ODT: Carbon capture and storage should not be required.

Debate issuesCon says "Roy Latham is considered as the best debater at DDO. However this is not one of his best debates and he appears to be clearly distracted." I'll survive, but that's a personal attack and a conduct violation. When anything is proposed as a requirement it's fair to argue if whatever is proposed is really required at all to treat a problem, if the new requirement will solve the problem, and if there are better, cheaper ways to solve the problem. I agreed at the outset that the climate is warming and that we ought to be concerned over the warming. There is a possibility that warming will not be so severe as to require any government action, I granted that indeed we ought take a cautious approach and prepare for a scenario of significant warming even though the amount of warming and how much of it is natural are in dispute.Con seems to believe that the only legitimate grounds for supporting the resolution is that it is not technically feasible. Con says, "If we are debating economics of CCS, it should be obvious that we are concerned about global warming caused by CO2." No, there is no such implication. If the resolution were, "People should be required to arm themselves with silver bullets," it does not assume that everyone believes vampires exist, and it's only the feasibility of equipping people with silver bullets to kill them. One may deny a vampire problem or propose carrying garlic as a better means of protection.I grant that CSS technology is feasible in the sense that no one doubts it is possible to build such facilities. I argue it is too expensive, does little to solve the problem, and that there are better ways to spend money to secure a solution.1. CCS would provide negligible reductions in global warmingWe have a point of agreement in that the maximum achieved by CCS, assuming alarmist projections of CO2 effects, is to lower 3 degrees of warming by 13%. It's actually much less, because even the high costs are only achieved when incorporating CCS into a new plant built from scratch. That means it will be 50 years before it is even half implemented.Con argues that CCS ought to implemented because the costs, whatever they are, are assigned to the producer. I argued that power companies are not going to pay the costs, but rather the customers consuming electricity. The broad base of users therefore ought to be able to choose cheaper and better methods of fighting global warming.I put forth the idea of requiring people to exhale into balloons and asked why the requirement would be ridiculous, which I clearly stated it was. If all we are allowed to consider is narrow technical feasibility and putting the burden on the source, then it should be a good method. The simple reason that it is ridiculous is that there re better, more practical methods, never mind the idea of burdening sources.2. The Cost Makes CCS ImpracticalCon claims that CSS is "projected to be as cheap as conventional method[s]." Okay, what are conventional methods and what do they cost? Con gives no quantitative estimates. My ref [6] projected costs to the current year, and ref [7] projected costs to future plants as being a 42% premium. Con's cost reference was a Wikipedia article that gave very similar estimates, saying "Capturing and compressing CO2 may increase the fuel needs of a coal-fired CCS plant by 25%-40%. These and other system costs are estimated to increase the cost of the energy produced by 21-91% for purpose built plants." (Note that the percentage increase would be lower if the initial power cost is high.) Those are clearly projections to future implementation.There is nothing in the technology that's subject to dramatic technological innovation. It's pumps, chemicals, compressors, pipelines and drilling. It's not like computers that are subject to dramatic cost reductions. In fact the risks are that they will prove higher. I cited organic chemist who point our the potential difficulties with siting the foul smelling plants, and Con did not disagree.Con claims that China is involved with the technology, but his reference strongly implies that their interest is solely in selling CCS equipment to the West, not in increasing their electricity costs by 42%. They're eager to sell windmills and solar panels as well. They only are interested in local use to perfect their products. I argued that developing nations should devote resources to providing food, health care, and essential infrastructure rather than sequestering carbon. con did not explain why CCS should be a high priority for poor nations. They are better off being warmer and not starving.3. Nuclear, Adaptation, and Climate Engineering are Better AlternativesCon seemed to me to grant that the alternative of using nuclear power lowers the cost of electricity from current levels and reduces CO2 emissions to zero. I pointed out tat there is no objection to widespread use of nuclear power, so long as the plants are properly monitored. Therefore, it's an alternative superior to CCS under any assumption of the bad effects of CO2.If we take global warming seriously, we should seek a solution that works whether the cause is CO2 or natural or some combination of the two, and we should solve 100% of the problem not a fraction of 13% of the problem. The idea of spending unlimited money doing everything that can be imagined does not work because money is finite. The alternative of seriously developing climate engineering technology is the only route that is both economic and promises a full solution.Thanks to my opponent for an interesting debate. I hope readers will get a better understanding of costs and strategies from our interchange.CCS should not be required because alternative accomplish more at lower cost.The resolution is affirmed.