Scientists Map Out "Dream Reservoir" for CO2 Storage

[kristopher]

Scientists Map Out "Dream Reservoir" for CO2 Storage
By Alexis Madrigal EmailJuly 14, 2008 | 4:00:46 PMCategories: Clean Tech, Climate, Energy, Environment

Co2sequester Scientists may have discovered the closet where we can hide the mess that burning fossil fuels creates.

Many have viewed "carbon sequestration" -- taking the CO2 produced by burning coal and burying it underground -- as a major component of combating climate change. However, there are many questions about the plan -- most notably, just where a major emitter like the US could find a safe place to stash gigatons of carbon dioxide safely over hundreds of years.

The answer, say Columbia researchers, lies in huge reservoirs of basalt off the coast of the Pacific northwest. That basalt is buried underneath hundreds of feet of sediment, and that in turn lies thousands of feet below the ocean's surface.

The basalt, located on the San Juan de Fuca tectonic plate, could store about 150 years' worth of the United States' yearly load of 1.7 gigatons of emissions.

"This is the first good example of a site that is of the scale...


http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/scientists-map.html

[NNadir]

1. Wow, yet another dangerous fossil fuel apologist post. What happened to Norway's "dream"

sequestration facility.

In general the dangerous fossil fuel apologists here, whether "dreaming" about solar energy - a red herring for their fossil fuel apologetics - or "dreaming about grinding up mountains and burying them in sea trenches are fucking clueless about when climate change will become a problem.

I note, with due contempt, that the dangerous fossil fuel apologist offering this drivel promise has no idea whether the dangerous fossil fuel dump - which cannot and will not bury even a million metric tons of the 30 billion metric tons of dangerous fossil fuel waste now being dumped in the atmosphere - is indifferent to whether this formation would be stable until the sun becomes a red giant.

It won't. Even if it were built - and it won't be built any more than the Sleipner sequestration facilities were built, any more than the drivel wind to hydrogen facility at Utsira was scaled to more than 10 homes - it would likely fail in relatively short times.

The anti-nuke cults are notable chiefly for wishful thinking and, oh yes, murder.

[kristopher]

2. You are a very bizarre person

"But sequestration critics have long-argued that once the price of capture, which requires specialized advanced materials, and sequestration, are added to the cost of burning coal, solar and wind technologies will actually be cheaper.

Even Jim Rogers, CEO of a major coal-using utility, Duke Energy, has downplayed the idea recently.

" as a magical technology that solves the carbon problem for coal plants is oversold," Rogers was quoted as saying on the environmental site, Grist. "I think there is a lot to learn, and it is going to take us a lot longer for us to figure it out than a lot of us think."

On Rogers' last point, Goldberg would agree. He's pushing for more research funding into off-shore ocean crust storage for CO2 and has proposed a pilot project to test out the ideas proposed in his PNAS article.

"We need policy change now, to energize research beyond our coastlines," Goldberg said in a release.

But environmental groups counter that in a world of limited research dollars, money that goes to carbon capture and sequestration will come at the expense of wind, solar, and geothermal research.

"We are against coal carbon sequestration," Daniel Kessler, a Greenpeace spokesperson, told Wired.com earlier this year. "The reality is that the technologies are going to require billions of dollars of investment. If we go that way, it's going to come at the expense of renewable energy."

This quoted section captures my position fairly well. It also serves to inform me about what is happening in the world - it may be a very important discovery as the science solidifies our understanding of the situation we actually face.

The part about being a fossil fuel apologist and being unaware of the potential negatives are entirely a product of your imgination. Which leads me to think there may be something making you incapable of reasoned thought; did your parents drop you on your head a lot when you were a baby? Or perhaps you suffered extreme malnutrition as some point?

[DCKit]

3. Under a geologically active plate? Are they kidding?

The Pacific NW is overdue for a HUGE earthquake and they want to pump pressurized, caustic CO2 under the Juan de Fuca plate? At what cost?

I'm thinking it's going to look like air hockey, on a massive scale when the whole plate lifts/moves. Fun times.

If they're intending to go to all that trouble, why not liquefy the CO2 and dump it into subduction zones?

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. That was my first thought too. They must be nuts

[GliderGuider]

5. What a nice little surprise for our grandchildren...

All so we can continue feed our attachments and our aversion just a little while longer...

» Nothing is permanent. Everything changes.
» What appears separate and enduring is in fact changeable and "composite."
» To believe otherwise, to cling to any thing or anyone (including yourself), expecting it to be enduring and whole, is to create and amplify suffering.

In my opinion, this set of Buddhist beliefs (which are called Anicca, Anatta and Dukkha) precisely captures the reality of the converging crisis of ecology and energy as well as the predominant response to it in most of the world. Humanity in general is strongly attached to the way the world is now. This results in the the belief that the world's current structures must endure. The combination of attachment to what is and the aversion to change (which is driven by the ego's fear of annihilation) is causing great suffering now, and will cause more and more suffering as we act on these mistaken beliefs.

I personally hope that events will overtake us before we can booby-trap the future with schemes like this.

[pscot]

6. That plate is a major subduction zone

It's diving beneathe the continental plates. it generates deep earthquakes and it also has volcanic hot spots. Fumaroles vent toxic gases and boiling water. It's likely to belch up anything we try to bury out there. Bad scientists. Bad. Bad.

[kristopher]

7. It's interesting how different people view this.

When I read it, I saw it as confirmation of the near insurmountable problems that CO2 capture and sequestration from coal plants face.
When those trying to build them are promoting their use, they make it sound like "you just dig well and pump it underground."

This article shows how disingenuous the claims of this being a near term possibility are.

As to the geological appropriateness of the location itself, I suspect the concerns expressed here might be discussed in the original paper.

I put this in the same category as adding iron to iron limited areas of the ocean. It is a lot easier not to put the shit into the air, but some options that are otherwise undesireable (either for financial or environmental reasons) may be required out of ecological necessity.