Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Earth too Warm? Just Bury the CO2

By Mark Clayton, Christian Science Monitor. Posted July 31, 2007.


Scientists are working on one of mankind's most pressing environmental questions: Can nations bury their greenhouse gases?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Mark Clayton

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Under a blazing west Texas sun, with a whiptail lizard and cattle looking on, Rebecca Smyth works with an assistant to lower a measuring line, then a hose, and finally a slender plastic capsule down an old water well 200 feet deep.

She's hoping the water samples she collects will yield clues to what is, arguably, one of mankind's most pressing environmental questions: Can nations bury their greenhouse gases?

If they can, then governments will have bought themselves a decades-long respite as they search for less carbon-intensive energy sources. If they can't, then a significant rise in global temperatures by 2100 looks inevitable, if fossil-fuel consumption continues at its current pace.

And the answer may well lie here, atop an old west Texas oil field known simply as SACROC, where more CO2 has been pumped underground over a longer period of years than anywhere else on Earth. Her efforts -- and those of the rest of a small army of scientists funded by the US Department of Energy -- are being closely watched. Energy companies want to know their options as Congress mulls over legislative options to global warming. Environmentalists are eager to find ways to slow the rise of greenhouse gases.

"If we don't sequester carbon from coal, we won't be able to stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere," says John Thompson, director of the coal transition project of the Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based environmental group. "It's the linchpin."

Admittedly, pumping huge amounts of carbon dioxide into underground caverns sounds audacious. If the US captured just 60 percent of the CO2 emitted by its coal-burning power plants and reduced it to a liquid for injection underground, the daily volume would roughly equal what the US consumes in oil each day -- about 20 million barrels, according to a report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. And the risks are substantial.

Inject too much CO2 and the resulting pressure could cause earth tremors or push deep super-salty groundwater up into freshwater aquifers. Once pumped in, the CO2 may not even stay put in the sandstone formations, below layers of shale and other rock.

Nevertheless, researchers sound confident. "I grew up near Love Canal, so I know the problems of putting stuff underground," says Sue Hovorka, a research scientist at the University of Texas at Austin. "But we're cautiously optimistic this is going to work."

She is one of the scientists tracking the movement of carbon dioxide underground in the nation's first deep-sequestration experiment.

Under a torrid midday sun in the old Liberty oil field south of Houston, she is tracking the progress of about 2,000 tons of food-grade CO2 that she had injected into a well in 2004 and again last fall. Unlike SACROC (Scurry Area Canyon Reef Operators Committee), no CO2 had ever been injected here before, so it should be straightforward to track. But at the moment, Dr. Hovorka is not happy.

Nearly a mile below, her sensitive instruments are trapped in a five-inch steel pipe, and the roughnecks on the rig have spent hours trying to pull them out. A colleague opts to use small explosives to dislodge them. An hour later, the instruments are on their way to the surface and water samples are being analyzed from an adjacent well.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming, co2, climate change

Mark Clayton is a staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
CCS technology too expensive, too little, and too late
Posted by: dobermanmacleod on Aug 5, 2007 10:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While carbon capture and sequester (CCS) technology is technically feasible, it is very expensive, can only be used at point of emissions on new power plants designed around it, and won't be widely available for decades. On the other hand, China alone is build new dirty coal-fired plants with a generating capacity of the size of Britain's entire power grid each year! India will soon follow suit (and why not, since coal is 1/6th the cost of either oil or natural gas to generate electricity). Instead, I suggest the low cost method of removing the CO2 from the air by improving nature using genetic engineering-perhaps seeding a GMO into the ocean. The extremely high cost of competely rebuilding our energy infrastructure is causing political gridlock. It is unlikely that mankind will so drastically cut their emissions so fast as to avoid either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming. Biosequestration (not CCS) could save billions of live and trillions of dollars-if we don't REMOVE the excess CO2 from the air soon, the carrying capacity of the world will abruptly lower in the next couple of decades.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Problems with Just Burying the CO2
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 6, 2007 7:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Right now the CO2 is stored as small bubbles in the pore spaces
of the sandstone,"
What is keeping the CO2 there? Is it just pressure? If so, there
could always be a leak. Cool CO2 displaces air and suffocates
people. Please keep me informed as to the locations of these
storage sites so that I can move away from them. Millions of
people could be suffocated by this CO2.
Do chemical complexes form between CO2 and carbon in coal
mines? If so, how long does it take for the process to reverse
itself when the pressure is released?

"Inject too much CO2 and the resulting pressure could cause earth
tremors or push deep super-salty groundwater up into freshwater
aquifers. Once pumped in, the CO2 may not even stay put in the
sandstone formations, below layers of shale and other rock."
Exactly. The CO2 can leak out and kill people, among other bad
things it can do.

What are they going to do with the Uranium, Arsenic, Lead,
Mercury, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium,
Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium,
Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium,
Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc that go
either up the stack or into the cinders of coal fired power plants?
Remember that average coal contains 1 or 2 parts per million
Uranium and that a standard unit 1000 megawatt coal fired power
plant burns 4 Million tons of coal each year. Multiplying these
two numbers, we see that the average standard unit 1000
megawatt coal fired power plant puts out 4 to 8 tons of uranium
each year.

We already have a much safer alternative that would be much
cheaper if the average American could be educated out of her
paranoia of all things nuclear. Nuclear power is the safest
alternative for which we have current technology and which
would actually produce enough power all the time to meet our
needs. Natural background radiation equals 1000 times what you
get by living next door to and working in a nuclear power plant.
A coal fired power plant gives you 100 times as much radiation as
a nuclear power plant. The coal fired power plant also poisons
you.

See:
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-
34/text/coalmain.html

Background radiation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
from
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]