In principle, it is possible to monitor such huge sources of CO2, more easily than individual cars, for example. It’s a lot easier in principle to monitor a thousand biocarbon plants than 100 million cars, for example. So, it’s not a real roadblock to the idea, IMO.

Also, if companies or governments are being paid for carbon offsets for injected CO2, it’s not unreasonable to set up a monitoring system to show that the CO2 is actually going into the ground, and staying there. Billions of tons of magnesium carbonate from carbon sequestration by mineral carbonation should be pretty easy to track, too.

But public awareness and watchfulness is mandatory, IMO. We’ve been asleep at the wheel, can’t afford to ever fall asleep again, IMO.

A report for the British government on climate change recommended a radical change to how we monitor climate change and international cooperation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ environment/ 2009/ may/ 10/ uk-government-report-climate-change

Since we’re being honest here, there is one problem with this solution that bothers me, a little.

That is how do we keep other countries from accepting the efficiency gains (and so economic benefits) of oxyfuel /HiPPS, but not compressing and deep injecting the CO2?

I think maybe we need a worldwide monitoring surveillance system that would monitor huge sources of CO2 such as biocarbon power plants, for as long as they exist, and make sure that the CO2 goes into the ground or into mineral carbonation, and not into the air.

Maybe what we really need is a worldwide agency, with the authority to run such plants and make sure that the CO2 goes into the ground, and not into the air, until the crisis is over and these plants are phased out in favor of carbon neutral sources of energy like solar.

If the technological problem of converting existing coal fired power plants to practical carbon negative power plants can be solved, without any drastic loss of themal efficiency, this would indeed be a marketable technology, IMO.

Any rational system of carbon credits or carbon taxes should hugely reward such power plants.

I think it is possible to do this, by combining biocarbon fuel with existing technologies, such as the work of the Jupiter Oxygen Corporation and DOE’s NETL on oxyfuel, and with NETL’s past work on HiPPS topping cycles:

http://www.netl.doe.gov/ technologies/ coalpower/ combustion/ IFPS/ ifps-utrc-hipps.html

Many of these things were part of the Clinton Era “Combustion 2000″ effort by the Department of Energy and a consortium of corporations. Many of these ideas seemed to be promising and practical, but were delayed under the Bush Administration (hard to believe, huh?)

Such power plants would produce tremendous quantities of CO2, and storing it would of course be a challenge. Deep injection into saline aquifers and depleted natural gas fields would be OK for a while, but long term we need to develop carbon sequestration by mineral carbonation, and put some fraction of the carbon we have released during the industrial revolution back into stable sequestration as a mineral carbonate, IMO.

http://www.netl.doe.gov

Scientists have a quantitative view of the world.

He doesn’t see how cap and trade can keep the necessary billions of tons of carbon out of the atmosphere, biosphere, and oceans. He thinks we ought to just close down the coal plants.

All reasonable, quantitative positions.

The proponents of Waxman/Markey say that the indirect effects of the bill will more than make up for the lack of direct action. Proponents could be right. There have been technological explosions of innovation by the American economy before – during the growth of the automobile industry, for example, or in the airline industry after WWII.

Personally, I’m tired of waiting for indirect effects to kick in. Sure, we should pass Waxman/Markey, so long as it is written to not interfere with future drastic direct action.

Obama could solve this crisis tomorrow, though, by declaring a state of national emergency, and seizing the coal fired power plants, I think. Similar things have recently been done in the banking industry, and the sky has not fallen, in fact the situation seems to have stabilized somewhat. The coal plants should then be transformed by fiat, by the top scientists and engineers in the country, into carbon negative biomass/CCS power plants.

I believe that Waxman/Markey will indeed stimulate growth of clean energy technologies. But I believe that Waxman/Markey will still leave the core of our fossil fuel power plants intact, and they will continue to spew CO2 with very little regulation for at least a decade.

This is what Hansen meant by “worshiping at the Temple of Doom”, I think. He’s looking at an accelerating climate crisis, and if we waste a decade, he doesn’t see how we can get the numbers to add to anything less than a catastrophe, and possibly to Armageddon.

My view is that we need to pass Waxman/Markey, but continue to push for stronger action, such as nationalizing the coal fired power plants and converting them into carbon negative power plants.

So, the word “sniper” actually has neutral or even positive semantic connotations, then?

[JR: I dare say that "eco-sniper" is not a terribly harsh phrase for the blogosphere. Certainly I did not intend it to be one. It was meant to be a mildly negative phrase, a pulled punch.]