Climate project: Dr Peter Cook holds sandstone from the Otway Basin, where 10,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide has been stored underground.
Photo: Glen McCurtayne
July 7, 2008
IT IS technology vital to the Government’s hopes of cutting greenhouse emissions from Australia’s huge coal-fired power stations: capturing carbon dioxide from the polluting stations and burying it deep underground.
Australia’s first trial of geosequestration in the Otways reached its first milestone last week — 10,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide was successfully stored two kilometres underground in a depleted natural gas field.
Scientists from the Co-operative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies hope to increase that to 100,000 tonnes next year, while continuing to monitor the local geology.
The centre’s chief executive, Dr Peter Cook, who is overseeing the $40 million project, is confident that the day will come when much of the carbon dioxide produced from large industrial sources can be buried.
See the complete article here in Australia’s The Age.
Ok here is my question: What about the long term effects of such a thing? One of the biggest complaints about radioactive hazardous waste disposal is that there is no confidence in predictions of long term stability of the burial site.
Take for example water, how do we know that this formation won’t become water saturated, and that the water will dissolve CO2 into the water and carry it elsewhere only to be released into the atmosphere again? Or how do we know that the system won’t vent the CO2 back to the surface gradually due to displacement or other geologic action?
I’ll point out that CO2 is a heck of a lot more reactive and soluble than glass encapsulated nuclear waste, yet nobody seems to think a thing about it.
In my opinion, the premise of CO2 burial seems absurd not only because of the lack of supporting evidence for certain climate change, but also due to it’s lack of foresight as to the effects of the burial scheme.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jerry, whilst it is very unlikely that an explosion would happen today, it has happened in the past before regulation kicked in (for example, Abbeystead Water or Commerce City, Colorado in the 1970’s)
My point is that at the beginning of a “project” whereby something is being buried without the knowledge of the potential downsides could lead to something more harmful than good, certainly in the short term. I like the idea that we have good data from using CO2 gas in the Oil extraction process, but injecting gas into oil wells is a very different situation from storing a more volatile liquid under pressure.
I appreciate and thank you for your response to my original posting.
Tom in Texas,
The actual start date of the super-collider has been moved back since this article was written. When it is fired up you will hear about it in the sensationalism main stream media news since we will not have been eaten up by a black hole, that is all the MSM cares about.
As for the CLOUD data, that will come after taking 2 years of research data at various pressures (simulating altitudes), relative humidities, and trace gas constituents.
Again, I stress that the CLOUD project is very quiet for eco-political reasons.
The other safety factor though about pumping CO2 into water has been shown by StatHyrdo in it’s Sleipner Field in Norway is that the dissolved CO2 will sink to the bottom of any saline aquifer present providing another safety factor if there was any leak or such, which it self is pretty unlikely. The North Sea tectonically is a pretty quite place
So really our concern about CO2 being dissolved into any water present, actually would be beneficial in terms of safety.
“3. While commercial nuclear power plants expell a significant amount of tritium to the environment (it is essentially heavy hydrogen and migrates through high temperature piping), it is eventually water. ”
I’d really appreciate it if you could provide a citation for that. I studied reactor engineeing in the early 70’s (until TMI pretty much closed that career path) and just looked in my copies of Etherington’s “Nuclear Engineering Handbook”, Glasstone’s “Nuclear Reactor Engineering”, the Thompson/Beckerley “Technology of Nuclear Reactor Safety”, and Lewis’ “Nuclear Reactor Safety”.
Any “significant amount of tritium” would be found in the Primary loop, and couldn’t escape the plant unless it literally went through the pipe walls into the Secondary — is this what you’re suggesting?
Of course it’s probably a waste of money to bury CO2, but at least we get to continue the fantastically successful use of fossil fuels in the centuries-long project of enriching the human race. And in another plus, just in case CO2 actually does turn out to have something to do with warming the Earth, when the Earth starts getting cold at least we’ll know where to go to turn up the thermostat: just start unplugging the CO2 tanks.
Anthony. I have seen several of your posts where you have links to articles in Australian newspapers. Two newspapers that I have noticed you mention are The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Distance from our Australian shores is obviously the reason why you are not aware of where these newspapers leanings are. If they go any further to the left they will be coming round to meet themselves. These two newspapers are devotedly devoting page after page to the just released Professor (of Econonomics) Garnaut Report on the effects of climate change. If our government puts into place (and it will as he is considered to be a ‘Climate Expert’; a sentiment echoed by these two particular newspapers ) all of his recommendations for emission controls to combat this unquestioned ‘Global warming’ and ‘climate’ change’, then our standard of living will fall so low that Zimbabwe will look very attractive! I am getting my bags packed now!
