Environmental hazards or energy solut...

Environmental hazards or energy solutions? Geophysicists size up...

There are 14 comments on the Science Daily story from Feb 12, 2013, titled Environmental hazards or energy solutions? Geophysicists size up.... In it, Science Daily reports that:

14 and 15. For example, rather than being a quick fix that helps cut carbon dioxide emissions, poor quality carbon capture and storage may actually make things worse whereas 'fracking', the controversial gas and oil extraction technique, may prove to be vital in the years ahead.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Science Daily.

SpaceBlues

United States

#1 Feb 13, 2013
The piece is wrong: "In reality, it is not so simple. Even handling the greenhouse gases emitted by fossil fuel burning means storing something close to 3.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, a volume comparable to the 27 billion barrels of oil produced annually,"

because the emissions are over 30 billion tonnes per year and that's not a volumetric figure.

Bad reporting..

http://progressive-economy.org/world-co2-emis...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Human_Fi...

The US alone is more than double of 3.5 billion tonnes per year.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2 Feb 13, 2013
Gee spaced out spaceoutblues it sure does match your scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#3 Feb 14, 2013
They were comparing fracking relative to more coal plants, SpaceBlues -- only as a possible lesser of two evils.

AND....

Another peanut for troll PennyHD.
litesong

Everett, WA

#4 Feb 14, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
They were comparing fracking relative to more coal plants, SpaceBlues -- only as a possible lesser of two evils.
Wallop10....... No. Tho the article did mention fracking, the total CO2 emissions world wide must have been meant. I think the author got his decimal point in the wrong place. Instead of his reported 3.5 billion tonnes, he meant to say 35 billion tonnes.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#5 Feb 15, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Wallop10....... No. Tho the article did mention fracking, the total CO2 emissions world wide must have been meant. I think the author got his decimal point in the wrong place. Instead of his reported 3.5 billion tonnes, he meant to say 35 billion tonnes.
In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#6 Feb 15, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
They were comparing fracking relative to more coal plants, SpaceBlues -- only as a possible lesser of two evils.
AND....
Another peanut for troll PennyHD.
The COMMANDER TROLL walloped again and again. AND..........walloped again and again.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#7 Feb 15, 2013
PennyHD, are you too dense to notice even conservatives find you to be a troll??? LOL.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#8 Feb 16, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
PennyHD, are you too dense to notice even conservatives find you to be a troll??? LOL.
wallop10 gets walloped again and again. Another good day
SpaceBlues

Cypress, TX

#9 Feb 16, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
to ph'd:

PennyHD, are you too dense to notice even conservatives find you to be a troll??? LOL.
How true! LOL.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#10 Feb 17, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>How true! LOL.
Again you agree that the wallop10 gets walloped again and again.Did I thank you for your support?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#11 Feb 17, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Again you agree that the wallop10 gets walloped again and again.Did I thank you for your support?
Nice try, hon. He was talking about you, and I think you know that.

But then a person who LIES about posting as a PHD, and having **no degree**

Well, they probably lie ALL THE TIME, don't they.

... you seem to.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#12 Feb 17, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try, hon. He was talking about you, and I think you know that.
But then a person who LIES about posting as a PHD, and having **no degree**
Well, they probably lie ALL THE TIME, don't they.
... you seem to.
There you have it the peanut master with its Bull S. degree. You can repost all the Bull S. degree you wish but the proof is in the peanut. Yes you have that one correct the peanut above your shoulders.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#13 Feb 17, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>There you have it the peanut master with its Bull S. degree. You can repost all the Bull S. degree you wish but the proof is in the peanut. Yes you have that one correct the peanut above your shoulders.
You have NO degree, hon. You wouldn't even pass a Bull S degree,
HA HA HA
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#14 Feb 17, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have NO degree, hon. You wouldn't even pass a Bull S degree,
HA HA HA
You can’t even be original Commander TROLL!!!! See that Bull S. degree again got you walloped and in the crapper. That Ha HA you hear is the void between your ears called an echo.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Science Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min Don Barros Serrano 199,380
News Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 5 min Joel 252,868
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 11 min An NFL Fan 388,165
News Faces of Islam 2 hr Rockstar 86
News Renown artists, naturalist, speaks outRobert Ba... 2 hr Good 4 him 1
News Climate change implicated in France floods 4 hr Into The Night 20
News Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought (Jul '09) 5 hr Earthling-1 3,758
More from around the web