AGU meeting: Stanford scientists subject rocks to hellish conditions to combat global warming (CCS)

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-12/su-ams120111.php

Public release date: 1-Dec-2011

Contact: Mark Shwartz
[e-mail]
650-723-9296
http://news.stanford.edu/">Stanford University

AGU meeting: Stanford scientists subject rocks to hellish conditions to combat global warming

…

Over the past five years, Benson's team has collected cylinder-shaped core samples of sandstone and other rocks from various sites in North America. Each core – roughly the size of a beer can – is placed in a special chamber and subjected to high temperatures and pressures similar to those found a half-mile or more underground.

"We then inject carbon dioxide and water into the rock cores and take X-ray CT scan – just like the CT scan you'd get if you had a back injury," Benson explained.

This technique has allowed Benson's team to generate detailed, three-dimensional maps showing the real-time movement of carbon dioxide through tiny pore spaces between individual grains of rock.

…

"We can do it today," Benson said. "It's really just a matter of money. If we had a price on carbon that was $50 a metric ton, carbon capture and storage would take off. But with no price on carbon in sight, companies can only sustain a certain amount of investment. So really the impediment is creating the incentive where people will pay that price for capturing carbon."

…

[phantom power]

1. $50 a metric ton

Nobody will ever put that kind of price on carbon. Climate change will cut back our carbon emissions by killing us all before that happens.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Well… actually…

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-12/su-ams120111.php

…

The Norwegian government created an incentive 20 years ago. "To combat global warming, Norway imposed a carbon tax of $50 per metric ton for offshore carbon dioxide emissions in 1991," Benson said. "Companies were faced with a choice – either pay the tax or stop emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. They soon realized it would cost them a lot less to inject it under the seabed."

…

[phantom power]

3. doh - phantom power is pwned!

:dunce:

[The Croquist]

4. You forgot the caveat

The biggest expense Sleipner and other companies face is separating and capturing the carbon dioxide emissions. "Separating is quite costly, $50 to $100 per metric ton," Benson said. "That's the big cost. The underground storage is less than 20 percent of the total cost."
The natural gas produced at the Sleipner site contains about 10 percent carbon dioxide, which has to be separated and removed before the company can sell the natural gas. The additional cost of storing it in the seabed is relatively nominal, Benson said. Perhaps one day the United States and other major fossil fuel consumers will follow Norway's lead, she added.

So the companies that are currently doing this are doing it because the largest part of the cost is a necessary part of their normal production. Let’s look at the numbers:
Separating is quite costly, $50 to $100 per metric ton,
That's the big cost. The underground storage is less than 20 percent of the total cost.

Let’s round off the cost of separation to $75 per metric ton and underground storage is $15 per ton. That means that the total cost for non-natural gas sequestration would be $90 per ton.

In effect the Norwegian off shore tax was worth while for the natural gas industry because of specific industry requirements. These requirements would not apply to burning natural gas, coal or oil.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. The summation is…

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-12/su-ams120111.php

…

"Fundamentally, carbon capture and storage is not such a challenging thing to do," she said. "If we were really serious about dealing with climate change, we would be deploying this technology today."

The DoE has this to say:

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/capture/

Pre-Combustion Capture Research

Pre-combustion capture refers to removing CO2 from fossil fuels before they are burned (or combusted) in a power plant. For example, in gasification processes a feedstock (such as coal) is partially oxidized in steam and oxygen/air under high temperature and pressure to form synthesis gas, a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, CO2, and smaller amounts of other gaseous components such as methane. This synthesis gas can then undergo the water-gas shift reaction to convert CO and water (H2O) to H2 and CO2, producing a H2 and CO2-rich gas mixture. The concentration of CO2 in this mixture can range 15-50%. The CO2 can then be captured and separated, transported, and ultimately sequestered, and the H2-rich fuel combusted.

Compared to post-combustion technology, which removes dilute CO2 (~5-15% CO2 concentration) from flue gas streams and is at low pressure, the shifted synthesis gas stream is rich in CO2 and at higher pressure, which allows for easier removal before the hydrogen is combusted. Due to the more concentrated CO2, pre-combustion capture typically is less expensive but the capital costs of the base gasification process are often more expensive than traditional pulverized coal power plants.

Today’s commercially available pre-combustion CCS technologies generally use physical or chemical adsorption processes, and will add around 35 percent to the cost of electricity for an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant. The goal of our research efforts is to reduce the increase in cost of electricity to 10 percent. Our research focuses on three key separation technologies – advanced solvents, sorbents, and membranes – in order to meet this goal.

The pre-combustion capture research activities will coordinate closely with the http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html">gasification and http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/turbines/index.html">hydrogen turbine programs to ensure that pre-combustion capture technologies can be successfully integrated into an IGCC facility. Advances in those programs will also help meet the goal of limiting the cost of pre-combustion capture to a 10 percent increase in cost of electricity.

[The Croquist]

6. Thanks for the info

But I have no idea how to equate a ton of CO2 to a ton of coal. I do know that they say that they can do this for an increase of 35% on the cost of electricity with a hope of a 10% increase in the future. 35% is a lot of increase. 10% is nothing to sneeze at either.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Coal

http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html

… Because the atomic weight of carbon is 12 and that of oxygen is 16, the atomic weight of carbon dioxide is 44. Based on that ratio, and assuming complete combustion, 1 pound of carbon combines with 2.667 pounds of oxygen to produce 3.667 pounds of carbon dioxide. For example, coal with a carbon content of 78 percent and a heating value of 14,000 Btu per pound emits about 204.3 pounds of carbon dioxide per million Btu when completely burned. Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of this coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide.

…

As for 10% or even 35% being a sizable increase, OK, let’s say you could buy a gallon of poisoned drinking water for $1, or… for $1.35, you could get a gallon of purified drinking water. (Would that be too much to pay?)