Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Carbon Capture and Storage: Energy Costs Revisited

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
profgoose Donating Member (263 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 10:55 AM
Original message
Carbon Capture and Storage: Energy Costs Revisited
Capturing carbon dioxide from coal (and gas) fired electricity plants, and subsequently transporting the carbon dioxide from the plant and storing it underground in (abandoned) oil/gas fields, in other geological formations or on the ocean floor, seem like an excellent solution for continued fossil fuel use in the coming decades. In fact the European Union wants to have 12 large CO2 capture and storage demonstration projects in place by 2015, requiring an investment of 5 billion euro. The expectation is that this development will cause significant cost reductions, making the technology affordable by 2020. There are two large drawbacks, however:

* The process is quite energy intensive, and thus will use up coal supplies faster.
* The process is quite expensive, and can be expected to continue to be quite expensive, even as experience is gained in the process.

In this post, I will discuss the extra energy cost of the process and quantify its expected impact on future coal depletion. I will discuss the economics in another post in the near future.


Much more after the jump to http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/6398
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. The first bullet point is a non-issue.
The US has a staggering amount of coal.

However the expensive part means it won't be adopted unless utilities are forced to use it.

The bigger issue is long term effectiveness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. We don't have a "staggering amount" of economically recoverable coal
We largely abandoned shaft mining for mountaintop removal and strip mining. Once we've gouged out the seams we were shaft mining with those techniques, we will be left with a lot of coal, but it will be in very narrow, short seams that no one has any idea of how to mine in a cost effective manner. At present use rates we have about a 50 year supply of the easy to recover stuff.

SO even if people don't support change for the sake of CO2 emissions, they shouldn't believe the COAL INDUSTRY spin that we have a 500 year supply.

The coal industry lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Well the DOE disgrees with you but then again you know everything.
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 11:28 AM by Statistical
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/reserves/reserves.html

MIT, DOE, Cancer Society, IPCC, EREC, Wind Lobby, Obama, foreign govts, IEAE, UN, World Health Organization, etc (the list grows everyday) none of them know the truth.

Only Kris knows everything on every source and all the people paid to research this stuff are just wrong.

Guess those 24 dead miners will be glad to know we abandoned shaft mining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. The DOE has been lieing
about petrleum reserves for years. What's different about coal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Well considering you never provide a cite that actually supports your claims I'd say
that the locus of the problem is that you are making an appeal to authority by claiming those sources support you when, in fact, they do no such thing.

I asked you for specific cites on that list and, funny thing, you disappear from the conversation.

Take this as a case in point. There is no data at that link that addresses my statements. Those statements are gleaned from the views of energy analysts who specialize in coal.

If you can find a breakdown that considers the effect of evolving energy economics on what is and is not an economic mining practice then be sure and share it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. As of January 1, 2009, the DRB was estimated to contain 488 billion short tons.
DRB is Demonstrated Resource Base.


Another source:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=coal_reserves


# Total resources" is our best estimate of the total amount of coal, including undiscovered in the United States. Currently, total resources are estimated to be about 4 trillion short tons.1 Total Resources includes several categories of coal with various degrees of geologic assurance and data reliability.
# But not all coal is feasible to mine. The Demonstrated Reserve Base2 is the sum of coal in both measured and indicated resource categories of reliability, representing 100% of the in-place coal that could be mined commercially at a given time. EIA estimates the Demonstrated Reserve Base to measure 489 billion short tons.
# "Estimated Recoverable Reserves" include only the coal that can be mined with today’s mining technology, after accessibility constraints and recovery factors are considered. EIA estimates there are 263 billion short tons of U.S. recoverable coal reserves, about 54% of the Demonstrated Reserve Base.


http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=coal_reserves

The number I provided wasn't all coal. All coal is 4000 billion tons. The DRB is economically recoverable coal. That is at CURRENT PRICES - higher prices raise the DRB as more of Total resource becomes economical.

Still if you want use the Recoverable Reserves which is only 263 billion tons. That would assume that technology never improves nor does any more property (public or private) every get purchased to open new mines. That would be only 263 billion tons.

