Carbon capture and storage: Carbon dioxide pressure dissipates in underground reservoirs

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-03/w-cca032211.php

Public release date: 22-Mar-2011

Contact: Michelle Martella
[e-mail]
781-388-8577
Wiley-Blackwell

Carbon capture and storage: Carbon dioxide pressure dissipates in underground reservoirs

The debate surrounding carbon capture and storage intensifies as scientists from the Earth Sciences Division at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory examine the capacity for storing carbon dioxide underground

The debate surrounding carbon capture and storage intensifies as scientists from the Earth Sciences Division at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) examine the capacity for storing carbon dioxide underground, in a study published today in the new journal Greenhouse Gases: Science & Technology.

The study debates some of the conclusions drawn in an earlier study by Ehlig-Economides and Economides1, countering their claims that carbon dioxide cannot feasibly be stored underground. These earlier findings, according to the Berkeley Lab researchers, only considered closed-system subsurface formations, with limited mechanisms for relieving the pressure.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is controversial in the eyes of the general public. Pressure build-up in the subsurface induced by the injection of carbon dioxide from industrial-scale projects is a key constraint for the amount of carbon dioxide that can be safely stored underground.

In their paper, the Berkeley Lab researchers considered a full-scale deployment scenario in which enough carbon dioxide is stored to make relevant contributions to climate change mitigation. Modeling studies illustrating the scale and magnitude of pressure build-up are presented for hypothetical CCS projects in two representative basins currently being investigated for future deployment of carbon dioxide storage in the US.

…

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ghg3.1/abstract

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Well there you go…

A lot of people feel the same about anthropogenic climate change (who cares what “scientists” say…)

http://fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2011/11018-CCS_Initiative_Begins_Research.html

[kristopher]

3. Too much focus on the technical...

Your posts tend to focus on the technical, which is perfectly OK if that is what you think represents the most important point to be conveyed in a forum of lay readers on energy. But you have little cause to get snippy and act as if people don't care about AGW when they judge the overall value of a given technology by metrics that are perhaps more relevant - such as how much associated environmental damage goes with coal and the ultimately prohibitive costs (in energy and money) of deploying CCS.


There are alternatives.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. "I've haven't seen such a plan since Wile E. Coyote's plans to catch the Roadrunner."

Dismissing something (like Anthropogenic Climate Change or Carbon Capture and Sequestration) in this fashion without seriously looking into it just doesn't make sense.

My initial reaction to Carbon Capture and Sequestration was that it was just a “pipe dream,” a marketing gimmick (and I still have a tendency to think that way) however a number of reputable scientists seem to see it as a necessary component in battling greenhouse gas emissions. So, I’m willing to listen.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1181637

Science 25 September 2009:
Vol. 325 no. 5948 p. 1599
DOI: 10.1126/science.1181637

* Editorial

EDITORIAL:

Carbon Capture and Sequestration

Steven Chu — Steven Chu is the U.S. Secretary of Energy and a Nobel Laureate in physics.

Summary

Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels have caused the climate to change, and a dramatic reduction of these emissions is essential to reduce the risk of future devastating effects. On the other hand, access to energy is the basis of much of the current and future prosperity of the world. Eighty percent of this energy is derived from fossil fuel. The world has abundant fossil fuel reserves, particularly coal. The United States possesses one-quarter of the known coal supply, and the United States, Russia, China, and India account for two-thirds of the reserves. Coal accounts for roughly 25% of the world energy supply and 40% of the carbon emissions.* It is highly unlikely that any of these countries will turn their back on coal any time soon, and for this reason, the capture and storage of CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel power plants must be aggressively pursued.

…

[GliderGuider]

5. Necessary != Possible.

I've looked into CCS a bit, and I echo the comment. It's a Rube Goldberg approach borne out of desperation.

I see no technically feasible way of making fossil fuels safe for continued use.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. I understand… and yet… I don't know if your background is sufficient for me to accept your analysis

www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20081121_Obama.pdf

…

We should also urgently pursue R&D for carbon capture and sequestration. Here too this may be done most expeditiously and effectively via cooperation with China and India. Note that, even if it is decided that coal can be left in the ground, carbon capture and sequestration with other fuels still may be needed to draw down the amount of CO2 in the air. An effective way to achieve drawdown would be to burn biofuels in power plants and capture the CO2, with the biofuels derived from agricultural or urban wastes or grown on degraded lands using little or no fossil fuel inputs.

