Senator Elaine McCoy On Carbon Sequestration

So let's take a quick look at just one aspect of the likely market for CCS technology. You see all those red circles on the above map? They represent GHG emissions from coal-fired electricity generators in the US (comparable Canadian emissions are represented by yellow circles; emissions from the oilsands are captured by the blue circle). That gives you a fair idea of how much CCS technology is going to be in demand when the US finally gets around to putting a binding cap on emissions. So why shouldn't Canadians be right there with a workable technological solution? The price of which will surely fall once it goes into mass production.

One problem with the concept of CCS is that not all proponents actually believe in it. For example, British Coal Lobbyist Richard Courtney has argued that:

Firstly, the value of carbon sequestration is political: n.b. it is not technological or economic.

There is opposition to power generation systems that emit CO2 as waste (this is similar to opposition to nuclear power systems that emit radioactive waste). A response to the opposition is needed until the AGW scare is ended. And claims of carbon sequestration (cs) provide that needed response although everybody knows cs would be too expensive for it to be used.

A criticism that obviously does not apply to Ms. McCoy.

Richard S. Courtney On Geo-Engineering

Richard Courtney is a AGW denier and PR guy for British Coal.   Here are excerpts from his take on Geo-Engineering:

I am firmly convinced that dangerous AGW is not a problem and cannot become one. However, I do think the possibility of the geo-engineering should be supported. My reason for this is a political ploy and I explain it as follows.

At present there is no empirical evidence of any kind that the AGW hypothesis is correct. But supporters of the AGW-scare assert that action must be taken now to avoid the possibility of dangerous AGW in the future.

Politicians are responding to the AGW-scare by trying to constrain anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), notably carbon dioxide (CO2). Such constraints would do much harm and, therefore, I think they should not be accepted. But politicians of several countries are committed to their having accepted the AGW-scare as being a potential threat which warrants the constraints.

The politicians need a viable reason if they are to back-off from this commitment to the constraints without losing face.

The geo-engineering option provides the needed viable reason to do nothing about AGW now.

The AGW-scare is founded on an unproven assumption that global temperature is determined by net radiative forcing, and increase to GHGs in the air provides additional positive radiative forcing.

Increase to aerosols in the air increases cloud cover to provide additional negative radiative forcing. So, increasing atmospheric aerosols would drop global temperature. And this could be done at relatively little cost, for example, by emitting sulphates from commercial aircraft.

Hence, if AGW does prove to be a problem then the geo-engineering is a method to immediately stop its effects when it is detected. Actions to constrain the GHG emissions could then be implemented. The cost of the geo-engineering would be much less than the costs of the constraints to GHG emissions in the period until effects of AGW are detected. Indeed, the costs of the geo-engineering would be trivial compared to the costs of 20% reduction to world-wide GHG emissions for a single year.

And if AGW does not prove to be a problem then no constraints to GHG emissions and no geo-engineering would be needed.

In either case, the geo-engineering option is preferable to adopting constraints on GHG emissions in the near future.

This suggested political ploy is not fanciful and it has precedent. Opponents of the nuclear industry have objected that there is no “safe” method to dispose of nuclear waste. The nuclear industry has responded by asserting that the waste could be vitrified. A practical method for the vitrification still remains to be developed, but assertion of the possibility of the vitrification has been sufficient to overcome objections to nuclear power in several countries for nearly 40 years. (incidentally, I am in favour of nuclear power).

Richard

In the past, Mr. Courtney has made similar remarks re carbon sequestration--ie it won't work but will provide political cover (allow politicians to say they're DOING something).

It Also Doesn't Work

David Keith and Thomas Homer-Dixon argue in last weekend's Globe Essay that environmentalists oppose carbon sequestration schemes because:

1) Environmentalists are gambling that we can make the huge cuts in CO2 emissions we need simply by improving our energy efficiency and using renewables like solar and wind power.

2) They possess a deep suspicion of big business and big industry that's a residue of the leftism of the original environmental movement.

They don't mention a third reason, which is that carbon sequestration is an expensive, iffy technology that may never work. I've written briefly about some of the challenges faced by Mr. Keith's preferred CCs project here, and many other writers have pointed out the technical issues that make any such project a questionable investment.

However, what I think is most significant are the doubts expressed re carbon sequestration by those within the power generation industry itself.

