As I have discussed in
my previous my blog posts, Carbon Sequestration is more than a mere pipe dream. It was real world applications. Thus far I have used credible sources in support of the writing to explore
technological viability. For this post I would like to address the ‘non-technical’
aspects of potential wide spread deployment. If Carbon sequestration has any
chance to get off the ground, it is important for prospective researchers to acknowledge
and address the cultural phenomena which surround the topic.
The CCS technology has been used for decades
in enhanced oil recovery and shown promising result in small commercial
settings. In spite of this, carbon capture systems have yet to achieve wide
spread use. I would like to make it clear to readers of this blog, that I am
not a staunch proponents of CCS. I am under no illusion of the associated risks
of the technology. But I do recognize the need to ‘reverse’ hundreds of years
of carbon dioxide emissions in a matter of decades. In this scenario, Carbon
sequestration is among a handful of technologies capable of meeting these
demands. I would like to challenge the public to look at the facts and make an
informed decision before a ruling can be made on the technology.
The largest road block
to successful large scale testing is the public perception of the project. As
is often the case with emerging technology, the majority of the public is wary
and skeptical. All the while this reticence will delay the adoption, and
prolong the use of unsustainable energy production. It is not to say that the
public worry is unfounded. It is good to be skeptical, but we cannot afford to dismiss
CCS because it is new. There will be inherent risks in any system. I believe
that much of the backlash the technology has received is a standard reaction to
any radical change of operation. As the lifecyle of the technology progresses understanding will likely improve. Technology has the tendency to develop quicker
than the time it takes to challenge the public conscience.
A distinction needs to
be made. The public must realize that just because carbon dioxide can be stored
underground permanently does not mean that carbon capture and storage systems
are a permanent solution. CCS was designed out of the necessity to capture and
store carbon dioxide in an extremely compressed time frame. If successful the technology
will give more time, and act as a buffer in the interim of the switch from
fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy.
 |
| Image Credit: scientificamerican.com |
From an
environmentalist standpoint CSS is a way to further prolong the use of fossil
fuels. They are concerned that technology is being exploited by the coal
industry rather than devoting valuable resources to renewable sources of
energy. This is a very real possibility. This is not a question of the
technology, but rather the responsibility of humans to apply it sustainably.
CCS systems are fundamentally a short term solution. Humans will have to make a
decision, in the very near future, if or when to abandon fossil fuels in favor
of more sustainable technologies.
Carbon sequestration
has never claimed to be the silver bullet in the fight against climate change.
But, I believe it is a step in the right direction. The culture phenomena
surrounding the subject have led to a roadblock to the funding of further
research. My point is not to discredit these concerns. They are important
factors to consider when weighing the cost and benefits of a system. Instead, I
believe we owe it to ourselves, to approach carbon capture and storage
solutions as we would with any research topic, without bias or political agenda.
What are you thoughts on Carbon Capture Systems? What role, if any, do you think they will play in the future?
What are you thoughts on Carbon Capture Systems? What role, if any, do you think they will play in the future?