Opponents of nuclear power and carbon capture must not be allowed to slow these projects. No commitment for large-scale deployment of either 4^th generation nuclear power or carbon capture is needed at this time. If energy efficiency and renewable energies prove sufficient for energy needs, some countries may choose to use neither nuclear power nor coal. However, we must be certain that proven options for complete phase-out of coal emissions are available.

…

I have become convinced that we will continue to burn fossil fuels for a significant period of time. Inertia is simply too great. Given that, CCS seems to be a necessary field of research.,

[GliderGuider]

9. It's just my opinion. I agree we will continue to burn FF

I just think we will continue to accept the costs. I am very skeptical of the feasibility of putting technical band-aids on such an enormous sucking chest wound as atmospheric CO2. Just because we have to do it if we want to keep driving to Denny's doesn't mean it's going to be possible.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. It's not the trip to Denny’s that concerns me

As has been pointed out, capturing carbon from moving vehicles is virtually impossible, compared to capturing carbon from stationary power plants, which is merely extremely difficult. ;-)

[madokie]

37. And if they use a gasifier to extract the energy rather than direct burn

it makes it a whole lot easier to capture the co2 plus it gives a larger volume of energy for given mass.

[kristopher]

7. Perhaps you would benefit by more critically evaluating the source material you use

What institutional role did Chu have when that statement was made?

Does that institutional role impact the validity of his position on issues like CCS?

Who receives most government energy subsidies?

What does that say about the influence of industry on Chu's ability to speak freely as a scientist instead of as a part of a political entity?

I mean, seriously dude...

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Prior to this, his institutional role was head of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Lawrence Berkeley has been looking into Carbon Capture for some time.

http://www.lbl.gov/today/2007/Mar/28-Wed/chu-jump.pdf

CONGRESSIONAL HEARING

Regarding

Opportunities and Challenges in the U.S.-China Economic Relationship

Statement of
Steven Chu
Director, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Before the
Committee on Finance
United States Senate

March 27, 2007

…

In developing these new programs, China traditionally first looks abroad to survey successful programs in other countries, adapting as needed to suit the conditions in China. Technology is generally not the challenge: what is needed is a package of measures to encourage adoption of new technology, information dissemination of results and experience, financial or tax incentives, technical assistance in auditing and planning, backed up by leadership support at higher policy levels. These are areas in which the U.S. has extensive experience and could provide assistance to China for achieving its energy reduction goals.

China’s reliance on coal also makes it urgent to accelerate research and development on techniques for carbon management, including capture and sequestration. As the United States and China are the two largest coal-consuming countries in the world, and the two largest CO2 emitters in the world, a partnership in this area could make progress towards offsetting the impact of the expected increased use of coal in both countries. Further progress on climate change mitigation also depends on the engagement of the United States and China.

…

[kristopher]

12. That doesn't speak to what I asked at all.

If you don't want to bother with an actual argument that's ok, I agree it gets old.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. OK, so, let me see if I'm following your logic…

Big Government is just a tool of Big Coal™. Therefore government-sponsored research is suspect (since, by extension, it’s all supported by Big Coal™.)

Is that what you’re implying here?

[kristopher]

14. No, I'm saying that someone speaking in their capacity as administrator...

will say things that they would not say when when expressing their private personal opinion.

As lab director one of Chu's primary functions is to preserve funding and his statements should be read with that understanding.

This shouldn't be a revelation to anyone that is routinely involved in doing research that requires evaluation of source material. Not all fields require that, of course. If the only place you get your "news" as a researcher is from peer-reviewed journals it would have never been a necessary part of your training.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. OK, so then the writings of James Hansen (and others?)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1137632

Science 9 February 2007:
Vol. 315 no. 5813 pp. 812-813
DOI: 10.1126/science.1137632

Perspective

Preparing to Capture Carbon

Daniel P. Schrag — Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. E-mail: [e-mail]

Abstract

Carbon sequestration from large sources of fossil fuel combustion, particularly coal, is an essential component of any serious plan to avoid catastrophic impacts of human-induced climate change. Scientific and economic challenges still exist, but none are serious enough to suggest that carbon capture and storage will not work at the scale required to offset trillions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions over the next century. The challenge is whether the technology will be ready when society decides that it is time to get going.