US annual coal consumption is roughly 1 billion tons annually and it provides 50% of electrical power. We could maintain this share of coal power for over a century (even assuming electrical demand triples over next century). Of course as coal rises in price and mining techniques improve a larger and larger % of the total resources will become recoverable and thus the length of time before exhaustion will only grow.

I am 100% anti-coal but pretending coal is neither cheap nor plentiful is simply putting your head in the sand.

Then again as ALWAYS you know more than the DOE (and anyone you disagree with).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. USGS has been revising coal estimates downwards
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 01:14 PM by bananas
http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/08/peak-coal/

WSJ front-page shocker: “U.S. Foresees a Thinner Cushion of Coal,” warns rosy U.S. coal estimates “may be wildly overconfident”
June 8, 2009

<snip>


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. If we run out of coal that would be WONDERFUL.
It would force adoption of new means of generation.

So I don't see it as a downside if coal becomes scare or expensive.

Rather for climate change I think the risk is the opposite. If the numbers are correct then business as usual means we will be using coal a long time.

I would jump for joy is coal reserves got slashed tomorrow as it would scare the living crap out of coal dependent utilities and they would move to diversify their power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. NRC National Resource Council is also downward revising
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/06/are-we-approaching-peak-coal-part-1/
Are we approaching peak coal? Part 1
January 6, 2009

<snip>

The National Research Council’s Committee on Coal Research, Technology, and Resource Assessments to Inform Energy Policy wrote in a 2007 report:

Present estimates of coal reserves are based upon methods that have not been reviewed or revised since their inception in 1974, and many of the input data were compiled in the early 1970s. Recent programs to assess reserves in limited areas using updated methods indicate that only a small fraction of previously estimated reserves are economically recoverable.

The NRC, however, decided not to seriously downgrade the very optimistic estimates still out there, certainly not by as much as the 2008 USGS report suggests may be warranted. Its press release states:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. I hope they are revised downward is more and at faster pace.
Likely we will see more transparency over next 6 years with Obama administration in charge.

Utilities don't like coal because they like killing the planet. There are actually a lot of hazards to profitability when it comes to coal. Just ask TVA and their ongoing lawsuits and cleanup costs.

Utilities like coal because it is:
a) cheap
b) plentiful

if those two things change at a minimum we will see utilities switch from coal to natural gas. That change alone would cut GHG by 10%. Now obviously that isn't enough but is the most CO2 intensive fuel we used was natural gas it would be a good start.

Still the pessimist in me says there is a lot of coal out there and even if reserves get reduced from 200 years to 80 years that won't be enough to spur rapid change/ This is one thing I wouldn't mind being wrong about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Here's the report
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1625f/

I've been reading it. (There's a lot more to it than a bumper sticker.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
4. What, exactly, does "quite energy intensive" mean?
Edited on Fri Apr-23-10 12:41 PM by OKIsItJustMe
What percentage of the energy in the coal is used? 75%? 10%? 2%?

What, exactly, does 'quite expensive' mean? 1$/kWh? 100$/kWh? 100,000$/kWh?


http://www.energy.gov/media/CCS_Letter_-_Final.pdf








http://portal.acs.org/portal/PublicWebSite/pressroom/newsreleases/CNBP_024359
March 24, 2010

New CO2 “scrubber” from ingredient in hair conditioners

SAN FRANCISCO, March 24, 2010 — Relatives of ingredients in hair-conditioning shampoos and fabric softeners show promise as a long-sought material to fight global warming by “scrubbing” carbon dioxide (CO2 ) out of the flue gases from coal-burning electric power generating stations, scientists reported today at the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS).

Their report, the first on use of these so-called aminosilicones in carbon dioxide capture, concluded that the material has the potential to remove 90 percent of CO2 from simulated flue gas. The new “scrubber” material may be less expensive and more efficient than current technologies for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, the main“greenhouse” gas linked to global warming, the scientists say.

Robert Perry, Ph.D., and colleagues pointed out that coal-burning electric power plants are a major source of the carbon dioxide that has been building up in Earth’s atmosphere. An estimated 2.8 billion tons of the gas enters the atmosphere each year from the 8,000 coal-fired power plants in the United States alone. Those are among 50,000 coal-fired generating stations worldwide. Perry cited a critical need for practical technology to remove carbon dioxide from flue gases before it enters the atmosphere. The new scrubber material would meet the goal of the U.S. Department of Energy, which funded the research, of developing carbon capture technologies with at least a 90 percent CO2 capture efficiency.