John McLondon,
You seem like an intelligent, honest man who lays it all on the line in defense of his ideas and does a lot of research to back up his position. But the bottom line for the skeptics – based on the evidence, the Emperor has no clothes. You cite all this theory for your concerns, but the real world simply won’t conform to those theories.
Sea level rise? On Dot Earth today, the melting of Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet adds up to 1 mm/year to sea level rise at the latest “accelerated rate”. Do the math – that adds up to 4 inches by 2100. Sheesh!
Glaciers retreating? Glaciers have been retreating since the beginning of the Holocene! In 1850, people had bishops come to the base of glaciers to pray that they would stop advancing and crush villages, towns and farms. Well, they got their wish, but it had nothing to do with AGW-contributing CO2. There was none!
CO2 is a pollutant? Well, the world’s biomass has grown 6% in 17 years. Guess what also increased 6% in that period? CO2! A fertilizer, not a pollutant!
The U.S. is a monster in that it produces an immense amount of CO2? Well, China sling-shotted past that quantity years ago (don’t forget – we’re the ones expanding our forests and sequestering CO2 to the equivalent of 25-35% of our fossil-fuel consumption production of CO2 according to the best scientists on this subject). And the Chinese will crank out a doubling of that amount of CO2 every 10 years. By 2025, they’ll be producing about 5 times the U.S.’s CO2.
As for Gore, he is what you ain’t – an intellectual coward. He won’t debate his ideas in an open forum like you do. He won’t respond to critiques of his positions like you do. He won’t allow impromptu questions from the press at his speeches (as, I think, you would if you had the opportunity to experience the same forum – Man, I hope you luck out to get THAT opportunity!). He has a 28,000 square foot home that uses over 22 times the grid electricity that I consume (even after all his “green” improvements. I’m guessing your home probably doesn’t break the 2,800 square foot mark, right? At my 1,100 square feet, I’m not even coming close to his good life!). And I’m guessing you’re not in the same position as Gore in that his massive home isn’t only one of a number of homes he has that also chews up fuel big time, are you? If are, then I envy you – ain’t been there, ain’t done that.
And finally, I assume you don’t have access to Gulf Streams that jaunt you from speech to speech, unlike others like me with a 10-year old Mazda Millenia that is now making some disturbing noises when I hit 55 MPH going to work. Yet, those speeches and his AIT-based PowerPoint presentations tout absolute audio-visual lies on our environmental future! Don’t misunderstand me – these were lies, intentionally presented to the public. This man is corrupt. (And don’t get me started on his corporate shennanigans!) As for Hansen, here’s a classic case of guilt by association.
Last thing – you mention that China’s scientists are supporting the AGW agenda against their government’s desire to push economic development to its max. Well, you’ve got the Chinese scientists (who aren’t immune to political pressure in a Communist state) answering to the Communist government (which is seeking to build an economic base at any cost to defeat the “West” , i.e. the U.S., Taiwan, Japan, S. Korea, Singapore, etc.). So, given recent AGW-averse science which indicates that China is now a major CO2 contributor, do the Chinese scientists demand that China throttle its economic development by imposing draconian reductions in coal-based electricity generating plants? Duh – NO!! To do so puts you in the scientific netherlands, if not in front of a bullet.
Bottom line – lose your naivete on the world’s good intentions. This is an issue that just ain’t a scientific issue – it’s got local and world politics, economics and philosophical issues that will need to be addressed. It’s going to be very messy.
Paul,
Thanks for responding.
Point taken. Before the science was understood, some nasty stuff occurred:
A true case in point – a guy was digging a trench near a landfill. He didn’t get clearance on his excavation. After opening up the trench, he lept into the trench with a lighted cigarette in his mouth. He got blown out of the trench by the explosion (fortunately, he only lost his eyebrows and his eyelashes. Talk about luck!)
In another case in the U.K., a person lit up a stove in his home near a landfill, and blew his home apart. (Fortunately, both occupants survived!)
Point – it took a number of years to discover risks from landfills, and to disseminate that information to those who could evaluate and influence those impacts.
Unintended consequenses. Carbon sequesteration. This may be our answer to global warming, if it is in truth a real threat. But at what cost? And is adaptation more economical than mitigation?
I cannot believe that ‘John McLondon’ simply copied those address links from their legitimate source. My suspicion is that he is deliberately attempting to insert malicious code in order to cause problems.
My apologies if I’m wrong. But my anti-virus software reported:
Severity: High
This attack could pose a serious security threat. You should take immediate action to stop any damage or prevent further damage from happening.
Description: This signature attempts to detect a webpage containing a large rowspan value that can cause a denial-of-service on the client.
That is the first time in over a year that my anti-virus software has alerted me to someone attempting to insert malicious code. Everyone should make certain that their security patches are up to date, and that they have current anti-virus software running.
