Fred, The paper by Taylor et al. addresses the specific issue of understanding the best practice for monitoring potential leakage and the environmental impact that could result from a diffusive leak from a CCS storage complex under the sea. It did not set out to address concerns about long-term viability of geological storage so your criticism of the paper is not fair. Also, in the context of the question being asked, a 37 day test was an entirely reasonable first attempt at addressing the question. Chris.
On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 9:27:43 PM UTC+1, Fred Zimmerman wrote: > I don't see where this paper addresses my principal concern about > long-term sequestration, which is precisely that: how can we be > sufficiently confident without a 3000 year experimental baseline that > sequestration as implemented will endure for 3000 years? How can we > exclude either imperfectly understood natural phenomena, imperfect > execution, or unanticipated anthropogenic behaviors? In fact, this test > lasted for 37 days (!). > ᐧ > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Attached >> >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