Strategies to lower carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions to mitigate climate change come in three flavors: reducing the amount of energy the world uses, either through more efficient technology or through changes in life-styles and behaviors; expanding the use of energy sources that do not add CO₂ to the atmosphere; and capturing the CO₂ from places where we do use fossil fuels and then storing it in geologic repositories, a process known as carbon sequestration. A survey of energy options makes clear that none of these is a silver bullet. The world's energy system is too immense, the thirst for more and more energy around the world too deep, and our dependence on fossil fuels too strong. All three strategies are essential, but the one we are furthest from realizing is carbon sequestration.

The crucial need for carbon sequestration can be explained with one word: coal. Coal produces the most CO₂ per unit energy of all fossil fuels, nearly twice as much as natural gas. And unlike petroleum and natural gas, which are predicted to decline in total production well before the middle of the century, there is enough coal to last for centuries, at least at current rates of use, and that makes it cheap relative to almost every other source of energy (Table 1). Today, coal and petroleum each account for roughly 40% of global CO₂ emissions. But by the end of the century, coal could account for more than 80%. Even with huge improvements in efficiency and phenomenal rates of growth in nuclear, solar, wind, and biomass energy sources, the world will still rely heavily on coal, especially the five countries that hold 75% of world reserves: the United States, Russia, China, India, and Australia (1).

…

[kristopher]

16. He is starting with a presumption. What analysis is behind it? nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. He’s starting with some stark facts

http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.315.5818.1481a

Science 16 March 2007:
Vol. 315 no. 5818 p. 1481
DOI: 10.1126/science.315.5818.1481a

News of the Week

CARBON EMISSIONS

Report Backs More Projects to Sequester CO₂ From Coal

Eli Kintisch

A new academic study of capturing and storing carbon emissions from coal burning—the 800-pound gorilla in the climate policy debate—says that billions of dollars in demonstration projects are needed to help put the ape in a cage.

Worldwide, the 5.4 billion tons of coal burned each year generate roughly a third of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. But coal's low cost compared to other energy sources makes it irresistible to nations with plentiful deposits. China, for example, weekly puts online two new coal-fired generating plants. This week, scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, led by physicist Ernest Moniz and chemist John Deutch, propose policy and research to help governments achieve big cuts by capturing and burying the CO₂ (http://web.mit.edu/coal). The study describes a number of daunting technical hurdles and warns against a “rushed attempt” to deploy the two leading technological fixes before the science is mature.

That cautionary note has sparked criticism from more bullish experts. “We know enough technologically to do it today,” says mechanical engineer George Peridas of the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C., which wants new plants to be forced to include technology to capture carbon emissions. “From a climate perspective, the risk is huge.”

Using a computer model, MIT researchers examined how charging utilities a global price for emitted carbon dioxide (either $7 or $25 per ton) might impact coal consumption by 2050. The scenarios suggest that the policies “will limit” the expected growth in the use of coal but not bring it below current levels. Improvements in the process of capturing emitted carbon and sequestering it underground will therefore be “critical,” the report's authors say. The study calls for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to continue funding technologies for capturing carbon from the two main ways of burning it: pulverized coal (PC) and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). PC plants grab CO₂ just before emissions travel to the smokestack; IGCC plants remove the gas after the coal is gasified but before it is burned.

…

[kristopher]

19. He is starting with a presumption. What analysis is behind it?

Just because he couches his presumption in a set of what you feel are "stark facts" does not mean that his presumption is supported by rigorous comparative analysis of the costs/benefits of coalCCS.

In fact, both real world competition and properly performed analysis tell us that for the carbon-free oriented consumer, coalccs is a poor choice.

Are you somehow allergic to such analysis?

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Present the facts to support your presumption

Tell me how we are going to get rid of coal plants overnight, when to this day we continue to build new ones?

I'm all in favor of carbon free power generation. I just need to know how you intend to replace all of those coal plants here and abroad overnight, regardless of how much consumer support there is to do it.

http://www.colombopage.com/archive_11/Mar21_1300714014JR.php

Leading News from Sri Lanka::

* First phase of Sri Lanka's first coal power plant to be opened tomorrow

Mon, Mar 21, 2011, 06:56 pm SL Time, ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.

Mar 21, Colombo: The first phase of Sri Lanka's first coal power plant, Lakvijaya will be declared opened by President Mahinda Rajapaksa tomorrow (22).

The Lakvijaya coal power plant located in Norochcholai in the Puttalam District of Northwestern Province will add 300 MW of power to the national grid.