When someone like James Hansen states that people who don’t agree with him should be “put on trial,” that certainly gives the green light to the True Believers to use any possible tactic to attack those they disagree with.
REPLY: Smokey I checked all those links and they are absolutely fine and are in fact to the science organizations Mr. McLondon cited.
Whatever alerts you are getting are due to whatever paranoiaware is installed on your Macintosh. Some softwares just go a bit whacko on certain web page designs. I wouldn’t worry about it.
CO2 emissions are not a matter of choice for the Chinese; they’re a matter of survival. They’re not going to worry about ameliorating the situation until they have the luxury of not worrying about their population starving.
Here’s a modest proposal:
Remember the soberly tendered suggestions for placing atomic waste aboard rockets and firing them into the sun? It makes, at least fractioally, as much sense to give the same kind of “heave-ho” to our unwanted greenhouse gases.
Jeff Coatney:
Good Idea!
We could build a big pipe that just poked out of the atmosphere, tether one end at the equator, and tether the other end to a HUGE counterweight out about 34,000 miles. Then we could just pump all that nasty CO2 off-planet.
We could put elevators on the outside and use them to reach low earth orbit.
Be one Hell of a tourist attraction.
From the original:
In my opinion, the premise of CO2 burial seems absurd not only because of the lack of supporting evidence for certain climate change, but also due to it’s lack of foresight as to the effects of the burial scheme.
It’s perfect if you want to funnel money from Australian taxpayers to yourself via the Emessions Trading Scheme’s Carbon Offsets.
Jerry is right.
AGW is a political issue and not a scientific one.
Same as the sequestration of CO2 issue in the article published. This 100,000 tonnes sequestration is a token issue put forward by the current Australian government in the attempt to spin their green credentials.
As previously posted, Australia has some politically leaning media outlets currently promoting their own choice of government with their own journalistic bias. The current Australian government has learned the lesson of spin from their U.K. counterparts.
Beware Australian journalists, we have already exported their boss to the rest of the world.
our standard of living will fall so low that Zimbabwe will look very attractive! I am getting my bags packed now!
That’s so last week. Nowadays, everyone who is anyone is headed for Mozambique . . .
Interesting. That Weyburn oilfield is going to sequester about the exact amount of CO2 that the American Ethanol Industry will “Produce” this year.
You get about 6 lbs of CO2 for every gallon (about 6 lbs) of ethanol that you produce (from corn, that is.)
The members of these societies are the best and the brightest in the world. Except for the American Society of Petroleum Geologists (which we can understand) every one these scientific societies agree with AGW.
The trouble is that intellectuals are herd animals just like the rest of us. In the ’70s and ’80s 90% of intellectuals (I am being generous), i.e., those with and of higher education, were neoMalthusians who believed the world would be nearly out of all important resources by the year 2000. When Herman Kahn tried to get approval for a booth at the ’77 World’s Fair entitled “Economic Growth is Good”, he was regarded as a complete kook.
I am by no means saying that intellectuals are wrong about everything or even most things. But when they clique on any given subject, neither is it not a strong indication that they are right, either. And (as with Growth) the more social affectation attached, the more likelihood of error.
When I hear a good, simple refutation of the Aqua Satellite or the Argo Buoy findings, then I may change my mind on global warming. But as it stands, with temperatures in a cooling phase (both atmospheric and oceanic) and CO2 positive feedback loop theory in tatters, I find little to recommend the current AGW theory.
Besides, they’ve gone out on a limb and, as I see it, they can’t get back. It is too late to get the AGW toothpaste back into the tube. They are not the sort to admit errors–how many among them ever admitted being (dead) wrong about natural resources, pollution, or population?
I might also add that I know these people. I have lived and worked among them all my life, I was trained and educated by them. I am, indeed, one of them. When they are eager and forthcoming, you can usually trust them. But the very instant they start looking down their noses, it’s time to cut the deck and grab for your wallet.
Since on the subject of AGW, NASA, NOAA, IPCC, and HadCRUT claim ownership of the deck, and act highly offended when outsiders want to count the cards, I simply do not trust them. Considering what they have done to the data (USHCN adjustments and the Grayson series, for example), I have no reason to.
Robert Cote’,
I have no intention in shutting down this forum. It was long, but I wanted to make sure I wrote everything I wanted to. Rather than coming back again and again. But on the consensus issue, I hope you can give at least an example to justify your disagreement. I have not seen a single prevailing scientific conclusion without consensus.
