Building on a CSIRO technical report, the Climate Change Authority finds that Australia is endowed with carbon sequestration potential supply but that our ability to realise this potential is not yet well understood.
The CSIRO technical report investigated technical potential, which is the maximum sequestration biophysically or technically possible without taking account of economic feasibility or competition for resources.
Demand for sequestration to counterbalance hard-to-abate emissions will add even more pressure on these resources.
The CSIRO technical report investigated 12 sequestration technologies in detail, including biological technologies such as farm forestry and engineered technologies such as direct air capture, and found that no single technology appears able to deliver all of Australia’s current and future sequestration capacity.
With our large land mass, and expertise in science and engineering, Australia could have one of the largest sequestration industries in the world.
We have an opportunity to lead in technological advancement, but other nations are also addressing the sequestration issue at pace We need to act quickly on emissions reduction as well as sequestration to make sure we don’t miss the opportunity to become a sequestration leader.
As a nation endowed with land, sun, wind and a geologically stable land mass, sequestration presents economic opportunities for Australia in a low-emissions world through the reshaping of existing industries and the creation of new enterprises.
Sequestration will be a necessary tool, however it is pointless if we are still pumping greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Sequestration is just too small to roll back the clock. Often the CCS and sequestration arguments are muddying arguments for completing the transition to a low carbon economy.
I don’t believe it’s muddying. It’s just science giving ideas. Whether or not unscrupulous people use it for nefarious means is something else.
What you are saying about a low carbon economy is 100% correct but sequestration has to happen as well. They both have to happen.
Unfortunately, neither will happen or be effective. A low carbon economy will be the collapse of the economy judging by the political climate. There is too much carbon in the atmosphere to sequester.
An interesting thought is that the best way to deal with sequestration is to leave the pre-sequestrated carbon in the ground. It would do more than all the sequestration technology we could build.
Ha, good luck with that.
We certainly need to try because it’s the best outcome we can get. That’s why electrify everything needs to accelerate.
Totally. But we’ve all been trying and nothing is happening. Australia is still approving coal plants freely.
I hope but I don’t hope.
This is a bit of a pie in the sky plan; it’s being pretty obtuse, and frankly unscientific, to hedge bets on a technology as unproven as carbon sequestration.
This just begs the question ‘why is every other climate scientist demanding full renewable as the only realistic solution?’. The cynic in me says we shouldn’t trust appointees from the Corporate Parties.
Growing trees and pyrolysising biomass is carbon sequestration. There just isn’t any technique that will even come close to doing it.
But, if carbon exists in atmosphere we will need to sequestrate it somehow. The fact is, it just won’t happen but they’re not wrong for stating it.
Can’t Sky Karen create something to hoover up the CO2 or methane or whatever and dump it into space, or move it to Mars?
God is creating the carbon in the atmosphere for not listening in Scripture at school.
It’s a load of bs. ADM is doing it as an experiment in Illinois. They run their own coal plant to operate their main facility in Decatur.
Thru had to frac the ground in order to open up veins in the shale.
There’s major risks to groundwater which is relied on throughout the region as the primary source of drinking water.
It’s also highly likely that the gases will leak out over time. There could also be a catastrophic rupture.
The company is well known for their lack of safety and there have been major explosions in and around their facility over the years.
Unsurprisingly, they moved their corporate headquarters to Chicago right around the time they started the sequestration project.
You are writing off all sequestration based on shitty sequestration techniques.
Personally, I think trees and biochar have their place so I support those sequestration techniques.
Maybe the issue for you is the communication of the science? Maybe it’s my communication? I don’t support CCOS plants! I don’t read the article as fully supporting them either, I just see it as an overview.