“We’re very excited about this technology that may pave the way for a new process for carbon dioxide capture,” Perry said. He is with GE Global Research in Niskayuna, N.Y. “The development of a low-cost solution for CO2 capture would go a long way in helping to address our clean energy goals. In the future, the gases that come out of power-plant smokestacks will be virtually free of carbon dioxide emissions.”

Perry and colleagues hope to overcome the high costs and inefficiency of current CO2 capture methods with a new type of aminosilicone, a group of materials widely used in fabric softeners, hair conditioners, and flexible high-temperature plastics. In laboratory-scale tests using a device to simulate flue gas conditions of continuously streaming gas and relevant temperatures, the new material captured more than 90 percent of the CO2 added to the system.

If future tests at the pilot-scale in a power plant prove successful, the material would be used as part of a larger, active absorber system. In this scenario, the liquid aminosilicone solvent will absorb CO2 and be transferred to a desorption unit where CO2 would be removed from the aminosilicone and sequestered. The aminosilicone solvent would be recycled to react with more CO2-rich flue gas.

###


http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-chemists-create-synthetic-153588.aspxcme021910.php

UCLA chemists create synthetic 'gene-like' crystals for carbon dioxide capture

By Stuart Wolpert February 11, 2010

UCLA chemists report creating a synthetic "gene" that could capture heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming, rising sea levels and the increased acidity of oceans.

The research appears in the Feb. 12 issue of the journal Science.

"We created three-dimensional, synthetic DNA-like crystals," said UCLA chemistry and biochemistry professor Omar M. Yaghi, who is a member of the California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI) at UCLA and the UCLA–Department of Energy Institute of Genomics and Proteomics. "We have taken organic and inorganic units and combined them into a synthetic crystal which codes information in a DNA-like manner. It is by no means as sophisticated as DNA, but it is certainly new in chemistry and materials science."

The discovery could lead to cleaner energy, including technology that factories and cars can use to capture carbon dioxide before it reaches the atmosphere.

"What we think this will be important for is potentially getting to a viable carbon dioxide–capture material with ultra-high selectivity," said Yaghi, who holds UCLA's Irving and Jean Stone Chair in Physical Sciences and is director of the CNSI's Center for Reticular Chemistry. "I am optimistic that is within our reach. Potentially, we could create a material that can convert carbon dioxide into a fuel, or a material that can separate carbon dioxide with greater efficiency."

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. "*hope* to overcome the high costs and inefficiency of current CO2 capture methods"
Sounds like that supports the assertion.

"Perry and colleagues hope to overcome the high costs and inefficiency of current CO2 capture methods with a new type of "

Hope is hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. What was that about "Hope?"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-a-comprehensive-federal-strategy-carbon-capture-and-storage
The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
February 03, 2010

Presidential Memorandum -- A Comprehensive Federal Strategy on Carbon Capture and Storage



MEMORANDUM FOR  THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION
THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
THE CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY


SUBJECT: A Comprehensive Federal Strategy on Carbon
Capture and Storage

For decades, the coal industry has supported quality high-paying jobs for American workers, and coal has provided an important domestic source of reliable, affordable energy. At the same time, coal-fired power plants are the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and coal accounts for 40 percent of global emissions. Charting a path toward clean coal is essential to achieving my Administration's goals of providing clean energy, supporting American jobs, and reducing emissions of carbon pollution. Rapid commercial development and deployment of clean coal technologies, particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS), will help position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race.

My Administration is already pursuing a set of concrete initiatives to speed the commercial development of safe, affordable, and broadly deployable CCS technologies. We have made the largest Government investment in carbon capture and storage of any nation in history, and these investments are being matched by private capital. The Department of Energy is conducting a comprehensive clean coal technology program including research, development, and demonstration of CCS technologies and is pursuing important international cooperative initiatives to spur demonstration and deployment of CCS. The Environmental Protection Agency is developing regulations that address the safety, efficacy, and environmental soundness of injecting and storing carbon dioxide underground. The Department of the Interior is assessing, in coordination with the Department of Energy, the country's geologic capacity to store carbon dioxide and promoting geological storage demonstration projects on public lands. All of this work builds on the firm scientific basis that now exists for the viability of CCS technology.

