Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2
forever?

Why not?......Is the capture and storage cost prohibitive?......Are
not rising levels of CO2 simply the release of naturally stored CO2?

So how much are you going to have warehoused after, say, a thousand
years? Remember, that warehouse has to be _absolutely_ secure--if it
ever gets busted open then we have 1000 years worth of CO2 emission
happening in an instant.

Rising levels of CO2 are not "simply the release of naturally stored
CO2". They are the result of burning carbon--one atom of carbon
burned with two atoms of oxygen gives one molecule of CO2 plus a
certain amount of energy. To store it "naturally" in the state it was
in before it was burned you have to unburn it, which means putting as
much energy _into_ it as you got out of it (more actually, considering
that the process is not 100% efficient), which defeats the purpose of
burning it in the firt place.

Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and
the volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that
produce the same amount of power and tell us which makes more
sense.

I'd agree with current technologies and costs nuclear is the only or
the largest viable energy crisis alternative.......Renewables are
simply stop gaps and niche products and often
expensive....Conservation makes a good sound bite but no one ever
rationed themselves to prosperity. Possibly worthwhile for getting
through hard times but never for solving hard times. Rod

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)