Environmentalists Denounce No-CO2 Emission Coal Plant
9 September 2008
55 views
One Comment
Photo courtesy Akuppa.
As if you needed more proof that the global warming myth is more about control and money than saving the world, this article adds to the stack. A power station in Vattenfall, Germany, wants to introduce a carbon capture and storage system from a Swedish firm on its coal-fired power plant to capture carbon emissions. The emissions are compressed into liquid then injected into the ground and sealed, preventing any from reaching the atmosphere and increasing global temperatures. Global warming activists say that the project is cosmetic in nature and does not address the problem of global warming. Okay. Supposedly global warming is caused by carbon emissions reaching the atmosphere, creating a greenhouse effect. If carbon emissions don’t reach the atmosphere and stay in the ground, how is this NOT addressing the problem of global warming?
Read More: wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com
Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it,subscribe to my RSS Feed in your reader or
subscribe to my RSS Feed by email.
Or you can follow me on Twitter.
Tags: global warming activists, green, nature, carbon, global temperatures
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
CCS (Carbon Capture and Separation or Sequestration) is an expensive and unproven technology. It is not a feasible solution to CO2 emissions from coal plants because there is a very finite number of places (and limited capacity) to store the CO2 underground.
If a coal plant is going to be built it should be both IGCC and have CCS - but neither are valid arguments for building more coal plants and neither compensates for the adverse health, environmental and economic impacts coal plants have.
Even if these technologies were both proven and inexpensive (neither of which is ever likely to happen, especially the inexpensive aspect) you still have all the other problems associated with coal plants - many of which are increased because of CCS. This isn’t even mentioning the effects of mining and transporting the coal - both topics rarely talked about anymore and both of which are very costly, both the ecosystem and the economy.
The money for projects like this would be far better spent on energy efficiency programs, energy storage, and/or renewable programs. There is no excuse to squander money on coal when we need to be investing (and heavily) into many new energy technologies that aren’t based on smoke-stack technology.
Leave your response!