DOE Pumps $126.6 Million Into Carbon Sequestration

RickRussellTX writes "The DOE awarded $126.6 million in grants today to projects that will pump 1 million tons of CO2 into underground caverns at sites in California and Ohio. Environmental groups call carbon sequestration "a scam", claiming that it is too expensive and uncertain to be competitive with non-coal alternatives like wind and solar. I just hope nobody drops a Mentos down the wrong pipe."

Safety?

Actually, my main concern is "what if it escapes?". Considering that CO2 is heavier than Oxygen, I wouldn't like to be anywhere near (i.e. within tens of km if not more) a site that stores thousands of tons of CO2.

Re:Safety?

This brought up Lake Nyos [wikipedia.org] in my mind... What if all that CO2 escapes, indeed.

Re:Safety?

... my main concern is "what if it escapes?". Considering that CO2 is heavier than Oxygen, I wouldn't like to be anywhere near (i.e. within tens of km if not more) a site that stores thousands of tons of CO2.

CO2 has sometimes been pumped down oil wells to provide pressure to lift out more oil after the hole goes "dry" due to loss of natural gas pressure while there's still oil available.

On at least one occasion such a well has leaked, creating a large bubble of CO2 on the ground that displaced the air and caused human fatalities. (Not oil workers, either, but sleeping neighbors.)

Re:Why not worry about water shooting out of wells

that's why all the plans involve putting it down somewhere.

If it was stored in gas form at atmospheric pressure, it wouldn't be a problem (it would just be silly). The problem is that if it's stored in highly compressed or solid form, then if something goes wrong and it goes back to gas, it *will* go up and escape, potentially killing anyone in the area.

Stupid

I wonder if Greenpeace realizes the choice isn't between coal plants with sequestered carbon and windmills. In reality, barring some fortuitous breakthrough in solar power, as oil gets more expensive the choice will be between coal plants with this technology and coal plants without it. I believe Greenpeace has completely overestimated the average person's willingness to make lifestyle sacrifices for the sake of atmospheric carbon reductions.

I wish organizations like this would try to be part of the solution instead of just trying to limit our options. You can't accuse the coal companies of proposing a technology that isn't economically feasible on the one hand and then propose wholesale conversion to technologies that are even less economically feasible.

We wouldn't even have this problem if the very same people hadn't killed the nuclear industry through scaremongering and excessive litigation.

Re:So...

Why can't we do both?

The point is, how much more carbon could they have kept in the ground by using the same money to subsidize a carbon-neutral energy source.

Re:So...

"Why can't we do both?

Why should we? Sequestration has only been proven effect in labs, and the coal industry accepts that it won't be completely up and running by 2030. Wind and solar have been proven to work now. Entire cities and even states in some countries are being run on renewable technologies. It's proven, it works, it's emission free. Carbon sequestration doesn't get rid of the fact that we're un-sustainably mining the earth, creating vast amounts of CO2 and then *hoping* that when we bury it underground there won't be any negative consequences.

"Never wanting to compromise or find some benefits in alternatives."

This is less a compromise and more the coal and mining industry refusing to accept their imminent demise, and instead of looking to the REAL future like some companies (BP?) they'd rather try and flog of unproven and, even in theory, ridiculous ideas to the public.

Re:So...

Wind and solar have been proven to work now.

Sorry, it's not that I don't wish that were true but it's just not. Look up the annual energy consumption of the US (105 exajoules (29000 TWh) -- according to Wikipedia) and try to come up with any reasonable scenario in which that much energy can be produced by wind and solar. I've tried to run the numbers even in the most favorable cases and they just aren't there without a huge boost in the efficiency and economy of those alternative methods.

Don't get me wrong, I think we are on the same team here but I refuse to believe, in the face of hard evidence, that wind + solar + geothermal + hydrodynamic + tidal energy will be sufficient to meet domestic US demand for the foreseeable future. Even the most aggressive energy efficiency plans won't kick in in earnest for a decade (cars turn over roughly 10 years, home appliances every 25, homes every 50 and the more you impose, the more costs go up and the slower the turnover happens).

This is less a compromise and more the coal and mining industry refusing to accept their imminent demise

News of their impending demise is highly overrated. The US has enough coal to last us 50 years at current growth rates and China likely does too. With oil capacity down and natural gas reserves dwindling, Americans will either have to consume much less energy (not likely) or tap into coal.

Re:So...

R2.0 wrote:

Where on earth are you getting this data? Please provide at least some reference to any accumulation of people that is self sufficient on solar and wind.

How about from Slashdot [slashdot.org], still on the main page as of my writing this post?

~Rebecca

Re:So...

Coal + sequestration is still *significantly* cheaper than solar and will be for the next 20 years at least.

That's because coal is subsidized and external costs are passed on the everyone, whether they use coal or not. If coal plants had to make it on their own and pay for their Externalities [wikipedia.org] electricity costs would be a lot higher. Heck, even the Nuclear Power Industry [nci.org] uses coal's external costs as a selling point.