The construction work for the 300 MW coal fired thermal power plant with infrastructure for a 900 MW power plant had started in 2006 amid heavy resistance from the Catholic community of the area.

Construction work on the second phase of the plant is already in progress and once completed, the Lakvijaya plant will will enhance the capacity of the national grid of Sri Lanka with an expected output of 1658 Gwh of annual energy at distribution level for delivery to consumers.

…

[kristopher]

22. The answer you get depends on the question you ask.

And you are asking the wrong question.

"I just need to know how you intend to replace all of those coal plants here and abroad overnight, regardless of how much consumer support there is to do it."


Surely you know that your inclusion of "overnight" is inappropriate, right?

Perhaps you could frame the challenge properly and I'll happily answer.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. OK

I just need to know how you intend to replace all of those coal plants here and abroad in a timely enough fashion to avert a climate crisis, regardless of how much consumer support there is to do it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/

Sep 14, 2006

Warming expert: Only decade left to act in time

‘We have a very brief window of opportunity,’ NASA scientist says

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A leading U.S. climate researcher says the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophe.

NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American climate researchers, said governments must adopt an alternative scenario to keep carbon dioxide emission growth in check and limit the increase in global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

“I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most,” Hansen said Wednesday at the Climate Change Research Conference in California’s state capital.

If the world continues with a “business as usual” scenario, Hansen said temperatures will rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees F) and “we will be producing a different planet.”

…

http://www.grist.org/article/hansen/

…

You said a few years ago that we had 10 years before we hit that tipping point where we couldn't go back. Is that a hard and fast number?

I think I said that in 2005, so I was really thinking 2005 to 2015. Now we've come two years into that period, and I haven't seen the numbers in the last year, so I can't really say what the two-year change is just yet.

There's plenty of potential to achieve an alternative scenario, but we would have to become serious about vehicle and building improvements in efficiency. If we did that, then the need for new coal-fired plants would greatly decrease. We had been going from coal to oil to gas, each one being less carbon-intensive. But now all of a sudden we're leaping back toward coal. That is the big concern, because that's where the huge potential CO₂ amount is.

…

We're probably going to pass the dangerous level of atmospheric CO₂, and we're going to have to figure out some ways to draw down atmospheric CO₂. That tells us we should have greater emphasis on good agricultural and forestry practices and perhaps even burning biofuels in power plants that capture CO₂.

…

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Banning_New_Coal_Power_Plants_Will_Slow_Warming_999.html

CLIMATE SCIENCE

Banning New Coal Power Plants Will Slow Warming

by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) Feb 27, 2007

A moratorium on coal-fired power plants is key to cutting carbon dioxide emissions that promote global warming, NASA's top climatologist said Monday. "There should be a moratorium on building any more coal-fired power plants until the technology to capture and sequester the (carbon dioxide emissions) is available," said James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

"This is a hard proposition that no politician is willing to stand up and say it's necessary," he told journalists at the National Press Club.

…

Hansen said the technology to capture carbon dioxide "is probably five or 10 years away."

By then, he said, "all coal burning power plants that don't capture the CO2 will have to be bulldozed."

…

[kristopher]

25. That is a great question!!!

If we spend a dollar on GHG reduction efforts we want it to deliver the most bang for the buck, right?

When you (a careful consumer I'm sure) want a car you don't go out and buy every car made, you only buy one. The first step is to narrow the range of all possibilities to the ones that do what you want (car truck motorhome etc) Then you make a first cut analysis using simple criteria, easy to apply and select a short list for closer examination.
Next you subject that short list to far more intense scrutiny. That will usually narrow the field down to one or two choices, from which you buy based on intangibles such as reputation of the dealer, what you've experienced in the past etc.

What I see is that you don't want to move past the short list stage. You seem to be dedicated to maintaining the fiction that all technologies on the short list are equally deserving of support. They aren't.

They can be and have been examined pretty closely by a lot of people who are intent on the same goal you espouse. The resource size, state of current technology, sustainability, rate of deployment, direct cost, and external costs are the most significant considerations and they lead to some pretty clear conclusions.

The totality of this evaluation is clear and has been summarized well in this graph by Cooper:


Based on the research behind that graph we should:

1) price carbon.

2) remove all subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear.

3) set in stone a national policy to effect a complete transition away from all fossil fuels by 2050.