For example, in his day job, Richard S. Courtney, a well known climate change denier, was once Senior Material Scientist for British Coal. That's actually a PR position, but they gave him a fancy name. Now he edits CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry. His opinion of carbon sequestration:

Firstly, the value of carbon sequestration is political: n.b. it is not technological or economic.

There is opposition to power generation systems that emit CO2 as waste (this is similar to opposition to nuclear power systems that emit radioactive waste). A response to the opposition is needed until the AGW scare is ended. And claims of carbon sequestration (cs) provide that needed response although eveybody knows cs would be too expensive for it to be used.

When one of Big Coal's premier representatives calls CCs a crock meant to give the industry a thin green sheen, you have to wonder if some of that residue of distrust isn't warranted, and whether Mr. Homer-Dixon and Mr. Keith are not being a little bit naive.

Will The British Coal Industry Get A Portion Of Nobel Prize Money?

Tim Ball's latest anti-Global Warming screed takes a bizarre turn when he starts speculating as to how the IPCC's share of the Nobel Peace Prize prize-money will get distributed:

Where is the IPCC prize money going? As an intergovernmental body, one would expect that money must be distributed between governments, or IPCC personnel, or both. Will the taxpayers who fund the IPCC receive their share?

If the money is going to the participating governments, then which ones: all of them or only those who are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol? If all of them get it, that will likely upset several ENGOs if the US received their share. And if only ‘Kyoto signatories’ then taxpayers of large IPCC contributors that are not a signatory, such as the US, have every right to be upset, especially, as much of the money comes from the US through the Department of State. Many Americans are already upset about paying the lion’s share of UN funding.

If the money is going to some IPCC personnel, then which ones and who decides the distribution? Does anybody who has worked for IPCC at any level or at any time since its inception in 1988 receive some portion? The public thinks the IPCC is “thousands of UN climate scientists” and would probably be upset if they knew that a few bureaucrats had shared the money among themselves. Please note that the bureaucrats get paid for their IPCC work--but most “UN climate scientists”, including the expert reviewers don’t, and the public don’t know that.

Do scientists who have served on the IPCC in the past get a portion or is it only those involved in the 2007 report? What about those who quit because of disagreements with the procedures, politics and methodologies? Does a larger share go to the lead authors? Is the amount received proportional to the contribution? For example, if you submit a review and it was not used, do you get paid?

The choices of the Peace Prize Committee have nothing to do with peace despite their strained intellectual claims. They could not qualify for any science category. They have pushed climate science further into the political arena where it wallows as billions are wasted. They have created bizarre circumstances for identifying and rewarding recipients, which, in a twist of fate will expose the political basis of both Mr. Gore and the IPCC, both of which masquerade as being consensus and science-driven. One expert peer reviewer in the UK is asking his Member of Parliament to determine where the prize money has gone, saying he has not had his share. You can help speed the exposure by writing to your national politician asking for your country’s share.

As a patron of the Denier's Cafe, I often have the privilege of watching Tim Ball's missives as they are being put together. The expert peer reviewer Mr. Ball refers to is none other than Richard S. Courtney, Technical Editor for CoalTrans International, and once PR. Guy for British Coal. In fact, Ball's article was directly inspired by Mr. Courtney's letter, which was e-mailed several days ago to the climate skeptic list. Excerpts follow:

Dear Ms Goldsworthy:

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday. I am your constituent (I live at 88 Longfield, Falmouth) and I share the Nobel Peace Prize with all others who have participated in production of the IPCC scientific reports.

I am writing to you, my Member of Parliament, to request that you determine how the Nobel Peace Prize money is to be or has been distributed.

[...]

If the money is going to some IPCC personnel then which ones and who decides the distribution?

The public thinks the IPCC is "thousands of UN climate scientists" and would probably be upset if they knew that a few beaurocrats had shared the money among themselves. Please note that the beaurocrats get paid for their IPCC work but most "UN climate scientists" (e.g. expert peer reviewers) don't.

In fact, Mr. Courtney DID work as an "expert peer reviewer" for the IPCC though, as Tim Lambert pointed out, so could anyone. As a matter of fact, it would be interesting to scroll through the entire Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report Review Comments to get an idea of Mr. Courtney's contributions. Many deniers who served in this capacity used the opportunity to flood the report with negative comments (often over 100 per denier), so as to give the impression of significant dissent from the consensus.

