"My dear, here we must run as fast as we can, just to stay in place. And if you wish to go anywhere, you must run twice as fast as that." - Lewis Carrol,* Alice in Wonderland*.
The 18 gigatonnes of CO2 captured at a few very large point sources is to be used to cause 28 gigatonnes of CO2 to be emitted by a multitude of tiny emitters (considering how oil is used). The thought at DOE is "*EOR could be an enabling **catalyst for large-scale sequestration efforts*", because it is assumed that a price on carbon emissions is not forthcoming. (see: DOE NETL's Carbon Capture and Enhanced Oil Recovery<http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/EP/CO2_EOR_Primer.pdf> ) So if Rau's logic is "impeccable", the DOE plan, acts to "perpetuate BAU", whereas DOE thinks it will only facilitate BAU for some unspecified number of decades. As long as there is no price on carbon, it seems *everyone's plan is to stick with BAU*. At least DOE is attempting to fund some CCS R&D. Developing EOR for worldwide application is bound to increase the size of the ultimately economically recoverable stock of carbon human civilization will be able to inject into the atmosphere as CO2. On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:53:55 AM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote: > > I think Greg's logic is impeccable. > > With this call, the US DOE is soliciting proposals to increase, not > decrease, CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