Jerry Magnan,
Thank you for your lengthy response. Briefly, I agree with most of what you said. Regarding Al Gore, I did not vote for him (and will not vote for him). I think in a way he hijacked a movement that resulted in his own fame and fortune. Although I am not a part of the AGW movement, I still do not like Al Gore and John Travolta symbolizing this cause, certainly they don’t do what they are advocating for others to do. I am also becoming unhappy about the political statements from Hansen – he is a scientist and he should do what he is best at, namely science. There is no question that China and India are will continue to overtake USA in terms of CO2 production. I also agree that the U.S. produced most of the CO2 when the connection between CO2 and global warming was not that clear (as stated by IPCC in their previous report), but the Chinese and Indians are producing CO2 at an alarming rate when the connection is much more clearer. If anyone is going to come up with a viable alternate fuel (like the hydrogen economy), it will the U.S. who will be leading the development. I was a disappointed about the lack of U.S. enthusiasm in participating in the ITER program for a fusion reactor (although we are a participant), but that might change given this high oil price.
Before going to sea levels, let me say this. I teach medicine, although I have an undergraduate degree in physics and I still use physics for developing imaging techniques, I am not really in a position to read, understand and put climate science publications all in order to reach a conclusion – that will take years of hard work even if I really want to do it. I hardly have that much time to devote to an area outside my main interest – so I have to depend on other experts in that field. That is the reason I look up to the NAS for their opinion. I understand there are questions on sea level rise (as you pointed out) – I have read Morner’s work on that and those by researchers from New Zealand/Australia stating that Morner made mistakes by not accounting satellite drift etc., etc. As far as northern sea ice status is concerned, we had a post here by Anthony in January or February about how rapidly the ice cover grew, we will have to wait and see how rapidly they disappear, it is going down fast, we will see how far (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg ). But the point is these are all complex issues that I am not really qualified to evaluate in detail. But when I look at people and societies with credibility for guidance, I (and I am sure others) see the opinion by far is tilted in the AGW direction. So, I am not really sure what kind of explanation can be given on why all these scientific societies with the best and the brightest scientists all endorse the AGW explanation, or what kind of reasons can be given for doubting AGW.
It is really fascinating to see the level of distrust, after reading Smokey’s and Robert Cote’s comments. This is certainly not the environment we want to create.
Gary Plyer : No, don’t believe black hole on earth.
Finally,
I assume it is Anthony who made the comment about girlfriend, I am married with children – no need of a girlfriend. And you probably won’t see me for the next three years, until I have something else to write.
REPLY: I made no such comment, that’s not anybody’s business anyway. My co-moderator who goes by “jeez” put that in. My apology. – Anthony
It appears to me that the most intelligent answer to the CO2 problem is to reduce the human production of it, and let Mother Earth tend to its naturally occurring presence.
Too inhumane. Do that and the poorest of the world continue to suffer and die by the multimillions. The price is too high. (Look, for example, at the human cost of ethanol.)
For the first time in human history mankind is within striking distance of doing away with the traditional causes of mass-scale human misery. I would hate to see that opportunity slip away unless it were shown (far better than it has) to have been absolutely necessary.
But acting on what we know now is the only rational way to make decisions, we have to make decisions based on our current knowledge and evidence, not based on what we might find out in the future.
That depends entirely on the immediacy of the problem and the cost of proposed mitigation. I am simply not willing to sacrifice yet another generation of the world’s poor on the evidence at hand.
I also agree that the U.S. produced most of the CO2 when the connection between CO2 and global warming was not that clear
It’s still not that clear. There are some big awards waiting if you can prove it.
I have read Morner’s work on that and those by researchers from New Zealand/Australia stating that Morner made mistakes by not accounting satellite drift etc., etc.
Ah, indeed. I am impressed. Not many have done so. Even if he is an old sea witch, he’s tops in his field (and an IPCC peer reviewer, IIRC).
But it seems to me the Axe never was an advocate of measuring sea level by satellite. He liked to do it at the tide lines (all over the world). He’s estimated SL rise at 10 cm or less over the next century. He said the IPCC cherrypicked subsiding areas in their estimates, but I never heard any followup on that one way or another.
In any case SL seems to have heeled over and has even dropped a bit over the last three years or so. We will have to see how this trend develops (or doesn’t).
John McLondon,
I respectfully apologize. At the time I made the remark, I believed the accusation that you were just spamming up the board and I was flippant. Since proof never arrived to back up the accusation, my comment was uncalled for.
~jeez
BTW, I agree that in medicine and engineering, consensus is important. But those are
practicing sciences. I also note that the General Practitioners of climatology (i.e., the meteorologists), as a class, are disproportionately skeptical of CO2-based AGW theory.
(With a nod to the Rev!)
REPLY: Meteorologists forecast, climatologists hindcast.
REPLY: Meteorologists forecast, climatologists hindcast.
As Lincoln once remarked concerning Gen. Pope, today’s climatologists’ headquarters are where their hindquarters ought to be.