And it would be hilarious, though twisted, if some of the IPCC prize money went to keep Mr. Courtney's magazine, the journal of the international coal trading industry, stocked in paper-clips and ink.

Steve McIntyre Awarded Nobel Peace Prize!

...for his work as part of the IPCC's team of "expert reviewers". Congratulations, Steve! One day your work confirming the basic accuracy of GISSTEMP data will cop you a prize that you don't have to share with anyone.

Kudos are also in order for:

Richard Courtney of British Coal, who also served as an expert reviewer on the IPCC team, and who has some startling views on carbon sequestration.

Dr. Vincent Gray who in the same role functioned as a one man army of dissent.

David Wojick, another representative of Big Coal.

Once again, congratulations! Al Gore couldn't have saved the planet without you!

Great Balls Of Dry Ice: Deniers At Play

Overheard in the Climate Change Skeptics Cafe:

Myron Ebel, Director of Energy & Global Warming Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is bitching about carbon sequestration. It's expensive, it doesn't work that well, and etc. etc. However, Richard S. Courtney, Senior Material Scientist for British Coal (actually he's a PR guy) steps in and sets old Myron straight. It doesn't have to work; it just has to be, so the skeptical community can say they're for something:

Firstly, the value of carbon sequestration is political: n.b. it is not technological or economic.

There is opposition to power generation systems that emit CO2 as waste (this is similar to opposition to nuclear power systems that emit radioactive waste). A response to the opposition is neeeded until the AGW scare is ended. And claims of carbon sequestration (cs) provide that needed response although eveybody knows cs would be too expensive for it to be used.
Skeptics know its all crap, in other words, but have to pretend otherwise for political purposes. I think people have always suspected this of them, but its good to hear it from the horses mouth.

However, good old Richard has his own scheme, his own technique for carbon sequestration that is both cheap and effective and can be put in place until such time as this whole global warming nonsense blows over:

Yes, but there is an alternative i.e. [to storing pressurized carbon dioxide underground].
1. Freeze the CO2 to 'dry ice' (i.e. solid CO2).
2. Drop the solid CO2 from a ship over deep ocean.
3. The solid will sink to the bottom and melt to liquid CO2 (yes, liquid at that pressure).
4. The rate of dissolving of CO2 will be very slow thus delaying any possible problem for millenia and giving plenty of time to find a solution to any possible problem.

[...]

There can be few legal or political obstacles to a lake of liquid CO2 at the bottom of e.g. the Marianas Trench

To which Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired), objects:

Won't the dry ice just float on the water and boil away?

Now, I was going to dismiss all this as being entirely for giggles, until I realized that I couldn't myself remember from my highschool days whether dry ice floats in water. As the scientific videos available at this site demonstrate, it sinks.

I also did not realize that the notion of dumping big hunks of dry ice directly into the ocean has already (and often) been proposed as a means of sequestering CO2. It has even been suggested that the dry ice pellets be formed in the shape of a "torpedo" so they might conveniently bury themselves nose-first in the ocean floor. Here is probably the most thorough survey of the promises and short-comings of deep ocean sequestration (one shortcoming: all sea life near your CO2 "lake" dies).

But Doug is right about the dry ice "boiling away" at a rapid pace. How much of the ice-pellets mass would you lose on the way down? Not only that, Andre Bijkerk (who I know nothing about) notes another possible issue with the approach:

But there may be complications, dry ice is -70C or so, so when it is dropped overboard it would freeze the water around it, which may attach to the solid CO2. In temperature above solidus of CO2, it is continuing to evaporate/sublimate underneath the attached ice, producing gas bubbles in the ice,

The conglomerate of heavy dry CO2 ice with normal water ice and captured CO2 bubbles could decrease it's density to less than the water and re-emerge again.

This in fact does occur when you are using dry ice to turn your Halloween punch into a "witches brew":

...when the dry ice is almost gone, a layer of water will freeze around it. This chunk will float to the top. Inside the regular ice is still a piece of dry ice. This must be removed. NEVER injest dry ice, even when it is coated with regular ice. This can cause frostbite inside your stomach!

So you might wind up with big balls of dry ice floating around in the middle of the ocean, out gassing like crazy.

Assuming that these problems can be overcome, there is still the cost in emissions of shipping our frozen CO2 to the dump site. And here, I would like to make my own humble contribution. I suggest employing a giant roman war engine to bodily hurl our ice pellets to their resting place. And I would call this war engine a Carbopult(TM).