Low-tech Magazine

Carbon sequestration: bury the idea, not the CO2

Why introduce yet another expensive, energy-intensive and risky technology if there are so many other and better ways of fighting global warming? 

Capturing CO2 from the smokestacks of power stations with the intention of storing it in underground reservoirs, oceans, rocks, consumer products, chemicals or fuels has gained a lot of credibility recently. Many experts believe that we will burn the world's remaining fossil fuels anyway, and we should therefore try to lower the impact if we are to prevent a catastrophic climate change. Yet capturing, transporting and storing carbon dioxide raises energy consumption considerably and brings with it serious health and environmental problems. The benefits, on the other hand, are shadowed in doubt.

Leave the algae alone

While the first generation of biofuels is wreaking havoc on the environment and the food markets, the second generation is set to make things even worse.

Since it has become clear that ethanol and biodiesel made from food crops are doing more harm than good, the hope for finding a substitute for oil has shifted to algae and cellulose. If we can believe the advocates of this ‘second generation’ of biofuels, these combustibles will deliver way more energy than it takes to make them, without threatening the world’s food and water supplies. Upon taking a closer look, however, this is very hard to believe. They might even cause bigger problems than biofuels made from food crops. Maybe this time around we could sort this out before the damage gets done?

The ugly side of solar panels

New research shows, albeit unintentional, that generating electricity with solar panels can also be a very bad idea.

The manufacture of just 1 square meter of solar panels generates between 7,500 and 31,400 kilograms of greenhouse gases. An average household needs at least 8 square meters of solar panels for electricity generation alone, which boils down to a global warming debt of a whopping 60,000 to 940,000 kilograms of CO2. These numbers equate to 12 to 188 intercontinental flights (see comments). In some cases, producing electricity by solar panels releases more greenhouse gases than producing electricity by gas or even coal. (Picture: Sungazer)

Wind up your laptop

The human body can deliver enough power to drive computers, television sets and washing machines – but it does go hand in hand with lots of sweat.

Eco-tech boffins dream of self-sufficient gadgets: mobile phones fed by solar energy, heartbeat-powered music players. However, the potential of these energy sources is much too small. Handles, cranks and biking machines on the other hand, do have a promise to be a powerful energy source. Swinging a crank for fifteen minutes is enough to power a mobile phone. Less than an hour of pedalling a bike can power larger machines. The only thing missing is a remedy for laziness. 

Nuclear reactors, but no fuel

Atomic energy goes through a revival. But already in 10 to 15 years time, there will be a severe shortage of uranium.

The arguments against nuclear energy are well known: nuclear waste, nuclear weapons and nuclear accidents. All serious threats, but we don’t have to dig them up again this time. There is a more ordinary reason why the present-day revival of atomic energy is no solution to our energy woes. A nuclear plant does not run on solar energy, wind, air or water, but on (enriched) uranium. That radioactive element was dirt cheap for a long time, but that period has ended. At the beginning of 2000 a pound of uranium had a price tag of 10 dollars, in July 2007 the price was 136 dollar. This is a rise of 1300 percent.