DOE Pumps $126.6 Million Into Carbon Sequestration 489
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."
Better solution exists (Score:4, Interesting)
WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why not worry about water shooting out of wells? (Score:3, Interesting)
that's why all the plans involve putting it down somewhere. I'd oppose sequestration in huge towers outside of major metropolitan areas, but putting it deep down in the ground makes a lot of sense.
--MarkusQ
Greenpeace... *ahem* (Score:3, Interesting)
As we all know, they're the kind of people that we can have a good intelligent discussion with, right? Of course, anyone that doesn't fall in line with their philosophy is some sort of heretic, even if they happen to be one of their own founders [washingtonpost.com] that disagrees with a long-standing platform of the organization.
I'd have a lot more respect for them if they also condemned Al Gore and his pimping of useless carbon credits [newsbusters.org] that happen to fatten his own pockets...
Re:Safety? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:That's the main problem with environmental grou (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So... (Score:2, Interesting)
"Unless of course you are playing loose with definitions and "renewable technologies" includes geothermal, trash-to-steam, etc."
I did say "renewables". Including Hydro.
"As much as he wanted solar, he couldn't afford it. Why? The payback period (without subsidies) is 100 years!"
You'd be very stupid to take an economic argument on this topic. You think burying all our CO2 is going to be cheap? You think it's going to get rid of all our emissions? No and no. I'm sure the calculations he made did not factor in the rising cost of energy due to the implemention of sequestration, the future scarcity of oil and coal, more wars being fought for energy, etc. etc.
Re:So... (Score:3, Interesting)
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. Unless of course you are playing loose with definitions and "renewable technologies" includes geothermal, trash-to-steam, etc.
While I agree about cities being self sufficient in renewable energy, the only place I can think of is Iceland and to a degree Hawaii using geothermal as they are, but there are plenty of people who's house is energy sufficient, Off Gridders [off-grid.net]. Daily more and more people are going off the grid. Oh and geothermal is just as renewable as solar and wind.
I have a coworker that is very interested in living off grid, and is also an engineer, and cheap to boot. As much as he wanted solar, he couldn't afford it. Why? The payback period (without subsidies) is 100 years! Even with a 50% subsidy, it is 50 years, which still exceeds the life of the panels (which are NOT "emissions free" to manufacture).
I don't know where your friend gets his data from. According a study published by Wiley, "Photovoltaics energy payback times, greenhouse gas emissions and external costs: 2004-early 2005 status" [$30 to buy] [wiley.com] payback period is less than 25 years. Some of those who have built their home off the grid, had payback periods of under 15 years, before the warranty of some components expires.
FalconNot generating the CO2 Vs research value (Score:3, Interesting)
A coal powered plant would produce 300000 Tons of CO2 a year to generate this power. Three years of operation would mean 1M tons of CO2 not released into the atmosphere.
For a gas-powered plant, it would be 6 years. For an oil powered plant, 4 years.
A 38MW plant is not really much power, and is a drop in the bucket. On the other hand the research benefits from this project are not easily quantifiable. So I'd go with the research on this one!
References:
http://www.seen.org/pages/db/method.shtml [seen.org]
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/index.htm [windpower.org]
Re:So... (Score:2, Interesting)
No, because the earth is constantly re-making it... even if its a slower rate then we consume it...it will always exist. (aslong as the earth has a core + high enough gravity)
"What difference does it really make how fast we do it?"
The faster we do it, the harder it is for the earth (ecosystem, etc) to equalize the imbalance.
"If we can shove some of the carbon back underground where we got it, that's a good thing."
Perhaps, but I don't think its a very good solution (Geo-Sequestration), CO2 turns into liquid at somewhere around 5 atmospheres, and I would imagine there could potentially be geysers of the crap escaping during an earthquake or volcano smothering/killing any animal/plants in the area... and creating instantaneous greenhouse effects... who knows what other underground reactions it could create (ie: carbonic acid)
I think a better solution is finding ways of combining CO2 with other gases/minerals/etc to make something we can use again... or, at least mineral storage (turning it back into rock)
Re:Better solution exists (Score:5, Interesting)
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:
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:Spare Change (Score:2, Interesting)
This may not be the brightest idea out of Washington, but it is by far not the worst.
