PDA

View Full Version : Carbon Storage Gets A Push



synthomus
2005-Feb-07, 12:25 AM
The argument for carbon sequestration has come far, with a series of experts insisting it can be transformed from fiction to fact:

Carbon Storage Gets A Push In Hopes For Defeating Global Warming (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-05n.html)


An experiment in Norway's offshore field, Sleipner, has been storing a million tonnes of waste CO2 per year since 1996, pumping it 1,000 metres (3,250 feet) below a cap of shale and mudstone.

Another project is in North America, where CO2 is being extracted from a coalgas plant in Wyoming and pumped 300 kms (185 miles) to Weyburn, in Canada's Saskatchewan province, where it is stored in an empty underground chamber in a working oilfield.

Former Greenpeace campaigner Bill Hare said the push for carbon sequestration was hated by many environmentalists as a sop to the oil and coal lobbies, but some were grudgingly accepting it as a bridging solution between the carbon and hydrogen ages.


"Speaking personally, I believe that all power plants being planned now should be fitted with sequestration technology. We're going to need it," he said.

8) Sounds to me like a smart positive technological approach to the global warming debate.

archman
2005-Feb-07, 05:09 AM
Well, I know carbon sequestration in the oceans has pretty much fizzled out. There's too much concern it'll alter water chemistry, specifically, pH.

I haven't a clue what CO2 dumped deep underground will do, and it's likely most geologists don't really know either. Either way, it sure won't be cheap retrofitting plants for this. And I presume that many emission-producing plants are located in areas where deep storage can't be performed. They weren't initially constructed with this in mind, of course.

Although I have zero data to back this up, I would be uncomfortable living near a facility that pumped vast amounts of gas deep underground. I'm sure the general public would view this similarly. Heck, it would be the makings for a great disaster movie!

banquo's_bumble_puppy
2005-Feb-08, 02:07 PM
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002056.html

I like this idea better-

salting the oceans with iron

electromagneticpulse
2005-Feb-08, 04:24 PM
Well, I know carbon sequestration in the oceans has pretty much fizzled out. There's too much concern it'll alter water chemistry, specifically, pH.

I haven't a clue what CO2 dumped deep underground will do, and it's likely most geologists don't really know either. Either way, it sure won't be cheap retrofitting plants for this. And I presume that many emission-producing plants are located in areas where deep storage can't be performed. They weren't initially constructed with this in mind, of course.

Although I have zero data to back this up, I would be uncomfortable living near a facility that pumped vast amounts of gas deep underground. I'm sure the general public would view this similarly. Heck, it would be the makings for a great disaster movie!

CO2 already naturally occurs underground, it's been down there since around the time the coal and oil has been, so there isn't any worry about it coming out. But then i'm no geologist.

Oh and you wouldn't live anywhere near the pumping stations unless you lived offshore on one of the rigs. And the general public in the UK should know as it was on the news a couple of nights ago.

IMO Bill Hare is dumb, pumping the CO2 into the ground would store it for millions of years so whats the problem. It holds the CO2 for millions of years, slows down or stops global warming and would be in league with Kyoto that will keep the demand for lowing CO2 levels. By the time significant problems would kick in if ITER's predictions are right we would have fusion reactors by then.

But then thats my opinion and i have an alternative method for CO2 storage that Bill Hare wouldn't be pleased with... but i wont post it here :roll:

Glom
2005-Feb-08, 04:28 PM
Leaving aside the fact that I see no need for this, what are the Greenies' complaint? Sop to the oil industry? I thought this was about the environment and not about just disliking them.

Captain Kidd
2005-Feb-08, 04:48 PM
Hmm, reminds me of that lake in Africa. A vast CO2 deposite is trapped in the deep water (by some extreme thermoclines I think)it and bubbles up through the water. Occasionally the lake "burps" a large amount. In 1986 it wiped out a village (1,800 total dead). A large bubble came to the surface and since lake is up high (a volcanic crater lake I think) the CO2 flowed down and into the village asphyxiating everything. It happen at night too so everybody ws sleeping when it came in.

Ah, here's a Smithsonian Magazine article (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian/issues03/sep03/killer_lakes.html) on it. Dated 2003, I think internal political problems has halted the efforts to "defuse" the lake.

But since the idea is to do it offshore, I guess the risk would be lessened fairly significantly.

Amadeus
2005-Feb-08, 05:13 PM
How about using it? I'am sure someones going to quote the laws of therma dynamics to me but why dont we just the oxygen from it and use the carbon as a material. AFAIK its carbon dioxide thats the problem. Lets use the carbon. End of problem.

I know it will take energy to split the C from the O but that can be done via Nuclear energy.

Anyone want any carbon?

Madcat
2005-Feb-08, 07:44 PM
Basicly you're suggesting we sequester the carbon, just not as currently proposed.