4) increase funding to enable deployment of existing selected technological sectors (solar, storage etc).

5) pass legislation to give FERC the power to enforce the mix of generation at local levels, including streamlining the process of local and state permitting for distributed and variable resources.

6) launch parallel program to deploy smart grid technologies and other enabling infrastructure for electric vehicles.

Some people might find the material here to be useful in fleshing out this post.

Again. Great question.

Renewable Energy Works Now
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. I'm afraid we don't have time to be so "cost effective."

Given sufficient time to act, I would choose very similar solutions to what you outline.

I don't believe we have the luxury of that much time.

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/business/2011/03/22/aboitiz-expands-proposed-coal-power-plant-300mw-146332

Aboitiz expands proposed coal power plant to 300mw

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

ABOITIZPOWER Corp. is expanding its proposed circulating fluidized-bed coal-fired power plant in southern Davao from 200 megawatts (mw) to 300 mw in anticipation of future demand for power in Mindanao.

The proposal was submitted to the Davao City Council last week and was approved on first reading last March 1.

The expanded capacity will provide a comfortable power reserve for Mindanao, which is ideal for its long-term security and reliability, Aboitiz Power First Vice President for Mindanao Affairs Bobby Orig said.

…

"There are coal-fired power plants using clean coal technology existing in the Philippines and in Mindanao, like the Steag State Power plant in Villanueva, Misamis Oriental and the Cebu Energy Development Corporation in Toledo, Cebu, These facilities have continued to meet standards and there had been no recorded incident that negatively affected the health and livelihood of the communities around it," Orig said.

…

(Yay! It’s “clean coal™.” Uh… right.)

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/monnet-close-to-buying-another-mine-in-indonesia/429470/

Monnet close to buying another mine in Indonesia

Shubhashish / Mumbai March 23, 2011, 1:03 IST

Monnet Ispat & Energy, flagship company of the Monnet Group, has bought a 65-million tonne coal mine in Indonesia for $24 million (Rs 290 crore). And, it is in talks to buy another coal mine, beside looking to set up power plants, in that country.

Sandeep Jajodia, vice chairman and managing director, told Business Standard on the proposed second acquisition, "We are (also) in talks with a private company for a coal mine. It’s not a very huge reserve, probably under 100 million tonnes, but is a higher grade coal, at 6000k/cal."

…

[kristopher]

28. Then you are suggesting a *slower* approach?

You made that same type of argument for hydrogen even though it is clear that hydrogen would require about 50% more generation capacity than battery electric.

There is absolutely no logic behind the assertion that selecting the most cost effective and sustainable technologies is a route to a slower transition than if we waste money on technologies that are totally speculative or known to be less effective.

The assertion itself is nonsense.

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. Let's see… somewhere in this thread I mentioned hydrogen?

Nope… not that I can find…


Reminding you of the current thread for a moment:

"I just need to know how you intend to replace all of those coal plants here and abroad in a timely enough fashion to avert a climate crisis, regardless of how much consumer support there is to do it."

I absolutely agree that we need to ramp up alternatives just as quickly as we can. I just don't believe we can ramp them up as quickly as we need to.

We have to start putting a serious bite in emissions (virtually) “overnight.” (Assuming Hansen was right, we’re talking about the next 4-5 years.) Certainly, Hansen’s no fan of coal, yet he believes developing CCS should be a priority, and I believe him.

Even if we halt all carbon production today (and I trust you agree that we won’t) there’s already too much in the atmosphere. We will need to draw it down somehow, and while (for example) I'm all in favor of planting forests, I don’t believe that will be sufficient.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mauna_loa_record_-_color.html



http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/local-news/2011/03/23/kepco-spc-coal-plant-starts-operations-146397

Kepco-SPC coal plant starts operations

By Bernadette A. Parco

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

THE construction of coal-fired power plants in Naga City is almost complete, with the facilities to be operational by the end of April, said a Department of Energy (DOE 7) official.

Environmentalists warned Naga residents of an increase in pollution while a local executive pledged to monitor plant activities.

…

DOE 7 Director Antonio Labios said one unit that was connected to the Visayas Grid initially operated at 20 megawatts (MW) last January. The same unit increased its capacity to its full capacity of 50 MW last Feb. 28.

The second unit will be fully operational by end of next month. Both units are expected to produce a dependable or effective capacity of 186 MW.

