PDF Publication Title:
Text from PDF Page: 270
258 IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage neighbourhood. The respondents also thought that the risks and drawbacks were somewhat larger than the benefits to the environment and society. The respondents considered that the personal benefits of CO2 capture and storage were ‘small’ or ‘reasonably small’. On the basis of her findings, Huijts (2003) observed the storage location could make a large difference to its acceptability; onshore storage below residential areas would probably not be viewed positively, although it has to be borne in mind that the study area had experienced recent earthquakes. Huijts also notes that many respondents (25%) tended to choose a neutral answer to questions about CO2 capture and storage, suggesting they did not yet have a well-formed opinion. carbon mitigation options. Explanations for these differences might include the extent of concern expressed regarding future climate change. Representative samples in the USA and EU (Curry et al., 2005) and most of the smaller samples (Shackley et al., 2004; Itaoka et al., 2005) find moderate to high levels of concern over climate change, whereas respondents in the Palmgren et al. (2004) study rated climate change as the least of their environmental concerns. A further explanation of the difference in perceptions might be the extent to which perceptions of onshore and offshore geological storage have been distinguished in the research. From this limited research, it appears that at least three conditions may have to be met before CO2 capture and storage is considered by the public as a credible technology, alongside other better known options: (1) anthropogenic global climate change has to be regarded as a relatively serious problem; (2) there must be acceptance of the need for large reductions in CO2 emissions to reduce the threat of global climate change; (3) the public has to accept this technology as a non-harmful and effective option that will contribute to the resolution of (1) and (2). As noted above, many existing surveys have indicated fairly widespread concern over the problem of global climate change and a prevailing feeling that the negative impact outweighs any positive effects (e.g., Kempton et al., 1995; Poortinga and Pidgeon, 2003). On the other hand, some survey and focus-group research suggests that widespread acceptance of the above factors amongst the public – in particular the need for large reduction in CO2 emissions – is sporadic and variable within and between national populations. Lack of knowledge and uncertainty regarding the economic and environmental characteristics of other principal mitigation options have also been identified as an impediment to evaluating the CO2 capture and storage option (Curry et al., 2005). Acceptance of the three conditions does not imply support for CO2 capture and storage. The technology may still be rejected by some as too ‘end of pipe’, treating the symptoms not the cause, delaying the point at which the decision to move away from the use of fossil fuels is taken, diverting attention from the development of renewable energy options and holding potential long-term risks that are too difficult to assess with certainty. Conversely, there may be little realization of the practical difficulties in meeting existing and future energy needs from renewables. Acceptance of CO2 capture and storage, where it occurs, is frequently ‘reluctant’ rather than ‘enthusiastic’ and in some cases reflects the perception that CO2 capture and storage might be required because of failure to reduce CO2 emissions in other ways. Furthermore, several of the studies above indicate that an ‘in principle’ acceptance of the technology can be very different from acceptance of storage at a specific site. Given minimal experience with storage of CO2, efforts have been made to find analogues that have similar regulatory (and hence public acceptance) characteristics (Reiner and Herzog, 2004). Proposals for underground natural gas storage schemes have generated public opposition in some localities, despite similar Palmgren et al. (2004) conducted 18 face-to-face interviews in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, area, followed by a closed- form survey administered to a sample of 126 individuals. The study found that provision of more information led the survey respondents to adopt a more negative view towards CO2 capture and storage. The study also found that, when asked in terms of willingness to pay, the respondents were less favourable towards CO2 capture and storage as a mitigation option than they were to all the other options provided (which were rated, in descending order, as follows: solar, hydro, wind, natural gas, energy efficiency, nuclear, biomass, geological storage and ocean storage). Ocean storage was viewed more negatively than geological storage, especially after information was provided. 5.8.5.2 Focus-group research Focus-group research on CO2 capture and storage was conducted in the UK in 2001 and 2003 (Gough et al., 2002; Shackley et al., 2004). Initial reactions tended to be sceptical; only within the context of the broader discussion of climate change and the need for large cuts in CO2 emissions, did opinions become more receptive. Typically, participants in these groups were clear that other approaches such as energy efficiency, demand-reduction measures and renewable energy should be pursued as a priority and that CO2 geological storage should be developed alongside and not as a straight alternative to, these other options. There was general support for use of CO2 capture and storage as a ‘bridging measure’ while other zero or low carbon energy technologies are developed or as an emergency stop-gap option if such technologies are not developed in time. There was a moderate level of scepticism among participants towards both government and industry and what may motivate their promotion of CO2 storage, but there was also some distrust of messages promoted by environmental groups. Levels of trust in key institutions and the role of the media were perceived to have a major influence on how CO2 capture and storage would be received by the public, a point also made by Huijts (2003). The existing research described above has applied different methodologies, research designs and terminology, making direct comparisons impossible. Inconsistencies in results have arisen concerning the effect of providing more detailed information to respondents and the evaluation of CO2 capture and storage in general terms and in comparison with other low- 5.8.5.3 Implications of the research 5.8.5.4 Underground storage of other fluidsPDF Image | CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGE
PDF Search Title:
CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGEOriginal File Name Searched:
srccs_wholereport.pdfDIY PDF Search: Google It | Yahoo | Bing
NFT (Non Fungible Token): Buy our tech, design, development or system NFT and become part of our tech NFT network... More Info
IT XR Project Redstone NFT Available for Sale: NFT for high tech turbine design with one part 3D printed counter-rotating energy turbine. Be part of the future with this NFT. Can be bought and sold but only one design NFT exists. Royalties go to the developer (Infinity) to keep enhancing design and applications... More Info
Infinity Turbine IT XR Project Redstone Design: NFT for sale... NFT for high tech turbine design with one part 3D printed counter-rotating energy turbine. Includes all rights to this turbine design, including license for Fluid Handling Block I and II for the turbine assembly and housing. The NFT includes the blueprints (cad/cam), revenue streams, and all future development of the IT XR Project Redstone... More Info
Infinity Turbine ROT Radial Outflow Turbine 24 Design and Worldwide Rights: NFT for sale... NFT for the ROT 24 energy turbine. Be part of the future with this NFT. This design can be bought and sold but only one design NFT exists. You may manufacture the unit, or get the revenues from its sale from Infinity Turbine. Royalties go to the developer (Infinity) to keep enhancing design and applications... More Info
Infinity Supercritical CO2 10 Liter Extractor Design and Worldwide Rights: The Infinity Supercritical 10L CO2 extractor is for botanical oil extraction, which is rich in terpenes and can produce shelf ready full spectrum oil. With over 5 years of development, this industry leader mature extractor machine has been sold since 2015 and is part of many profitable businesses. The process can also be used for electrowinning, e-waste recycling, and lithium battery recycling, gold mining electronic wastes, precious metals. CO2 can also be used in a reverse fuel cell with nafion to make a gas-to-liquids fuel, such as methanol, ethanol and butanol or ethylene. Supercritical CO2 has also been used for treating nafion to make it more effective catalyst. This NFT is for the purchase of worldwide rights which includes the design. More Info
NFT (Non Fungible Token): Buy our tech, design, development or system NFT and become part of our tech NFT network... More Info
Infinity Turbine Products: Special for this month, any plans are $10,000 for complete Cad/Cam blueprints. License is for one build. Try before you buy a production license. May pay by Bitcoin or other Crypto. Products Page... More Info
CONTACT TEL: 608-238-6001 Email: greg@infinityturbine.com (Standard Web Page)