Re:Better solution exists (Score:3, Interesting)
Who cares where the carbon comes from? Instead of trying to capture carbon, we should simply bury the same amount of almost pure carbon in easly obtained forms. In a gas, CO2 is common. As a solid, charcoal birquets is common. I know, who is going to give up the fuel for the BBQ and bury it instead of using it? That's the point people.. Carbon is fuel. Let me repeat, Carbon is fuel. If you want to keep the carbon out of the atmosphere, let's get rid of the internal combustion engine, one of the least effecient ways to burn a hydrocarbon.
So where do I pick up my EV? A good part of my state is already wind farms.
http://www.crpud.net/residential/choiceenergy [crpud.net]
and hydro
http://www.cbr.washington.edu/crisp/hydro/ [washington.edu]
If they didn't want me to burn carbon, they would have made it possible to use alternatives, or a more effecient way to use limited carbon.
FYI, I already drive a Prius. I'm waiting for an EV to move from reduced to none.
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
(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:Better solution exists (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, there is debate over the environmental benefits of paper recycling. This debate may even have some merit, unlike the "well, we really don't know if global warming is occuring" pseudo-debate. By some measures, the process of recycling paper may use more fossil fuels than the harvesting and pulping of trees. There are studies that apparently support both sides of the argument, and the only thing I've seen in common is that the ones that support recycling leave out some high energy elements of the recycling process (such as transportation) while the ones that support virgin paper leave out some high energy elements of the tree -> paper process, oddly enough also transportation. One thing that the virgin paper camp has going for it is that much of the energy used in pulping comes from waste portions of the wood used to make pulp. Traditional paper mills are also often situated in locations which are more amenable to use of "renewable" energy such as wind and hydro while recycling plants generally take their power from the electric grid which is still primarily fossil fuel powered. I would like for a true cradle to grave comparison of the carbon footprints of recycling vs virgin paper.
Additionally, the chemicals used for bleaching used paper are considered by many to be much more harsh and environmentally damaging than the ones used in creation of virgin paper as inks and dyes are more difficult to bleach out than the pigments found naturally in wood pulp (in fact, it is quite possible to make paper from unbleached wood pulp for certain uses.)
The argument of "save the forests!" is pretty much bunk in my mind as no sane capitalist would attempt to harvest old growth forests for paper production as farmed quick growing soft woods are cheaper to harvest and process than old growth hardwoods (at least as far as paper production is concerned.) The harvesting of trees for paper then puts an economic incentive on re-planting trees. Hint: in the 20th Century the United States actually saw an INCREASE in the number of acres of forest, and this is pretty much all tree farm style. It is quite unfortunate that we saw a loss of the vast majority of our old growth forests during that time, but the paper industry currently does not have a significant impact on old growth forests. Logging there is generally for timber use in other manufacturing industries, or simply to clear the land for farming, urban growth, etc.
And landfills? Lets just fill up some coal mines with old paper waste. Who knows... in several million years it may end up as coal again! Or instead we could research various ways to oxidize the paper and turn it into energy, from good old burning (with much better technological environmental controls than traditional paper incinerators used) to thermal depolymerization and maybe even fancier ways of turning the carbon bonds in paper into human-usable energy. Although these uses would probably not have that much of a return if done in a large centralized manner as the energy required for transporting the paper would probably outweigh the energy gained. This would have to be done on an extremely local or even individual level, and that does unfortunately rule out some of the economies of scale that would allow for better emissions control techniques and devices. But there may be an answer somewhere. And I am a fan of the "re-use" and "reduce" parts of the green trinity. I'll admit that packaging is way overdone these days and consumers should do what they can to use less paper (and plastic) in terms of packaging materials. Buy bulk. Say "no thank you, I don't need a bag" at the various stores you go to. It's odd how many clerks don't know what to do when a customer says that. "What, just hand it to you so you can carry it out rather than putting it in a b
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEGS [wikipedia.org]
In 2.5 square miles they produce 350 Mega-watts of power
and do it with reflective troughs and heating high temperature
oil to drive a steam turbine.
They store hot oil and get some production even after sundown,
and then switch to natural gas for a few hours til sunrise.
If the uninhabited sections of the Mojave Desert
were used for this system, it would power all of North America.
The Mojave is over 22,000 sq. miles, if 10,000 of it was used
for a SEGs type setup you would get 4,000 times the current
power production ie. 1.41 Tera-Watts rough estimate.
In 2004 it was estimated by scientists that total world
energy usage was 15 Tera-Watts for all types of energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption [wikipedia.org]
The proposed SEGs expansion would produce almost 10% of that.