And dont mention Hydro.
The greenies hate that because it destroys habitats. :)

Some don't like hydro because frequently dams do not live up to their promise [dams.org] or the costs out weight the benefits [pdf] [panda.org]. "World Commission on Dams Report vindicates unjustifiability of large dams" [unep.org].

Falcon

Re:So...

" If the alternatives were cheap, they would be in place now."

(looks aruond the house) Um, they are.

It used to cost me $11,000/yr to run this place. I spent $5K on stuff and now my operaqting cost is zero.

No, you don't get to keep your electric dryer. Changes must be made. You will make them sooner or later, I just happen to be done now.

Pumping co2 into the ground is the dumbest idea since Bush entering politics.

Re:So...

People want to have their cake and eat it as well.

They will do anything possible to be environmentally friendly as long as they dont have to change their habits, spend money or essentially do anything at all.

Re:So...

Damn environmentalists?

Sounds more like you're describing industry and government. They are only interested in milking fossil fuels for all their worth - and then getting government contracts to "clean up" their output. If they listened to environmentalists, emissions could be cut for a fraction of the cost (or for a profit) - but that's not what the men who run powerful industries care about. It's all about the gravy train of massive infrastructure projects (which often cause more problems than they solve).

Re:So...

Greenpeace wants alternatives, not technology that might arrive in 10+ years, only to prolong the existing energy production system.

Huh? They've been kicking and screaming for decades to shut down our current power generation systems to replace them with unworkable, economically infeasible systems, when France has been using a safe, zero-carbon power generation system for decades as well. They're the ones living the pipe dream, not the rest of us.

Re:So...

It's safe because modern nuclear reactors are basically idiotproof. Even the worst nuclear accident in US history on an old design reactor had no real environmental consequences. (Chernobyl was a different story, but it wasn't a good design to begin with and the operators handled the situation just about as poorly as they could.) Read up on current reactors before you call nuclear power unsafe.

As far as the carbon angle, no power is completely carbon-free, but nuclear does quite a good job (the carbon emissions are from the uranium mining). Keep in mind that those same up-front energy costs also go into producing solar panels and wind turbines.

Re:So...

So, have you looked at how much radioactive waste comes from burning coal? Hint: it's not zero.

Re:So...

Because, while I like a variety of forms of renewable energy and think they should be supported far more than they are, I realize that it will take a while before they can provide a substantial fraction of our energy needs. The same is not true of fossil fuels, and is true to a much lesser degree of nuclear plants. I didn't say to ignore alternative options; I was simply pointing out that coal is worse than nuclear in a wide variety of ways. The parent was comparing nuclear and coal, and I added a counterpoint to his argument. I did not feel a particular need write a treatise intricately comparing the pros and cons of all plausible energy sources.

Not everyone who fails to trumpet the virtues of renewable sources in every post is a troll, or even dislikes renewables.

Re:So...

If we run off of U235 plants, we'll run out of cheap uranium poste haste. The only way we know of to extend our nuclear fuel supply is to reprocess the U238 transmuted to plutonium (or thorium to U233) into additional fuel. However, this is readily achievable.

Conveniently, this sort of breeder reactor also has the ready potential to result in much more *complete* burning of nuclear fuel, resulting in much further reacted, and generally much shorter half-life products. The half life of breeder reactor waste can be as low as 100 years, and as the 95% of the enriched uranium that is U238 becomes viable fuel instead of being discarded as plutonium, the amount of waste per unit power drops by many orders of magnitude

Right now, India is the only country I am aware of that does extensive breeding (they're not in the Non-proliferation treaty, and don't have natively mined uranium, so they transmute thorium into fissile material) although France does some as well. The US doesn't do it because of proliferation concerns (which makes no sense to me, but whatever). However, since switching to a full nuclear power system requires going to breeder reactors anyway, it will also result in massively less waste (probably way less than coal power, and better contained), and shorter-lived waste.

Re:Better solution exists

If only we could engineer a self-replicating machine that uses carbon from the air and turns it into a pretty dense and perhaps even useful solid material.

If I made such a machine I might call it 'The Real Easy Extraction' machine

Re:Better solution exists

One issue is that it is very easy to covert trees and other plants back into gasses [flickr.com].

And then as you plant more of them, and get a forest that looks like a tree farm [flickr.com], fire becomes a larger risk.

And then your carbon sequestration devices are threatening surrounding communities.

A huge issue across the US is overpopulation of forests because we have been preventing forest fires for so long, so there is definitely no shortage of trees in many areas.

Other than that small detail, yeah, plants are one way to easily store carbon.

