I keep studying Chu and I don’t see how you can conclude this. For instance, you use the famous Chu quote “Coal is my worst nightmare” as if this is evidence he agrees with you.

I located the speech this statement came from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLr4YbStc0M (Chu’s remarks on coal start around the 28 minute mark.)

and went over the section where he speaks about coal. It is very clear why coal is his worst nightmare. Coal use without CCS is expanding dramatically:

“Coal is so plentiful there’s no serious exploration for it…. China is now embarked on a program to be building about 1/2 GT to 1 GT coal plant a week…. the US is also on a path that’s roughly one a week…. Its also the default option of India. Russia wants to go to coal because it uses its natural gas and oil as hard currency…. So this is what we’re seeing now. It’s not that we’re going to head for this, it’s what we’re currently doing.”

What is made clear in this “coal is my worst nightmare” speech is that Chu believes that carbon capture technology exists and is affordable:

“the issue here is actually not the cost of converting the coal into a stream of hydrogen and CO2 and pumping the CO2 underground. That would probably increase the [my note: retail] power bill by as much as 25%. That’s what a carbon price of $30 – $40 a ton would be equivalent to”

I transcribed this coal section of his speech myself. I do not see any objection to CCS Chu is making other than this:

“But there’s an unknown cost, in that this [the sequestration] faces legal challenges”

Speaking of CCS technology as a whole, he says: “So its sort of an R&D issue. I think we have to do this if we’re going to go forward with coal”.

All there is in this speech is his caution about NIMBY legal unknowns to do with sequestration. He sees a legal challenge. No scientist can predict how something like that will evolve. Hence his cautious statement: “Its not guaranteed we have a solution for coal”.

I’ve heard him make other statements about sequestration where he brings up technological difficulties and uncertainties, but there isn’t anything else in this particular speech.

The literature of CCS is replete with report after report stating that storage is the minor cost, and regarding what holds CCS back from widespread implementation right now, report after report say, including Chu’s own “Lighting the Way” done for the IAC which states “it will be necessary to develop regulations and to introduce price signals”, which is simply not a description of a technology that we will never be able to use.

It doesn’t look to me like Chu would agree with your statement that “for the foreseeable future – and perhaps beyond that – we will have to tackle the climate change problem without carbon capture”.

Perhaps you should ask him and post his answer.

Read more here: http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/ get-informed/ news/ clear-and-present-danger-a-conversation-with-nobel-laureate-steve-chu-on-the-risks-of-climate-change.html

I wonder if you understand that there is a lot of overlap, but still significant differences between basic science, big science, and engineering. Furthermore, nothing gets done to solve major problems without business and political involvement.

Those that I think have “the really great minds” understand the differences and see the overall need for mutual understanding and cooperative work.

Not to overstate my position, I should have said, “Those of us who think we understand that —”

Yes, they work it out. They just ignore the whole thing, even though it is federal law. Even those making almost fraudulent claims for electric and plug in hybrid car performance avoid the methodology for computing MPG which is stiplated here.

California makes up its rules based on questionable assumptions about energy sources. Google makes up its rules and quotes MPG as if electricity falls out of the sky, as it does at Google after they spent big money on solar panels. The big car companies also pretend that electricity falls from the sky, though some at least admit in the fine print that they are not counting the electric energy.

My point is that we need some good rules here that correctly represent the source of electric energy. The campaign against global warming will be seriously delayed if these rules are not correct. Most importantly, the big car companies will claim energy efficiency success that is unwarranted, and thus qualify for bailout billions.

Geochemist–
Those of us who understand that the link has been reasonably well proven need to recognize and deal with the realities of the competitive ecoomy if a viable solution is to be put in place.

Before we start the long road to uneconomic energy supplies we should prove a link between CO2 and temperature. Judging from geologic history the link between CO2 and temperature is weak to negative. There is a lot of work to do before we start crushing the economy. Anyone who tells you that the science of global warming is settled is not capable to understanding the complexity of the science.

PS: WE ALREADY have new nukes. Research has been ongoing for more than 62 years.

Coal has a $100 Billion cash flow per year in the US alone. It will take a lot to stop coal, but stop coal we must.

Remember, there is no more Middle Age. Take a trip in the real science and see the light. Of course many of you are not able for this kind of brainy activity. Then it is better to be silent and admire the really great minds.