Terahertz

15Jul/080

It sounds like a bad idea…

I'm not generally for carbon-capture technologies to reduce our emissions, firstly because it seems like a shoot, shovel, and shut-up approach, and second it just puts the problem to the future.

Now some are talking about burying the carbon under the sea off the BC-California coastline.  The first thing that rang through my head is "wow, that'd be a lot of carbon dioxide released in a single earthquake, perhaps they're trying to increase the danger of Armageddon scenarios."  But the researchers assure us:

While the region is famous for earthquakes and seismic activity, Goldberg and his colleagues have mapped out a 68,000-square-kilometre area they say would be isolated from quakes, hydro thermal vents or other factors that might upset a CO2 storage system.

I'm still questioning it.  We don't know a hell of a lot about earthquakes, and again, if in 200 year there were a couple big quakes which moved this 68,000 square kilometre area into the fault region, who's going to clean up the mess?

Carbon sequestering is a screw the future approach to saving the environment.  If we're just going to bury the mess we make, we might as well use nuclear energy.

Comments (0) Trackbacks (1)

Leave a comment

(required)

Refresh Image

*