along the way, but even halting steps beats inertia.

[horselover]

So what were to happen if this were to leak out of the storage container it goes into? Wouldn't it have major damaging effects, especially to ground water?

Also I don't agree that taxpayers should have to pay for this, we pay for enough already with everything.