[Newsbot]

<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/article/235929780-harper-and-wall-announce-major-carbon-capture-and-storage-project" target="_blank">Harper and Wall announce major carbon capture and storage project</a>
<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/topics/47-environment" target="_blank">Environment</a>
<strong>Written By: </strong> <a href="/profiles/N Say" target="_blank">N Say</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> Wednesday, March 26 at 09:31<br><br>
Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today that the Government of Canada will partner with Saskatchewan in the development of one of the world’s first and largest commercial-scale carbon capture and storage demonstration projects.<br><a href="/article/235929780-harper-and-wall-announce-major-carbon-capture-and-storage-project">read more >></a>

[Lancifer]

Greetings: This is my first post here and I must comment upon the idiocy of 'CO2' capture.
As a greenhouse technician (formerly) and indoor plant enthusiast (Canada's first licensed medical cannabis grower), I know (as could anyone with a quick search) that plants thrive BEST at 1000-1500 ppm CO2. Right now, we are close to plant starvation levels of atmospheric CO2 (360+/-) with plant death occurring at about 250 ppm CO2. We don't need lower levels of CO2 we need MORE CO2.
Everything we eat comes from plants except for salt and coal tar food colouring (if you are smart and don't eat junk food with a gazillion chemicals in it). What is good for plants is great for us. Plain and simple. Next time you drive by a production greenhouse, get out of your car and go and talk to someone inside. The greenhouse people will more than likely have a CO2 generator, these are expensive and if they didn't work, they would not be there. 20000 'grow-shows' in Vancouver can't be wrong. But hey, don't listen to plant people, let's rely on 'scientists' with computer models that are failing. What a ridiculous world we live in.

Ciao Fer Now
lancifer

[C.M. Burns]

Right on!
By all means, let put the future of the earth in the hands of indoor plant enthusiasts!

Here, here!

[C.M. Burns]

Rev! We got us a live one here!

Dear Plant Person,

Please, ask the outdoor ocean enthusiasts what they think of your MORE CO2 plan.

[N_Fiddledog]

What Lancifer states is provable real world truth. The idea CO2 is harmful is theory, and many of us (more every day) believe not a very good one.

[C.M. Burns]

There is no theory that CO2 is harmful.

[N_Fiddledog]

Then what are you whining about.

[rearguard]

"An international team of researchers is involved in a carbon storage project near Weyburn in south-eastern Saskatchewan. CO2 delivered by pipeline from a coal gasification plant in North Dakota is being injected into a partially depleted oilfield, preventing its release into the atmosphere. As an added benefit, as the carbon dioxide is pumped into the ground, it forces more oil to the surface, oil that couldn’t be extracted by traditional means."

So there you have it, the tax payer will be funding the extraction of more oil (and more CO2 emissions) through this bogus and thoroughly nonsensical plan that is likely to me harmful to the environment.

"The main goal of the project, which is sanctioned by the International Energy Agency, is to provide rock-solid evidence that CO2 can be safely stored in this manner for a reasonable period of time (nominally 5,000 years). Test results and computer simulations during the first phase have indicated that it is."

Does anyone want to bet that these computer models are completely wrong?

This is just the tip of the iceberg with respect to the global warming scams that are coming our way.

[C.M. Burns]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Then what are you whining about.

Good question!

[Reverend Blair]

$1:

As a greenhouse technician (formerly) and indoor plant enthusiast (Canada's first licensed medical cannabis grower), I know (as could anyone with a quick search) that plants thrive BEST at 1000-1500 ppm CO2. Right now, we are close to plant starvation levels of atmospheric CO2 (360+/-) with plant death occurring at about 250 ppm CO2. We don't need lower levels of CO2 we need MORE CO2.

You weren't the guy growing that ditch weed the cancer patients were complaining about, are you? The low quality of the first medical marijuana offered in Canada had nothing to do with CO2 levels.

When it comes to cereal grains, studies have shown little connection between increased CO2 levels and the edible part of the plant. You get a lot more stalk, but seed production is more closely tied to soil nutrients and moisture.

$1:

Right on!
By all means, let put the future of the earth in the hands of indoor plant enthusiasts!

Hey, remember that episode of "Space 1999" where they landed on the planet with the killer plants?

$1:

What Lancifer states is provable real world truth. The idea CO2 is harmful is theory, and many of us (more every day) believe not a very good one.

'kay...we'll lock you in a room full of nothing but CO2 and let you explain your "theory" from there.

