CCU vs CCS ...

There are huge amounts of resources chasing after the Carbon Capture and Storage answer to sequestering CO2. Aside from the obvious risks of storing anything for basically an indefinite amount of time, there exists costs in both equipment and energy. The US and several developed nations are pursuing this "answer" to CO2 emissions, although I feel this is the wrong path.

From the wikipedia article ... "Capturing and compressing CO₂ requires much energy, significantly raising the running costs of CCS-equipped power plants. In addition there are added investment or capital costs. The process would increase the energy needs of a plant with CCS by about 10-40%. The costs of storage and other system costs are estimated to increase the costs of energy from a power plant with CCS by 30-60%, depending on the specific circumstances."

Costs and risks mitigate the good that this may do ... more importantly there are alternatives to this that make more sense. I propose that we follow a Carbon Capture and Use scenario where the CO2 sequestration is then used to create viable products of economic value. Thus this blog was created to look at Use scenarios, like the algae to biodiesel, that creates that alternative. We have also created a pathway that will allow further creation of materials that can be utilized for construction ... solving the global warming problem can give rise to further answers to fuel dependency and localized production of building materials .. this is a bright future ...