The same
goes for carbon capture and sequestration or nuclear energy or any of the «popular» approaches.
Not exact matches
On this year's list, robots are
going places no human has ever been, «big data» is doing things that weathermen have never been able to master,
carbon is being
captured from waste and turned into fuel simultaneously, fiber optic cables are searching
for oil, and future well blowouts are being averted (maybe).
It's essential to extend and expand tax incentives
for carbon capture, update state laws to include CCUS technology in clean energy standards, and fund continued
carbon capture RD&D, among other things, if we are
going to reach our emissions - cutting goals.
Beavers aren't
going to save the world — but the dams and flooded meadows they construct do a surprising amount
for carbon capture and storage
As
for the criticism
for McCain wanting to build non-
carbon capturing coal plants, since we're
going to be burning coal
for decades by any estimate, if we implement a
carbon restrictive regime, wouldn't we want to allow industry to build new plants that are more efficient than the current fleet?
But every billion - dollar
carbon -
capture project, in the meantime, is raiding money that might otherwise
go into basic research and development aimed at advancing solar technology or large - scale energy storage or other fields where breakthroughs could help lay the groundwork
for a post-fossil global energy system — instead of providing a dicey Band - Aid to keep societies stuck on the coal rung of the heat ladder a while longer.
Even without a global agreement, the imposition of a domestic
carbon tax — coupled with taxes on imports to reflect the
carbon taxes that would have paid had the imported product been produced or manufactured in the United States — would, per Joseph Stiglitz (chapter 6), provide a powerful incentive
for countries to impose their own
carbon taxes to
capture the revenue that would otherwise
go to the U.S. Treasury.
You probably wouldn't want to
go near
carbon capture storage
for fossil fuels at all.
«And we worked them through this series of steps, which is measuring the
carbon in their forests and putting that into a technical report to be able to
go to the marketplace and say, «here's our asset, here's the amount of
carbon we have
captured and stored in our forests,» and that's what people in the offset markets are looking
for.
Problem being, much like George W's funding
for hydrogen car technology, clean coal will be a huge waste of time and resources on a technology that's not
going to be feasible any time soon — and that's assuming the numerous, numerous hazards and hurdles to
carbon capture are ever cleared.
The oil companies are happy; a tax break they were afraid would be withdrawn does not
go until 2010, and is being replaced with a new break
for investment in
carbon capture and storage projects.
AGL recognises the need
for carbon capture and storage if the project
goes full scale.
Landfill methane was modeled using a forecast of municipal solid waste
going to landfills of a dynamic fractionation: the degradable
carbon content that would be anaerobically broken down was measured, and assumptions were made as to when and what portion of resultant methane could and would be
captured and combusted
for electricity generation.