…

[kristopher]

30. So your position is faith based.

You continue to say that promoting an unproven technology that will further entrench the current system of fossil fuels is going to be faster than doing what we *know* will work to shut down the coal plants by leveraging their direct economic costs against them.

It is an example of the very worst in decision-making exemplifying what is a huge part of the problem.

[OKIsItJustMe]

31. You present this as an either/or proposition

I believe we need to do both (and more.)

Full speed ahead on proven deployable alternatives (like wind, solar, geothermal…) Continue R&D on these, making incremental improvements (but don't let that delay the deployment of current technology.)

Continue R&D on ones which aren’t deployable at this time or are just in their infancy (wave generators, tidal generators…)

However, yes, continue R&D on future technologies, like CCS, nuclear fusion, orbital solar, and (yes) even “4^th generation” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor">nuclear fission… (sigh)


And, lest we forget, continually increase how efficiently we use energy.

[kristopher]

32. COntinuing to state what you WANT isn't going to make it any more correct.

Ignoring the huge body of work that says you are wrong is always a great way to ease cognitive dissonance.

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. Shall I hold up a mirror?

You cannot deploy current alternatives fast enough. Here's an optimistic solar industry estimate.

http://www.solarcop16.org/uploads/SEIA-COP16_LR.pdf

SEIZING THE SOLAR SOLUTION:

Combating Climate Change through Accelerated Deployment

…

“By 2020, combined world solar deployment could reach a level that reduces carbon pollution by 570 megatonnes, equivalent to taking 110 million cars off the road, or shutting down 100 coal plants.”

…

That’s great! (Let’s do it.) But it’s not the kind of magnitude we need.

[kristopher]

34. IT is also not a subsititue for peer reviewed investigation of the question asked.

I'm not going to continue this silly game you seem to delight in. The existing body of work on the question you posed is large and it is unambiguous.

If you want to reject it, that is on you.

[OKIsItJustMe]

39. I'm sorry

the solar industry's most enthusiastic estimate falls far short of what you imply can be done.

[wtmusic]

6. "pressure build-up is relieved naturally by movement of native saline waters...

into regions far away from where carbon dioxide injection occurs."

"Regions far away" sounds really cool - like it would never find its way back to the atmosphere again. Put me down for that.

[NickB79]

18. Funny how that damning statement is glossed over so easily. NT

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. Unless you understand what they’re saying…

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_summaryforpolicymakers.pdf

IPCC Special Report

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage

Summary for Policymakers

A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

This summary, approved in detail at the Eighth Session of IPCC Working Group III (Montreal, Canada, 22-24 September 2005), represents the formally agreed statement of the IPCC concerning current understanding of carbon dioxide capture and storage.

…

Will physical leakage of stored CO₂ compromise CCS as a climate change mitigation option?

25. Observations from engineered and natural analogues as well as models suggest that the fraction retained in appropriately selected and managed geological reservoirs is very likely²⁵ to exceed 99% over 100 years and is likely²⁰ to exceed 99% over 1,000 years.

For well-selected, designed and managed geological storage sites, the vast majority of the CO₂ will gradually be immobilized by various trapping mechanisms and, in that case, could be retained for up to millions of years. Because of these mechanisms, storage could become more secure over longer timeframes (Sections 1.6.3, 5.2.2, 5.7.3.4, Table 5.5).

…

[wtmusic]

24. So...IPCC claims CO2 will be immobilized

but OP says it will be carried into unspecified "regions far away". But not near the surface, despite CO2's low density and high pressures at depth. :crazy:

[OKIsItJustMe]

26. (Winning arguments by making faces.)

It works for 4 year olds. :P

What the paper is saying is simply that the salty water is displaced, making room for the CO₂

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ghg3.1/full#sec1-6

…

In the southern San Joaquin Basin, the deep Vedder Sand has been considered an important target formation for GCS in California (Fig. 3). The formation pinches out toward the south, north, and west. To the east, the Vedder Sand (and its equivalent sandstones) outcrops along the edge of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. Its salinity is relatively modest, ranging from 29 000 mg liter−1 in the deeper portions of the formation to less than 100 mg liter−1 in the outcrop region. As a result, we use the term ‘water’ in this subsection to refer to the resident fluid of variable salinity. The primary seal is formed by the Temblor-Freeman shale, except in the northern area where the Vedder Sand connects with the overlying Olcese Sand, another possible storage formation. Numerous oilfields exist in the basin, with their oil/gas pools in different formations, including the Vedder Sand. The oilfields act like closed, partially closed, or open subsystems, evidenced by strong variations in pressure behavior observed during petroleum extraction. For example, the pressure decrease (induced by production of petroleum and produced water) observed at wells and the subsidence imaged using InSAR data indicate that the Kern River oilfield is a closed subsystem bounded by faults and a formation outcrop.22,23 In summary, the Vedder Sand in the southern San Joaquin Basin forms a partially closed storage system with three closed boundaries and one open boundary, and comprises some localized, fault-bounded closed and partially closed subsystems. Several major faults may act as partial groundwater barriers to regional groundwater flow.

