The technology is still a big improvement over current methods.
Aemon Send a noteboard - 21/02/2013 05:01:31 PM
We already do a lot of carbon capture / sequestration (generally it's put into big underground reservoirs), so this technology doesn't introduce a new problem. Obviously we can't shove tons of CO2 underground forever, but if we're going to do it in the short term, it's still better to do so cheaply and efficiently. And I mean really, all this has to do is get us by until fusion power becomes economical, and that shouldn't be too difficult. After all, fusion is only 20 years away. 
Coal - One of the Cleanest Energy Sources in the World!
- 20/02/2013 09:41:02 PM
1105 Views
I wonder if it could work on other fuels?
- 20/02/2013 10:18:08 PM
803 Views
Uh, not quite...
- 21/02/2013 02:45:03 AM
673 Views
But the CO2 levels in our atmosphere are 20% higher than 50 years ago
- 21/02/2013 08:49:29 AM
890 Views
There's a certain irony to being criticized on this one from that sector
- 21/02/2013 05:37:37 PM
865 Views
It seems pretty dubious. It still produces CO2.
- 21/02/2013 10:02:55 AM
679 Views
The technology is still a big improvement over current methods.
- 21/02/2013 05:01:31 PM
696 Views
Oh, I agree. My point is just that sequestration will remain an issue. *NM*
- 22/02/2013 12:39:25 AM
326 Views
Well dense CO2 is easier to get rid of
- 21/02/2013 06:08:33 PM
661 Views
Pretty sure putting it in the dirt would increase atmospheric levels, though. EDIT: Never mind.
- 22/02/2013 12:40:38 AM
687 Views
Probably too little, too late.
- 21/02/2013 04:09:45 PM
760 Views