C.M. is right though...there is no theory that CO2 is harmful. There is a scientific theory that's been around since the 1800's...a theory that has been tested, retested, and backed up by a huge amount of data. It states that CO2 and other GHG's in the atmosphere act to trap heat. This theory is so integral to modern science that evolutionary science, atmospheric science, and even the various explanations of atmospheres on other planets do not work without it. Biology, chemistry, and parts of physics use greenhouse theory as a matter of course. Paleontology, archaeology and a host of other ologies use it to do everything from dating material to explaining the development of species. That has been the case since long before global warming theory was being attacked by the denial industry.

So you can set to work rewriting pretty much every science text on the planet, or you can accept the theory. Your call, but don't be surprised when people treat you like an inbred hillbilly for denying the science.

$1:

This is just the tip of the iceberg with respect to the global warming scams that are coming our way.

If you look into the history of the Weyburn project, you'll find that the science is quite sound, given the geology and the depth that the CO2 is being buried at. You'll also find that the man...a researcher at the University of Regina...who did most of the work is none too happy about what's happening right now. There was a pretty good article in Canadian Geographic a few months back, which is a good place to start, although you should dig a little deeper after that.

The "scam" you are objecting to is being perpetrated by people who largely share your point of view, Rearguard. There's the science, then there's what irresponsible corporations and governments do with the science. How does it feel to be on the same side as the oil companies, Stephen Harper, and Brad Wall? I was just out in Saskatchewan, and rye whiskey and tequila seem to help those in your position to sleep at night.

[C.M. Burns]

Slam dunk, Rev!

You covered all the bases and, as always, it was a pleasure to read.

Since there seems to be two versions of this thread I will cross-post from the other thread.

from the SaskPower press release:
"private sector investment of approximately $400 million will be directed to the pipeline required to transport the captured carbon dioxide to the oilfields and the infrastructure required in the enhanced oil recovery process."

Apparently there's a lot of money to be made if the private sector is ponying up 400 million. I'd be interested to know how they plan to profit. Selling the recovered oil, subsidies, tax credits, fees?

1 million tonnes @ $400 million = $400/tonne - Boundary Dam

600 million tonnes = theoretical Canadian capacity

600,000,000 x $400 = 240,000,000,000
240 billion dollars to use up our carbon storage.

And that's just carbon... in Canada
Then there's methane and N2O and...
The US and China and...

One quickly comes to the conclusion that sequestration is going to cost someone a lot of money! Reducing consumption is starting to sound better and better.

[rearguard]

$1:

How does it feel to be on the same side as the oil companies, Stephen Harper, and Brad Wall?

I take offense to that claim. I'm in no way on their side, quite the opposite. None of these people even care if the science behind CO2 and warming is valid or not, they are simply looking after their own selfish needs. I doubt any of them even bothered to consider looking into the matter at all. If the global warming claims somehow fit their needs (as they'll undoubtedly weasel it into), then they'll be first in line promoting the theory and whipping up the fear.

As you can see, it's already started.

[rearguard]

"Since there seems to be two versions of this thread I will cross-post from the other thread."

Me thinks that we need a moderator!

[Reverend Blair]

$1:

"private sector investment of approximately $400 million will be directed to the pipeline required to transport the captured carbon dioxide to the oilfields and the infrastructure required in the enhanced oil recovery process."

Apparently there's a lot of money to be made if the private sector is ponying up 400 million. I'd be interested to know how they plan to profit. Selling the recovered oil, subsidies, tax credits, fees?

In the case of Weyburn, it's the increased oil recovery that pays the bills. Carbon capture makes no economic sense to the oil industry outside of that context. When they talk about carbon capture in the tarsands, they are basically just making up random stories. If we pay for the carbon capture technology and the pipelines to send the CO2 from the tarsands to someplace where they can use it, they'll be more than happy to charge us $100+ per barrel of oil.

Right now Weyburn gets the CO2 from a coal gasification plant that Jimmy Carter built (eat that one, Republicans...) in the 1970's. Wall's plan is to build another gasification plant in Saskatchewan to supply the CO2 locally. The only thing green about it is the colour I turned when I heard Wall's plan to return to deficit spending...it sounded just like Grant Devine's first budget.

So the Saskatchewan Party isn't green and isn't fiscally responsible. Their ideas are outdated and were first put into action by Democratic president who their American friends tell them to despise.

[dino_bobba_renno]

C.M. Burns & Reverend Blair I tip my hat to you! You guys are fucking geniuses! I am just in awe of your brilliance! Jumping all over a first time poster for putting up a thread that should have garnered little more than a polite conversation, that’s great, really. Now you can go tell every one how you put someone on an internet forum in their rightful place. Good for you!