We have our silver bullet, it will just be a monster to build.
North Africa could use the Sahara and power all of Africa
and Europe.
The best photovoltaic cells are 20% effective, The best Thermals
have hit 41% per wikipedia, and 60% being theoretically possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy#High-temperature_collectors [wikipedia.org]
Here in the US we could also use a large part of the 120,000 sq. mi.
Sonora Desert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonora_desert [wikipedia.org]
Just my 2 cents...
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nuclear waste doesn't allow for huge amounts of enhanced oil recovery or coalbed methane recovery.
The capital costs are very high, but if used for a purpose, CO2 injection can pay for itself. CO2 injection in the US alone has the potential to recover ~100-400B barrels (restoring old, "used up" fields like the East Texas Field, plus injection into all of the large fields we're currently tapping and the ones we haven't started tapping yet). That's 10-40 trillion dollars at $100/barrel -- a couple times the size of the US GDP. There's not as much money in coalbed methane recovery, but it's still substantial.
Re:So... (Score:3, Interesting)
And several more are being built. Breeders are not cheap and easy to build compared to common reactors, that's why there's little demand for them right now. It's easier to mine U-235.
Re:1M per $500 of gas??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Burning 1 gallon of gasoline produces 18 pounds of CO2.
OP is being generous - EPA estimates are more like 19.4 lbs per Gallon
It only takes 111 gallons to equal a ton
a 'ton' (idiotic 'short ton' in the U.S.) is 2000 lbs so 2000 lbs per ton / 18 lbs per gallon = 111 gallons per ton of CO2
or almost $500 of gas[oline].
$3.50 per gallon is about the current average price, so, I'll agree that the figure $500 is a little high. Perhaps $388 (say $400) is better.
For their 126M, they are going to sequester 100M tons [the heading says 1 million not 100 million], so they are paying over 126M per ton of CO2 sequestered . Are they completely frigging nuts???
By my math this should be $126 per ton, which is about 1/2 - 1/3 of the price of the gasoline required to produce that same amount of CO2. I think that's relatively inexpensive. (How much CO2 is produced to power the sequestering is another issue)
However. The amount of CO2 that is to be sequestered is a drop in the ocean, it's the equivalent of about 1/3 of 1 day worth of gasoline consumption in the U.S. or less than 1/10th of a percent of the CO2 emitted by gasoline consumption per year(which accounts for only a relatively small part of total U.S. CO2 emissions (approx 7Billion tons per year) ); so, by this standard, although the sequestering seems cost efficient, it is still a total waste of money because it is eliminating a mere 1/100th of a percent of the annual CO2 emmissions. Should we build 7,000 of these things for a cost of $882 Billion Where would we put them. California would need to find room for about 700 of them, L.A. would need over 300 , one for every square mile (yep, you'd have one in your neighbourhood)
Re:So... (Score:3, Interesting)
Any advice you can offer to someone thinking about doing this ? Where to start, what works, what doesn't ... that sort of thing.
The Political Scam vs The Marion Illinois Location (Score:2, Interesting)
Carbon Gas -vs- Carbon Solid (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine:
coal --> energy + diamonds
That's not a bad formula! Or:
coal --> energy + carbon (bricks, fibers, nanofibers, etc.).
We could use that for building materials. No problem there. But:
coal --> energy + high pressure gas buried in an old mine shaft underground waiting to escape
is not a good idea.
As an enviromentalist (Score:2, Interesting)
10,000 MILE footprint in the desert does bother me. Besides the animals and plants it would impact do you have any idea what that much of a heat sink would do to the WEATHER in the area?
I dont.
I do know that cities absolutely modify their enviroments and what we discussing is MASSIVELY more complex. For example FOrt Hood is 335 square miles and its enviromental impact is noticable. Weather CHANGES when hits it. Most cities have a differnce in tempature of a few degrees then surrounding areas but have a bigger footprint then their limits.
So as treehugger i would be concerned that not just Fauna and Flora might be changed/damaged but that we have NO CLUE what it might do to the surrounding environs.
Some Enviros absolutely would just care about the desert rat..and who can blame them, that rat has EXACTLY as much reason for life as you. I prefer to think of long term consequences and what we might have fix in the future that we mess up without giving due consideration to ALL the problems we might cause. The Law of unintended consequeces is my friend.