Glom
2005-Feb-08, 08:18 PM
Amadeus, I like the way you think. I've been thinking about using carbon dioxide to manufacture hydrocarbon fuels for use in transport, since hydrocarbons are by far the most useable. But as you say, thermodynamics may pose a problem. My thinking was more along the lines of sustainability of supply of course.

dgruss23
2005-Feb-08, 08:20 PM
During the 1990's ~50% of the anthropogenic CO2 was absorbed by the various carbon sinks in the environment. That's an improvement from ~40% in the 1980's.

Glom
2005-Feb-08, 08:22 PM
That's no doubt thanks to the regrowth of forests in America.

But, dgruss, you are forgetting their is a huge uncertainty on that. After all, anthropogenic emissions are less than the error on natural discharge.

electromagneticpulse
2005-Feb-08, 08:51 PM
Amadeus, I like the way you think. I've been thinking about using carbon dioxide to manufacture hydrocarbon fuels for use in transport, since hydrocarbons are by far the most useable. But as you say, thermodynamics may pose a problem. My thinking was more along the lines of sustainability of supply of course.

Well there is research into artificial photosynthesis for that exact purpose. But that again has its problems, we would need massive photosynthesis farms for the production of hydrocarbons. Yet it wouldn't get rid of the CO2 in the atmosphere, as we would use the hydrocarbons made.


If CO2's electrolysis is at a lower energy requirement than H2O, then if we dissolved CO2 in H2O the CO2 would be broken down first releasing O2 and building up C on one of the electrodes. But i can't remember the kcals for the atomic bonds, too long ago since my chemistry classes.

Amadeus
2005-Feb-08, 09:44 PM
If we could turn this spare carbon into diamonds i'am sure we could solve this problem fast.

How about calling them "liberty Diamonds". You heard it here first folks! :D

Glom
2005-Feb-08, 10:07 PM
Well there is research into artificial photosynthesis for that exact purpose. But that again has its problems, we would need massive photosynthesis farms for the production of hydrocarbons.

Big honkin' thorium reactors! 8)


If CO2's electrolysis is at a lower energy requirement than H2O, then if we dissolved CO2 in H2O the CO2 would be broken down first releasing O2 and building up C on one of the electrodes.

Carbon dioxide can't be electrolysed. It does not dissociate. It is a purely covalent molecule.

mike alexander
2005-Feb-08, 11:03 PM
It's a tremendous waste of energy to fully reduce the carbon, anyhow. The best bets are to turn it into a nonvolatile inorganic carbonate (e.g., limestone) or a nonvolatile organic compound (e.g., carbohydrates). The latter is done quite well by plants.

You can also use carbon dioxide and hydrogen in a Fischer-Tropsch process to produce alcohols and hydrocarbons.

electromagneticpulse
2005-Feb-08, 11:07 PM
Well there is research into artificial photosynthesis for that exact purpose. But that again has its problems, we would need massive photosynthesis farms for the production of hydrocarbons.

Big honkin' thorium reactors! 8)

If its Big 'n' Honkin' i'll vote for it :D

I'm still waiting for my Big 'n' Honkin' space gun though :roll:



If CO2's electrolysis is at a lower energy requirement than H2O, then if we dissolved CO2 in H2O the CO2 would be broken down first releasing O2 and building up C on one of the electrodes.

Carbon dioxide can't be electrolysed. It does not dissociate. It is a purely covalent molecule.

Well thats me told 8)

Gramma loreto
2005-Feb-09, 12:05 AM
Well, I inject it into my aquarium to aid plant growth, so I'd sign up for free CO2.

Not that my 90-gal tank would sequester much...

archman
2005-Feb-09, 04:58 AM
Well, I inject it into my aquarium to aid plant growth, so I'd sign up for free CO2.

Not that my 90-gal tank would sequester much...

I assume those plants aren't calcareous algae. Geez, that's a big tank to grow plants!

Gramma loreto
2005-Feb-10, 12:36 AM
I assume those plants aren't calcareous algae. Geez, that's a big tank to grow plants!

No, it's a freshwater tank this time so I won't be growing any of that nice purple stuff. It's densley planted and populated by various rainbowfishes, et al. CO2 is running about 23ppm.

And actually, I rather think that 90 gallons is a bit on the small side. Wouldn't I just love a 180-gal bowfront!

dgruss23
2005-Feb-10, 12:51 AM
That's no doubt thanks to the regrowth of forests in America.

But, dgruss, you are forgetting their is a huge uncertainty on that. After all, anthropogenic emissions are less than the error on natural discharge.

You're right. The exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere each year is 10-15 times the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Good call Glom!

synthomus
2005-Feb-11, 05:16 PM
IMO Bill Hare is dumb, pumping the CO2 into the ground would store it for millions of years so whats the problem. It holds the CO2 for millions of years, slows down or stops global warming and would be in league with Kyoto that will keep the demand for lowing CO2 levels. By the time significant problems would kick in if ITER's predictions are right we would have fusion reactors by then.