Re:Better solution exists

Trees are great but I heard that a lot of the world's oxygen comes from aquatic plants so I did a quick fact check and found this:

It is estimated that between 70% and 80% of the oxygen in the atmosphere is produced by marine plants.

source [ecology.com]

Which means that a lot of CO2 is consumed by these plants right? I'm now wondering, if these marine plants only have access to dissolved CO2 in the water would it help to diffuse CO2 into the water? Wouldn't this be a good alternative being that there are so many "Easy Extraction" machines in the seas? These are also not susceptible to forest fires AFAIK.

Re:That's the main problem with environmental grou

"many of them are just as immune to rational argument"

Your statement hinges on the fact that coal industry has indeed given any rational arguments to support the burying of CO2 (A very literal way of 'burying your head in the sand', don't you think?). Let's step back and look at the problem. The main issue we have the moment is global warming being caused by an excess of greenhouses gases, predominantly CO2 in the atmosphere. We need solutions. Renewable energy is a solution. Cutting back on energy usage is a solution. And yes, even sequestration is a solution. However, what are the best and most effective solutions to take? Cutting back our usage can be done now and it can have significant effects in the area of reducing CO2 output. Renewables are already a proven technology and lack only significant funding to make them more common. That said, in many countries and states funding is significant and renewable energy targets are set to be met. Now let's look at sequestration. Is it proven? Only in laboratories. Which if you consider the scale and possible ramifications of the process is a fairly useless sticking point. Is it safe? Well you decide for yourself. Pumping millions of tonnes into underground caverns? Versus building windmills, hydro plants and solar farms. Does it solve our problems? In the short term it prevents CO2 from immediately going into the atmosphere but burying it can't continue indefinitely, and it does nothing to reduce our reliance on coal - a finite source.

The idea virtually is a scam, it's the coal industry asking for grants and subsidies all across the world to support a dying business instead of looking the facts in the face and realising that renewables are the way of the future. No amount of exaggeration (Moonbeams?) on your part will change that.

Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Hey neat, we're making our own Balrog.

Re:WTF?

On a less sarcastic note if you have figured out that plants need CO2 to live, then there is probably hope that once you start looking at the so-called science of manmade global warming, you'll discover that it's not science at all.

To put the project in perspective Kiluea pumps out around 700,000 tons a year, and Pinatubo put out more CO2 in '91 than the entire output of all mankinds exisistence. As it turns out nature responds by (suprise suprise) increasing plantlife. So we are going to offset Kiluea for 1.5 ( to be generous) years by pumping it underground.

I'm no scientist, but I do know BS when I smell it. Concerning volcanoes in particular, http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html [usgs.gov]

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

also, concerning Mt. Pinatubo itself, http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/wolfe/ [usgs.gov]

Gerlach and others estimate that, in addition to the measured 17 Mt of SO2, the eruption of approximately 5 km3 of magma was accompanied by release of at least 491 to 921 Mt of H2O, 3 to 16 Mt of Cl, and 42 to 234 Mt of CO2.

So Mt. Pinatubo let off 42 to 234 Mt of CO2, which is more than 100 times less than what man released in 2006.

Re:Once again some basic math.

The Chinese are exempt from Kyoto...

So, too, is the US, as it refuses to sign. Meanwhile, free trade agreements with every tinpot dicator and banana republic are signed without a second thought - see: Colombia. Your argument comes down to my neighbour won't do anything about the growing pile of garbage on their lawn, hence it's ok if I continue to pile garbage on my lawn. Plus, moving the garbage off my lawn will cost me money and let's face it, that's the real reason nothing is being done. There's no math here - only a refusal to deal with the real issue while shuffling blame on someone else. Other people doing nothing does not make an excuse for us to do nothing. Kyoto is obviously imperfect, but a refusal to do anything is not a plan - unless you call a suicide pact a plan.

Please see above, and while you are at it, also add carbon emissions for the developing third world ... what happens when Africa decides to get air conditioning?

This is precisely why renewable energy needs to be heavily subsidized and deployed, combined with reducing consumption. We need to improve and cheapen the technologies we can use to make 'green' power. What happens when you bury CO2 in the ground? Do you think it magically disappears from the equation? No, it simply becomes someone else's problem - likely someone who wakes up dead when a seal fails and CO2 displaces all the air near the leak site. Of course demand is going to go up, as I pointed out. I notice you abandoned your earlier argument of the 'biosphere' generating most atmospheric CO2 - that's progress, at least.

We have to be able to take CO2 out of the air, and put it somewhere

We're not taking it out of the air, we're taking it out of coal plants, plants will will increasingly use because of the sequestration. It would go into the air, because we keep burning coal - however, we could just reduce our dependency on coal, through reduced consumption, energy-efficient technologies and renewable power sources, and end up with a net plus that does not burden future generations with nightmare 'CO2 escape' scenarios. Yes, these things cost money, which is why storing gas in a hole sounds like a good idea to suits at the DoE - it's not cheap, but it's cheaper.

Sequestration is no panecea, no cure-all - it is at best an impefect solution to an intractable problem - there are no magic bullets. Using it to justify increasingly relying on coal is idiocy at it's finest.