06-06-2008, 04:49 PM
[quote cbelt3]
Again, this approach is disgustingly stupid.
What article did you read?
Seems like they are suggesting reducing the carbon emissions by reducing the need for fossil fueled plants. I even searched on "trade" in the article. Didn't find the word.
I don't like the idea of "so-called "carbon capture and storage" technology allowing coal-powered power plants to catch emissions and inject them underground." Just injecting them underground would be as good as just dumping nuclear waste in an empty field.
Again, this approach is disgustingly stupid.
What article did you read?
The scenario for deeper cuts would require massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy.
In addition, the world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year, and wind-power turbines would have to be increased by 17,000 units annually.
Seems like they are suggesting reducing the carbon emissions by reducing the need for fossil fueled plants. I even searched on "trade" in the article. Didn't find the word.
I don't like the idea of "so-called "carbon capture and storage" technology allowing coal-powered power plants to catch emissions and inject them underground." Just injecting them underground would be as good as just dumping nuclear waste in an empty field.