A large-scale numerical model of 84 km by 112 km domain size was developed to understand the scale and magnitude of pressure build-up in the partially closed system of the southern San Joaquin Basin. The model represents most of the major geologic and stratigraphic features discussed above. The storage scenario assumes an injection rate of 5 Mt CO2/year at one well (located between the Greeley and Pond faults) for a period of 50 years. The model accounts for pressure attenuation by diffuse water leakage through seals, by focused water leakage through the seal-pinchout area, and by water discharge into the outcrop area of the storage formation, and also represents the effect of fault zones on pressure-build-up propagation. In addition to the base case (with caprock permeability of 10−18 m2 and baserock permeability of 7 × 10−17 m2), we reduced the cap- and baserock permeability to 10−21 m2 for sensitivity analysis. As shown in Fig. 3b (the base case), the pressure perturbation in the Vedder Sand is confined by the southern, western, and northern boundaries of the storage formation at 50 years of injection. The pressure build-up is above 1.10 MPa near the injection center and more than 0.50 MPa in the central area of the basin bounded by the Greeley and Pond faults. In the southwestern region of the storage formation, the pressure build-up is higher than 0.30 MPa, showing the effect of the formation boundaries. The open eastern boundary allows local resident water to flow into shallower formations, without noticeable pressure build-up. Pressure build-up is also less significant in the northern region of the storage formation, because the local absence of the seal there allows water to migrate into overlying aquifers.

The volumetric balance at the end of injection is as follows. The total volume of water displacement includes 333.5 × 106 m3 displaced by free-phase CO2 (with an average density of 656 kg/m3 of the 218.8 Mt free-phase CO2) and 25.6 × 106 m3 by dissolved CO2. This volume is accommodated by 98.9 × 106 m3 of pore volume made available by both pore and water compressibilities in response to pressure build-up in the storage formation, 147.6 × 106 m3 of water migrating from the storage formation into overlying and underlying formations, and 112.6 × 106 m3 of the water migrating through the Vedder outcrop boundary and through the northern and western open boundaries for all formations except the Vedder Sand. This shows that pressure attenuation by water migration from the storage formation accounts for 72% of the additional pore volumes needed to store the injected CO2 volume.

In comparison to the base case, pressure build-up is higher within the entire storage formation if the seal permeability is too small to allow for pressure relief (Fig. 3c). At the end of injection, the pressure increase compared to initial hydrostatic conditions is above 1.45 MPa near the injection center, over 0.8 MPa in the region between the Greeley and Pond faults, and more than 0.7 in the southwestern region. The total volume of water displaced by free-phase CO2 (333.0 × 106 m3) and by dissolved CO2 (24.9 × 106 m3) is 357.9 × 106 m3, very close to that in the base case, indicating that the seal permeability has much less impact on CO2 plume evolution (as long as there is no CO2 leakage through the caprock) than on pressure build-up. This total volume of displaced water is accommodated by 160.4 × 106 m3 pore volume made available by compressibilities in the storage formation, 7.9 × 106 m3 cumulative water volume leaked through the northern area (where the caprock is absent) and stored in the overlying formations, and 189.6 × 106 m3 cumulative water volume migrating through the Vedder outcrop boundary and the seal-pinchout area out of the system. The simulation results in both cases indicate that the water outflow from the system is an important mechanism for pressure attenuation, accounting for 31% and 53% of the total displaced water volumes, respectively. Note that the salinity of the outflowing water through the outcrop boundary is very low, and no environmental impact on shallow groundwater resources is expected.