=D> I accord with your remark, but you misunderestimated Bill Hare. He doesn't agree with those environmentalist who object CO2 sequestration, actually it was he who said:


"Speaking personally, I believe that all power plants being planned now should be fitted with sequestration technology. We're going to need it."


Oh and you wouldn't live anywhere near the pumping stations unless you lived offshore on one of the rigs. And the general public in the UK should know as it was on the news a couple of nights ago.

I would live near a pumping station. Why not? Did they talk about offshore CO2 pumping in the news?


But then thats my opinion and i have an alternative method for CO2 storage that Bill Hare wouldn't be pleased with... but i wont post it here :roll:

:roll:

pghnative
2005-Feb-11, 06:54 PM
That's no doubt thanks to the regrowth of forests in America.

But, dgruss, you are forgetting their is a huge uncertainty on that. After all, anthropogenic emissions are less than the error on natural discharge.

You're right. The exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere each year is 10-15 times the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Good call Glom!
dgruss, Glom --- can you elaborate more and/or provide a link regarding the exchange between oceans and atmosphere?

- Is this quantity a measurement of CO2 produced (e.g by aquatic animals) and CO2 consumed (aquatic plants)?

- Is this a measurement of CO2 evolved (in warmer climes), where gas solubility is reduced) and CO2 absorbed (in colder areas?)

- Is it some combination of "1" and "2"

- Or is it an estimate of CO2 continuously absorbed/desorbed. That is, for any given square mile, X kgs of CO2 are absorbed and Y kgs are desorbed. (At equilibrium, X=Y). Your number would then be equal to the integral of X over the entire square milage of ocean.

dgruss23
2005-Feb-11, 07:38 PM
That's no doubt thanks to the regrowth of forests in America.

But, dgruss, you are forgetting their is a huge uncertainty on that. After all, anthropogenic emissions are less than the error on natural discharge.

You're right. The exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere each year is 10-15 times the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Good call Glom!
dgruss, Glom --- can you elaborate more and/or provide a link regarding the exchange between oceans and atmosphere?

I can provide you the links. See pages 4-6 (fallacy #'s 1 and 2) of this paper (http://www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf) and page 1 of this paper. (http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf)

Humans put ~6 Gt Carbon a year into the atmosphere from fossil fuels. The surface ocean and atmosphere exchange 90 Gt C each year. That should include both abiotic and biotic exchanges. So the atmosphere/oceans naturally exchange ~15 times the amount of C we're releasing. That is not a net change in overall CO2, just the amount that is going back and forth. Vegetation and the atmosphere exchange 60 Gt C each year. The amount of resident carbon in the atmosphere is ~ 750 Gt C.

synthomus
2005-Feb-11, 09:30 PM
I can provide you the links. See pages 4-6 (fallacy #'s 1 and 2) of this paper (http://www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf) and page 1 of this paper. (http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf)


Do you also have any links to papers that aren't sponsored by the oil industry, dgruss23? I read the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine paper and though it's quite interesting I'm hesitant to put too much trust in it. The Oregon Institute has a very explicit pro oil industry agenda which is hinted at the end of the paper:


As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.

Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.

Also, by googling for the Oregon Institue one gets some further hints that it could be a camouflaged PR bureau of the oil industry.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not challenging any of their evidence as I don't consider myself erudite enough on the subject. However, I recommend to read the paper cum grano salis just like any potentially biased or overstated report from either side of the debate.

With respect to the other link, the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists paper, I wasn't inclined to read it because of the obvious interests of that organization.

dgruss23
2005-Feb-12, 01:12 AM
I can provide you the links. See pages 4-6 (fallacy #'s 1 and 2) of this paper (http://www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf) and page 1 of this paper. (http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf)


Do you also have any links to papers that aren't sponsored by the oil industry, dgruss23?

The answer to your question is that both papers are heavily referenced with articles from Peer reviewed journals - Nature, Science, Climate Research ... . Sallie Baliunas is a well respected researcher. She's in this for the science, not the oil industry. She's an astronomer that has done research relevant to the issue.

And here (http://www.cspg.org/Publications/bul_101/bul_101.html) is the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology website. It doesn't appear from the article titles that the journal is grinding an anti-global warming axe for the benefit of oil companies.

I understand that you're not saying they're wrong because of affiliations, but what exactly is an unbiased source in this issue? Organizations on both sides have their positions and arguments. If you want to see the pro-GW side of the arguments, you can certainly read the latest issues of Discover, Scientific American ...

But if you haven't seen this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=18760&postdays=0&postorder=asc&hig hlight=global&start=0) you might find it worth your time - just for the sake of seeing a set of arguments against AAGW that no compelling arguments were raised against. I'm still waiting for someone to present the overwhelming evidence in favor of AAGW.