Well my big issue with carbon sequestration is what happens when the CO2 escapes? It is bound too ... we are just pumping it wholesale into the ground in the hope that we can forget about it
Yeh for sure, well kind of, it totally agree with you that it depends on what you do with the carbon and definitely reckon it would be a stop gap for what ever replaces it. It should be done anyways. Like I said above, five power stations churning out more CO2 than numerous countries is bad. As for how, well, the sequestration, IIRC (I may not) can be done thru filters that are used to extract solids from the gases releases and can be landfilled as solid wastes (ß-yeh yeh landfill, I know). The thing is, many Large process industries do this anyways, the technology is there NOW and we could seriously start to cut the emissions NOW. As far as the depositing gaseous CO2, that’s scary, do you read sci-fi? Greg Bear wrote a series called The Manifold Trilogy, the first book being about the earth being uber fooked up (natch) and there being a massive problem with CO2 escaping from under the permafrost in siberia when it melts due to global warming, pretty interesting (for fiction, and greg bear knows how to destroy the earth in his books always epic (and feasible)) and makes you wonder what will happen to the CO2 being pumped into the north sea. So yeh, we agree it’s a stop gap thing and but I feel that change has to start somewhere and cleaning what exists makes a good starting point .
... at least nuclear waste breaksdown into something we don't mind getting out eventually.
eventually, in the meantime it can cause a lot of problems and dangers (i.e. dangers for transportation, groundwater contamination if incorrectly stored etc etc)
As for this…..
The problem is with how it compares to nuclear energy is that most people tend to compare this sort of thing to Generation 1 and 2 nuclear reactors. They WERE shite but id truly recommend reading up on Generation 4 and, specifically, the Integral Fast Reactor. I used to be vehemently anti nuclear until i started researching more and more into this sort of thing ... now i just can't see a problem. IFR has huge advantages on fuel efficiency (20 to 30 times more fuel actually burnt) it produces some far lighter scale waste (to the order of a few hundred years to break down) and to actually remove any plutonium (or other fissionables) from the cycle and use it in a bomb would require irradiating yourself so severely you'd be dead in a split second. Add to that that you can use Uranium-238 directly with no reprocessing AND the thing can't go into metldown. .
…..Fair enuff, I will go off and read up on it, sounds pretty interesting. If it is possible to produce electricity in a totally safe way using this nuclear power then that’s fair. I’ll reserve judgement till I’ve read up and come back to the thread (but not tonight)
I agree that we have been lied to on these thigns many times but the enivornmentalists aren't exactly squeaky clean on the lieing through their teeth front either. .
LOL……..Yeh for sure, 6 of one, half a dozen of the other……I need to read up on this new fangled IFR shenanigans now though…
.
-------------------
I really think that the changes at home towards sustaonble and vaguely independent power production combined with ppl being made more aware of what is happening and being encouraged to live more sustainably is a massive key to this issue but certain ppl don’t want to know and probably dont want to empower the public and remove there dependence on big business. I mean some individuals wont even admit that there is an issue with energy production as it stands and until that changes……then well......i dunno.....
(can you tell that I’m trying really really hard to not write that “we’re all fucked and there is nothing we can do about it?”, I find it really hard not to when I start thinking bout stuff like this?)
i tihnk i need to go to bed, cheers for the info mate