At the end of injection (the base case), the injected CO2 mass (250 Mt in total) is safely stored in the storage formation, either as dissolved CO2 (31.2 Mt) or as free-phase CO2 (218.8 Mt). The CO2 plume is located between the Greeley and Pond faults. With time, the plume of free-phase CO2 continues to migrate updip while more and more CO2 becomes trapped. Simulation results show that at 1000 years, the total injected CO2 mass is safely contained in the storage formation, either by residual trapping (189.6 Mt) or by dissolution trapping (60.4 Mt), leaving no mobile free-phase CO2 in the model domain.

…

[wtmusic]

35. All it takes is one weak point and it's over.

We have not only the "captured" CO2 back in the atmosphere, but the CO2 generated from pushing it down there as well.

"As long as there is no CO2 leakage through the caprock". Why don't we spend 10 $billion and find out? :crazy: :P

Speaking of which, the San Andreas fault runs through the San Joaquin basin. I wonder if they considered that?

[OKIsItJustMe]

41. "one weak point and it's over"

Really?

How about (for example) if it's a weak point that allows (some) gas to escape over the course of a few thousand years?


Seriously, think about it, what keeps natural gas under the ground? (http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/seeps/">It does seep out you know) and yet, the vast majority remains contained.

So, "one weak point," might mean that some carbon dioxide would seep out as well but it does not mean that the whole mass would come blowing out at once.

[wtmusic]

42. How do you know that the vast majority of natgas has been contained?

This is the problem in a nutshell. Not that it couldn't work, it's having any reasonable guarantee that it would work. Too much money, too much at stake, too many unknowns.

"99%" figures get tossed around all the time, and to me it's a tipoff of a sales job (easier to trust 98%).

[OKIsItJustMe]

43. Shall we say the leakage is extremely limited?

Let’s say (for example) that 1% of the natural gas leaks out in a year (the dreaded 99% figure.) OK, so, how many years would it remain in the ground? Well, some of it would remain indefinitely of course, but how much? After 100 years, about ⅓ would remain. (N * 0.99¹⁰⁰)

After 1,000 years, less than 5 thousandths of a percent would remain. (N * 0.99¹⁰⁰⁰)

Given the massive quantities we’ve found, and that the gas wasn’t deposited yesterday… I’d say it hasn’t been leaking at a rate even approaching 1%/year.

If we could limit carbon dioxide leakage to anything like the speed of the natural gas leakage…

[wtmusic]

44. There are several problems with that logic

the most serious of which is the fact you really have no idea how much subterranean natural gas we started out with.

Next, is 1%/year even close to being acceptable? After 100 years we're worse off than when we started?

Next, the natural gas had eons to build in pressure, and now we're shoving down billions of cubic feet at (geologically speaking) the same time. Two balloons, and you're putting the same amount of gas into them, but one you inflate 100x faster than the other. Which one is more likely to burst?

Next, there's no way to verify that the gas is actually going into the ground, much less staying there. "It's expensive pumping all this CO2 down into the earth! Why, if I just wait until dark, I can turn my hose to the sky and make the same amount of money!"

The consideration of which alone makes CCS not only a distraction, but a dangerous one.

[Petrushka]

45. Here's a link to PR for American Electric Power's CCS project in West Virginia w/video --->

http://www.aep.com/environmental/climatechange/carboncapture/

Of course, that PR touting carbon capture and underground storage doesn't mention AEP's other emission pollutants at the CCS project and elsewhere ---> http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:0Y2ut5X8cY0J:www.ohvec.org/issues/mountaintop_removal/articles/air_toxics_fact_sheet--west_virginia.pdf+aep+mitchell+pollution&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjxFN68oWKEIdtVG9EudjEYcpW7H6lShdTbmilcHrlroBFWy4TPgVNTFjPs4EZTx3ElJYfI2hhoOi_bA7oxAoUjG6Q_H0OKHXz7-pRzvjQW1Fqr9zF7q6OlcLgxq3OjDkvgCSV-&sig=AHIEtbSlMetKOMdWB0549uGxBEbLyclEkA

[Nihil]

36. Oops. The headline says it all really.

> Carbon dioxide pressure dissipates in underground reservoirs

If the pressure is "dissipating" then - by definition - the carbon dioxide is leaking.

This means that the "S" part of CCS has failed. QED.

[wtmusic]

38. Actually the full acronym is CCSWW

Carbon Capture and Storage Wink Wink.

[Nihil]

40. Not sure if you've got the right vowel at the end there ...

:hide:

[Petrushka]

46. American Electric Power's CCS project in Mt. Haven WV seemingly makes storage no problem --->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x282581#283045