IELTS Listening · Recent Actual Test 1 to 8
IELTS Recent Actual Test 6 - Part 4
We all know about the role of carbon dioxide in causing global warming. Obviously, society needs to reduce the release of carbon dioxide, otherwise known as…
Level: C1 · 68 sentences
Transcript
- We all know about the role of carbon dioxide in causing global warming.
- Obviously, society needs to reduce the release of carbon dioxide, otherwise known as CO2.
- This gas comes from the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil,
- and it is virtually impossible for society to prevent, or even limit such activity.
- Our need for energy and power is just too great.
- Instead, a more practical idea is to collect the carbon dioxide from the burning process,
- for example, directly from the chimneys of power stations,
- and somehow prevent this gas from being released into the environment.
- To do that, you need to store it somehow, and that has to be essentially forever.
- It is perhaps for this reason that many believe that,
- rather than storing the carbon dioxide as a gas,
- it is better to react it with metal oxides, such as magnesium or calcium,
- which results in the formation of a hard carbonate material.
- The gas is, in effect, turned into a stable and unreactive solid,
- which can simply be dumped anywhere.
- This process actually occurs naturally, although very very slowly,
- and is one cause of the surface limestone in the world.
- But this slow reaction speed is the problem.
- Even when enhancing this process through high temperature and pressure,
- or pre-treatment of the mineral, it is still far too slow to be economical.
- One other technique which has been suggested is to pump the gas to the bottom of the ocean,
- where it would react with compounds in the seawater, forming carbonic acid.
- However, this alternative has now been ruled out.
- The CO2 may be removed from the atmosphere,
- but the high oceanic acidity which would result raises its own set of problems,
- mostly with all the delicate life and the intricate food chains in the seawater,
- some on which we ourselves depend,
- and that's something which no one wants to experiment with.
- Perhaps because of the lack of alternatives,
- the most commonly discussed solution to the problem of disposing of carbon dioxide is to pump the gas underground -
- a technique known as 'geosequestration'.
- In this system, the CO2, for example,
- could be pumped into underground pockets within depleted oil wells, or disused coal tunnels.
- This carries, however, three serious disadvantages,
- namely: the risk of leaks, the considerable costs involved,
- and finally, the unproven effectiveness.
- Let us look at those three disadvantages in detail.
- Firstly, there is the risk of leaks.
- Although the gas would be deep and sealed over by masses of rock and earth,
- the huge pressures in these spaces would turn the gas into a liquid state
- capable of moving through rock fissures or faults.
- This could allow the gas to eventually be released to the surface.
- Since CO2 is heavier than air,
- and thus pushes oxygen aside,
- such leaks could result in the suffocation of thousands, or tens of thousands of people -
- certainly not a consequence to be taken lightly.
- Natural CO2 leakage from volcanic build-up has already witnessed such deadly events.
- The other problem of geosequestration is the cost.
- The time and effort spent on materials and construction,
- primarily the pipework through which the gas would travel, does not come cheaply.
- So, if this system were to be implemented in, say, coal-fired power plants,
- the extra cost would have to be paid by the electricity user,
- whose bills would almost double as a consequence.
- Few people are prepared to pay this much simply to make a small dent on the effects of global warming.
- And this leads to the final problem.
- The most basic question is whether geosequestration actually reduces global warming.
- The problem here is that the energy needed to create
- and drive the sequestration process would require approximately
- a quarter of a coal-fired electricity plant's output.
- In other words, the plant would have to burn one quarter more of its coal
- just to account for the sequestration of the carbon dioxide,
- and with coal producing other noxious pollutants,
- such as sulphur, ash, and heavy metals,
- the environment is hardly benefited at all.
- Nevertheless, there are many active experimental efforts underway,
- primarily in oil production sites.
- These are small but intensively monitored and analysed.
- All we can say now is that the jury is still out on whether underground carbon storage will one day be feasible.