To further this work and develop a comprehensive and coordinated Federal strategy to speed the commercial development and deployment of clean coal technologies, I hereby establish an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (Task Force). You shall each designate a senior official from your respective agency to serve on the Task Force, which shall be Co Chaired by the designees from the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Task Force shall develop within 180 days of the date of this memorandum a proposed plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within 10 years, with a goal of bringing 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016. The plan should explore incentives for commercial CCS adoption and address any financial, economic, technological, legal, institutional, social, or other barriers to deployment. The Task Force should consider how best to coordinate existing administrative authorities and programs, including those that build international collaboration on CCS, as well as identify areas where additional administrative authority may be necessary. The Co Chairs shall report progress periodically to the President through the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Ultimately, comprehensive energy and climate legislation that puts a cap on carbon pollution will provide the largest incentive for CCS because it will create stable, long-term, market-based incentives to channel private investment in low carbon technologies. My Administration's new CCS strategy will pave the way for this energy transition by identifying and removing barriers to rapid commercial deployment and by providing greater legal and regulatory clarity. This will help to spur private investment in CCS in the near term -- investment that will create good jobs and benefit communities.

This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.



BARACK OBAMA

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. You've manage for a long time
To avoid these sudden turns to nowhere. Good work, keep it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I found it amusing that you chose the word "Hope."
Thanks to the poster, "Hope" is linked with Obama, and Obama is setting direction on CCS.

The Obama administration is putting more effort and money into CCS than the Bush administration ever did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-10 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Remember all of the money and effort spent on "the hydrogen economy"?
Or on ethanol to replace gasoline in cars? It is the same process at work.

In general, diversified research (especially at the basic level) is a wonderful thing since by its nature such research produces unexpected results. However the thing is that right now is a time for definitive action; it is time to chart a course and devote 100% of our efforts to enabling the selected outcome.

That is the approach I would expect if we lived either under command and control regulatory structure or an idealized democracy with a well informed, involved electorate. Unfortunately we have established a system built on dynamic tensions that (hopefully) find the best outcome through conflict and compromise.

That is what is being carried into the research areas right now, IMO. The evidence is clear that CCS is really little more than a pipe dream with present technologies. The promise of new technologies doesn't hold much hope because the nature of the challenges are so fundamental to the nature of the resource.

Coal doesn't have a huge energy surplus, it is dirty, it is limited and the options for sequestration all present problems that dramatically limit their potential as solutions. We may someday find the answers, but by the time we do and by the time we retrofit a world full of coal plants it will be time to abandon it all because other cleaner technologies have made unnecessary and comparatively unaffordable.

What I see happening *is* hope; but I don't see the same group doing the hoping that you do. You are focused on the hope of a solution to climate change (as is the researcher in your reference), but the target group that the CCS policies are designed to provide hope it is those who own the coal. It is one way to dull their efforts to protect their assets from devaluation for they are the guaranteed losers in a new energy landscape.

I see nuclear and drilling for oil in the same light. Let me repeat here that Jacobson's paper on energy solutions is an encapsulation of the technology assessment in any advanced curriculum focused on energy policy - I did it myself long before I read his paper. And since the basic properties and characteristics of the energy resources are as tallied by Jacobson; and since we can assume that the administration knows that, the policies on the suboptimal solutions need to be viewed through a lens were the goals of the administration are taken into account. I believe GW Shrub was happy to keep burning coal, his support for the industry thus didn't threaten their assets and there was no need to give the (faint) hope of CCS.

I take Obama at his word that he is focused on AGW, and I see his actions supporting the suboptimal solutions as being political necessities rather than endorsements of those solutions.

I *hope* I'm correct. I tend to have a visceral dislike of waste and inefficiency (especially in times of crisis) but sometimes it just can't be helped.


Jacobson:
Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. I think that Obama and Chu are facing reality
We need to cut coal emissions. (That's a fact.)

We won't stop using coal any time soon. (I'm sorry, but that's also a fact.)

That makes CCS an unattractive necessity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-10 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Would you mind defining "soon"? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-10 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Soon in this case means within decades
Edited on Mon Apr-26-10 12:51 PM by OKIsItJustMe
As in, we will be burning coal for decades.

