Will Carbon Capture and Storage Continue Its Failure to Reduce Global Warming?

The major cause of the global warming crisis is excess atmospheric CO2 emitted mainly by fossil fuels. The extreme level of atmospheric CO2 is well beyond a “capture and storage/sequestration” solution, yet the hype persists that some clever extraction innovation will resolve the problem. Dr. Charles Harvey, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, MIT, has extensive experience with both CO2 capture/storage (CCS) engineering and the realization that CCS cannot reduce CO2 enough to reduce global warming. He argues instead for rational policy: drop fossil fuels and shift to renewables. Now. His expert advice is gaining a wide audience.
Charles Harvey is internationally recognized for outstanding research in multiple areas of the field of environmental engineering. He has received numerous awards and has appeared in PBS (Frontline) and BBC productions. He is a Fellow of both the American Geological Society the American Geophysical Union.
0:00:13 - Introduction
0:01:49 - Charles Harvey Presentations
0:30:42 - Discussion and Q&A
0:51:28 - Closing Remarks
Discover more from our Partner Here: www.scienceforthepublic.org/
GBH Forum Network ~ Free online lectures: Explore a world of ideas
Like us: / gbhforumnetwork
Tweet with us: / gbhforumnetwork
See our complete archive here: forum-network.org

[@narayanaraokdsss4833]

Happy to see you in 20th generation

[@narayanaraokdsss4833]

Take skimmed curd (buttermilk) after lunch before 6pm(18:00)

[@narayanaraokdsss4833]

Congratulations for long work for 20th century

[@narayanaraokdsss4833]

CCleaner of absorption

[@narayanaraokdsss4833]

Use compass

[@BobQuigley]

There's one and only one indicator of climate success or failure. Is the parts per million of greenhouse gases pollution rising, falling, no change. You will find that its not only rising its rising faster than at any other time. It might be useful to start every climate presentation with a minute or two review of the root cause for warming. It's simple, been recognized for 202 years. Doesn't require degree in atmospheric physics. Can readily be connected with everyday activities that create the pollution.

[@ZennExile]

Define "mainly". The largest contributor to atmospheric carbon in humanity's footprint is by a LARGE majority, agriculture, and the clearing of billions of hectare for human development. All the life on the surface cleared away, all the life in the top ~meter of soil cleared away. All that life was made of carbon. Carbon that was thrust into the atmosphere through the open air decay of trillions of organisms. Through the process of Industrial Agriculture the ability for soil based life to recover has been stifled requiring the digging up and digestion of more living ecosystems to artificially replace those living organisms and continue to grow food for humans and livestock. We broke the terrestrial carbon cycle at it's foundation. It's not about energy production. In fact, even if we were somehow able to snap our fingers and solve the base load problem using zero carbon solutions right this second, it still wouldn't have a statistically significant impact on global climate. Because we'd still be missing billions or hectare worth of carbon sequestered in the life we ended. Life is Carbon. Ending the lives of trillions of organisms had a very large footprint that isn't fully considered in the models because all the Life in that ~meter of soil is missing from the models. It's being assumed that all that carbon-12 came from fossil fuels when a very massive amount of it was trapped in living organisms as recently as a century ago.

[@narayanaraokdsss4833]

Make failure model first

[@petermarsh4993]

Renewables sound great until you realise that the equipment has only a short life-time. Nuclear is criticised because of its high costs but nobody trumpets that they last 50 ~ 75 years. You only need to build a nuclear power plant once every 50 ~ 75 years. Solar, wind and Lithium batteries all have a life-cycle of only ten years. That means that over a 50 year life cycle they have to be replaced four times or more. That makes them incredibly expensive. Factor in the destruction and dumping of all the “green” apparatus you will end up with a mountain of potentially toxic materials. One final thing, there is simply not enough of the rare earth metals on Earth to make beyond the first one or two rounds of this mad system. When we run out of Lithium, what then? We all would have wished that we invested in nuclear.

[@narayanaraokdsss4833]

Who is your teacher

[@narayanaraokdsss4833]

Say hurry

[@narayanaraokdsss4833]

Fermentation of fruit and vegetables fuel

[@narayanaraokdsss4833]

Nobel gas collection from air related to c

[@narayanaraokdsss4833]

Please take proper sleep