Scientists Target East Coast U.S. Rocks for Carbon Dioxide Storage
ScienceDaily (Jan. 5, 2010) — Scientists say buried volcanic rocks along the heavily populated coasts of New York, New Jersey and New England, as well as further south, might be ideal reservoirs to lock away carbon dioxide emitted by power plants and other industrial sources. A study this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences outlines formations on land as well as offshore, where scientists from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory say the best potential sites may lie.
Some basalt on land is already well known and highly visible. The vertical cliffs of the Palisades, along the west bank of the Hudson River near Manhattan, are pure basalt, and the rocks, formed some 200 million years ago, extend into the hills of central New Jersey. Similar masses are found in central Connecticut. Previous research by Lamont scientists and others shows that carbon dioxide injected into basalt undergoes natural chemical reactions that will eventually turn it into a solid mineral resembling limestone. If the process were made to work on a large scale, this would help obviate the danger of leaks.
The study’s authors, led by geophysicist David S. Goldberg, used existing research to outline more possible basalt underwater, including four areas of more than 1,000 square kilometers each, off northern New Jersey, Long Island and Massachusetts. A smaller patch appears to lie more or less under the beach of New Jersey’s Sandy Hook, peninsula, opposite New York’s harbor and not far from the proposed plant in Linden. The undersea formations are inferred from seismic and gravity measurements. “We would need to drill them to see where we’re at,” said Goldberg. “But we could potentially do deep burial here. The coast makes sense. That’s where people are. That’s where power plants are needed. And by going offshore, you can reduce risks.” Goldberg and his colleagues previously identified similar formations off the U.S. Northwest.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I wonder if the EIRs seriously look at long term geochemical effects of doing this?
Do they know with certainty where cavers may go on their explorations? When there are “special” ones only a few may know about? What happens when they go to one they’ve been to dozens of times and know the air is good in there, but suddenly it’s not… Yup, that’ll be an expensive lawsuit.
REPLY:
They cave all up and down the east coast, and no we do NOT tell others where we cave because we do not want the cave trashed. However most caves are in limestone or marble and this is talking basalt.
My suggestion based on what I read here is using basalt sand/gravel as “scrubbers” and then using the exhausted basalt to grow food.
Galen Haugh (04:00:07) :
Saw this point made elsewhere:
“PS . I’m a skeptic myself. I can`t believe CO2 is a significant cause for GW. Also, I hate when people label CO2 as “pollution”. In that case so is water – sorry I meant di-hydrogen monoxide.) ”
Just for fun, try http://dhmo.org
———
Wade (05:18:24) :
I never understood people’s thinking. They are eco-idiots of the truest form. “People are ruining the environment based. So, to save the environment, we are going to ruin the environment.”
The one lesson I learned in life is people are idiots. Every single human being is an idiot, even me. The trick is to be less of an idiot than the rest. To be less of an idiot than the herd, you just have to spend some time thinking rationally instead of emotionally. When you listen to your heart, you are listening to an idiot. So you have to stop and think. Unfortunately, thinking is something that is trying to be suppressed.
Alfred North Whitehead is said to have started his course of philosophy lectures by saying:
Human beings will go to almost any lengths to avoid having to think.
Question: Has an Emergy Analysis been performed on this scheme to see how much CO2 would be produced to build and operate the sequestration infrastructure compared to how much CO2 would being stored?
Answer: No, because the value is less than unity and, thus, a total waste of resources.
I haven’t read through all the comments, but this does actually have the potential to be dangerous. Limnic eruptions have suffocated many people with CO2 – if this stuff was concentrated and then released all of the sudden then it could easily kill thousands.
Charles S. Opalek, PE (13:54:14) :
Question: Has an Emergy Analysis been performed on this scheme to see how much CO2 would be produced to build and operate the sequestration infrastructure compared to how much CO2 would being stored?
Answer: No, because the value is less than unity and, thus, a total waste of resources.
8 out of ten Norwegians dont believe this is very smart.
This plant was goint to cost 2.5 Billion Euros;
http://translate.google.no/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.storm.no%2Fnyheter%2F2758391&sl=no&tl=en
“Gail Combs (11:26:40) :
[…]
Chief, I have 100 ac sitting on a big river in NC, it even has a big pond/swamp. Want to go into business with me sequestering CO2 or making money off grants???
If you can’t beat them join them at the public trough…”
Nice idea. I don’t know who it was, the japanese, the dutch, beats me, are trying to grow algae in tubes. The problem for now is that the algae grow so fast that they tend to clog up the mechanical systems.
So if you don’t want to spend the rest of your life fishing out algae by hand, better wait until the technology is sufficiently developed or develop it yourself. To my knowledge, it’s not economically viable for now.
@Gail Combs (12:26:21) :
Yup, I knew a guy who did that, and heard of other cavers as well. I also took note of the rule, “You take out what you bring in.” And that means everything. They are very protective of their caves.
However, I also noted a lot of them are not carrying air quality monitors. Hey, you know there’s a straight path to the surface, no blockages, so the air has to be good, right? There can be some nasty surprises down there. And if that breeze you are feeling is actually from someone pumping in pressurized CO2?
It’s nice to know about the formations, thanks for the info. However, that is still no guarantee someone is not going to get killed by this scheme.
@richard M (08:54:15) :
Thanks for the info. I first heard of it on a PBS show, think it was Scientific America Frontiers. At that point there was a university prototype unit, and they were figuring out what the algae would be good for.
If anything, it seems a more efficient way to harness sunlight than photovoltaic systems, will tolerate dim sunlight better. It isn’t a direct generator of electricity, but still useful. And especially coming from a power plant, the heat from the exhaust can be regulated to keep the algae going in winter, at least offhand it seems that could be done. I haven’t read your links yet, but I will.
How about pumping that CO2 down into those unquenchable coal-seam fires? That ought to be cheaper and do some good. If it’s a no-go here, maybe China would try it.
All enginering solutions represent compromises among competing factors. CO2 injected into porous rock will permit the formation of carbonic acid which may lead to the leaching of toxins, such as heavy metals, into the public water supply. Will more people be saved from GW, or more poisoned by the “cure?”
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/303/1/67?home
So what if this CO2 storage system develops a leak, and outgasses thousands of tonnes of CO2 ???
We would have another Lake Nyos disaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos#The_1986_disaster
.
CO2 is not solely responsible for the observed increase in temperature readings. More importantly though, the increase is a localised phenomenon, one which will rapidly decrease if all emissions were stopped. But no city in the world is willing or able to participate in such an experiment. So in the meantime we’ll all be taxed stupid because of the erroneous belief that CO2 is our greatest threat.
Anyone who studies CO2 in this manner is simply behaving as any well-conditioned AGWist monkey is supposed to.
As an aside, CO2 is only one emission from the burning of hydrocarbons – water is the other main emission. Given that the IPCC says that water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, why don’t we hear anything about it? Why is there no Hydrogen Trading Scheme or Hydrogen Sequestration?
It goes by the alias of di-hydrogen monoxide.