Remember http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=241568&mesg_id=241638">that European study even for the 100% renewable scenario assumes that current plants will be phased out as they reach their normal lifetime.



(We're still building coal plants.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. That is certainly easy to envision.
But does the fact that they've made an assumption on which to base modeling actually a statement on what might be the rate of change or is it a convenient, non-controversial metric to use for demonstrating what could potentially happen as the changeover unfolds?


Presuming for the moment the below study is an accurate assessment, what do you see as the implications other than "we're screwed"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x243896


Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering
Volume 70, Issues 1-2, January 2010, Pages 123-130
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2009.11.002
Copyright © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.


Sequestering carbon dioxide in a closed underground volume

Christine Ehlig-Economidesa, 1, E-mail The Corresponding Author and Michael J. Economidesb, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author

a Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA

b Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204, USA

Available online 20 November 2009.

Abstract

The capture and subsequent geologic sequestration of CO2 has been central to plans for managing CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. The magnitude of the task is overwhelming in both physical needs and cost, and it entails several components including capture, gathering and injection. The rate of injection per well and the cumulative volume of injection in a particular geologic formation are critical elements of the process.

Published reports on the potential for sequestration fail to address the necessity of storing CO2 in a closed system. Our calculations suggest that the volume of liquid or supercritical CO2 to be disposed cannot exceed more than about 1% of pore space. This will require from 5 to 20 times more underground reservoir volume than has been envisioned by many, and it renders geologic sequestration of CO2 a profoundly non-feasible option for the management of CO2 emissions.

Material balance modeling shows that CO2 injection in the liquid stage (larger mass) obeys an analog of the single phase, liquid material balance, long-established in the petroleum industry for forecasting undersaturated oil recovery. The total volume that can be stored is a function of the initial reservoir pressure, the fracturing pressure of the formation or an adjoining layer, and CO2 and water compressibility and mobility values.

Further, published injection rates, based on displacement mechanisms assuming open aquifer conditions are totally erroneous because they fail to reconcile the fundamental difference between steady state, where the injection rate is constant, and pseudo-steady state where the injection rate will undergo exponential decline if the injection pressure exceeds an allowable value. A limited aquifer indicates a far larger number of required injection wells for a given mass of CO2 to be sequestered and/or a far larger reservoir volume than the former.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-26-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. I never cared for the idea of treating an underground cavern as a pressure vessel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 04:41 AM
Response to Original message
23. Shouldn't even need to go to "energy" or "economic" analysis before rejecting it.
> ... and storing it underground in (abandoned) oil/gas fields, in other
> geological formations or on the ocean floor, seem like an excellent
> solution for continued fossil fuel use in the coming decades.

You could set aside the energy penalty for the above process (capture,
compression, transport & injection) and even the economic penalty
(the additional cost to be passed onto 'someone') and you would still
have two first-class reasons to NOT use CCS:

1) There is no way that the CO2 will ever be compressed to the density
of the original fossil fuels hence using CCS to allow "continued fossil
fuel use in the coming decades" is a guaranteed path to total failure.

2) Whilst "nature abhors a vacuum" might be trite, it is also perfectly
true with regard to geological formations: there are no "convenient holes"
simply waiting to be filled with CO2. The pore space that used to contain
oil or gas isn't just sitting there, empty. Either it contains the remnants
of the original fossil fuel that could not previously be extracted (in which
case point #1 above *really* takes hold) or it has been filled with "waste"
liquid in the extraction process (which needs to be displaced, captured,
transported and stored safely somewhere else) or it has collapsed (i.e., the
overburden pressure which was used to provide the cheap fossil fuel in the
first place is most definitely NOT going to give way to a puny attempt to
inject CO2 into the ex-reservoir).

This whole CCS "strategy" is a gigantic fraud.

It is purely a means for the politicians to pretend they are doing something
without causing any pain (hence costing campaign contributions and votes) and
a means for the same fossil fuel extraction multinationals to wring a last
decade's short-term profit out of the ever-gullible public purse (5 billion
Euros in this episode alone) before the crunch arrives - with even less
preparation (hence greater impact).

It is criminal & immoral.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC