From the GFZ GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Helmholtz Centre , probably too little too late, as CO2 sequestration projects worldwide are closing.
Conclusion of an international project for the geological storage of carbon dioxide
![CO2CARE-Projekte[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/co2care-projekte1.jpg?quality=83)
Potsdam, 07.11.2013 | At the final conference of the EU project CO2CARE – CO2 Site Closure Assessment Research – at the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences from 04 to 06 November 2013 more than 60 experts from academia, industry and regulatory authorities from 13 countries discussed technologies and procedures for a safe and sustainable closure of geological CO2 storage sites.
Since 2004, GFZ investigates in an international research network the geological storage of the greenhouse gas. “Our work at the Ketzin site has shown that and how geological CO2 storage on a pilot scale can be done safely and reliably,” summarized Axel Liebscher, project coordinator and head of the Center for Geological Storage (CGS) at the GFZ, the results of the meeting.
“The knowledge gained in the project CO2CARE and newly developed procedures and technologies are a key step forward to implement the requirements of the EU Directive (DIRECTIVE 2009/31/EC) for geological storage of CO2 in national CCS laws and to ensure a safe and sustainable closure of geological CO2 storage sites.”
The CO2CARE EU project, coordinated by the GFZ, combined experimental laboratory and field research as well as numerical simulations in an integrated approach and tested and developed technologies and methodologies. The result is that the three main requirements of the EU Directive for the transfer of responsibility to the appropriate regulatory body can be met: modelled behavior conforms with the observed behavior of the injected CO2, there is no detectable leakage, and the storage site is evolving towards a situation of long-term stability.
The key component of the CO2CARE project is the site-based research with an international portfolio of nine CO2 storage projects. In addition to Sleipner in Norway and K12-B in the Netherlands, the Ketzin pilot site operated by GFZ is one of three sites for which in the framework of CO2CARE the closure and the transfer of responsibility to the regulatory authority was theoretically developed. At the Ketzin pilot site the storage of CO2 was terminated in August 2013 after more than 5 years of successful operation. Axel Liebscher: “By now the post-injection phase has begun and the Ketzin pilot site will be the first site which will be closed within a scientific project. The results of the CO2CARE project will be implemented here directly.”
Due to the continuing increase in world energy demand, especially in countries such as China, India and Brazil, and the use of fossil fuels the CCS technology will continue to play a central role in the global reduction of CO2 emissions. For Germany, it is especially also an option to avoid so-called process-related emissions from steel, cement and chemical industries. “Only if we can also demonstrate the safe and permanent closure of CO2 storage sites in addition to the safe operation, CCS is able to develop its potential,” Axel Liebscher concluded.
More information can be found under: http://www.co2care.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If frakking is allegedly dangerous because it might allow small amounts of frakking fluids and ground water to migrate into unwanted zones, then the claim about CO2 storage from this group makes little sense. The net impact of frakking is to make *more room* in the formations of interest, to remove things that are already there- the gas and liquids inthe frack zone formation.
CO2 injection does the opposite: It forces CO2 into a space already occupied, either requiring the remocal of native waters, oil and gas, or simply displacing them under pressure. the existing liquids and gases present will go somewhere. And the water will be reacting with CO2 uder pressure, forming acids which will have the ability to change the strength of native rocks over time.
Both aspects of this mean that over time there is no way aquifer pollution on much larger scales than any ever even alleged from frakking will occur as deep brines, high sulfide, and other mater
So, what’s the capacity for CO2 storage in Frio, TX, and Wallula? And how many miles of underground pipeline do we need to direct all CO2 to one of those places? Given the hysteria over Keystone, what happens when we want to pump a killer pollutant like CO2 (it’s cahhhhbaaahhhn pollution, doncher know) all over the country?
The last few air permits for combustion sources (green energy from landfill gas), I’ve had to include by EPA directive GHG sequestration in the BACT analysis.
“Carbon (dioxide) sequestration” makes as much sense as paying one group to dig a hole –
and then paying another group to fill it back in.
Stand on the edge of the Grand Canyon, look at the view, the vertical rock faces are limestone, formed in shallow seas, the youngest is 600 million years old. The limestone formations extend hundreds of miles north. I’d say this type of sequestration is a no brainer.
The longest project running is the Weyburn-Midale Canada oil field CO2 injection project. It has doubled oil production from the field. Word is they are paying $100/tonne for the CO2 but it is still profitable (paying to take it that is versus getting paid to get rid of it which CO2 markets are based on).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyburn-Midale_Carbon_Dioxide_Project
A coal fired power plant nearby has recently been retrofitted for Carbon capture ($1.4 billion cost) and the captured CO2 will also be piped to the oil fields for enhanced recovery. It will be on-line soon.
http://www.saskpower.com/our-power-future/work-currently-underway/boundary-dam-integrated-carbon-capture-and-storage-demonstration-project/
There are 4,000 coal plants world-wide. The cost to convert all of them would be massive and very few of them would have nearby declining oil fields and the geology required to make it cost-effective, let alone profitable, but there are some.
The technology exists – just store it in cartridges:
http://www.co2cartridges.co.uk/index.php
(Do I have to use the sarc tag)
Those trying to “sequester” carbon dioxide in anything other than soil are trying to reduce the carrying capacity of the Earth for Life. ALL life begins by biochemical reduction of carbon dioxide.
Those here love science and our main goal is to restore scientific objectivity to the study of climate and weather. We are also concerned about the world’s economies because the ceaseless attacks on energy have damaged those economies at their foundation.
But my goal is to save the world. I am fighting for human and mammalian and avian health and longevity, which are probably improved by more carbon dioxide, for plants to feed endangered species, and for everything else alive.
Every living thing needs carbon dioxide.
As usual the words safety and reliability appear but not cost. It is the way of the lobbyist world.
Richard Howes on November 8, 2013 at 9:25 am
Why don’t we safely store it in the atmosphere? Seems a bit cheaper.
That was my first thought, too.
Besides the positive benefits noted above we would also have an
Out of sight, out of mind situation.
🙂
Safe long term storage of CO2 is possible
Yea. It is these new fangled things called Reefs.
Geez….. All this research on nanotechnology and corals have been sequestering CO2 for half a billion years.
Richard Howes on November 8, 2013 at 9:25 am
Why don’t we safely store it in the atmosphere? Seems a bit cheaper.
Farmerbraun says : Yep! And it’s freely available there to those who wish to make a withdrawal for transformation and subsequent sale , to the betterment of themselves and others! 🙂
Unless storing the CO2 produces some sort of real economic benefit (as opposed to the fake carbon quotas, permits, credits, or whatever they’re being called) then it’s not a good idea.
The world’s economies are already wasting far too many billions of dollars, euros, etc on carbon strangulation of our economies. We can’t afford that sort of nonsense, and obtain zero benefit from it.
Gunga Din says:
November 8, 2013 at 10:02 am
I think beer is the safest way to store CO2.
(As long as there is a designated driver.)
Gunga Din,
Uuuhhhmmmm…… I’d like to help with the beer CO2 storage proposal.
Where can I sign up as a designated drinker?
MtK
Two posts in a row about how to solve non-existent problems very expensively.
We don’t need to capture CO2 in order to store it. We need to learn how to recycle it. Nature is adapted to recycle CO2 at very low concentrations. If we are going to improve on this, and use much less area, we must learn how to do it with higher concentrations of CO2. And that means first capturing it, and then converting it to things like hydrocarbons and carbohydrates.
I remember seeing a movie once in which it depicted the emperor of Ancient Rome crying over some tragedy. A servant or slave immediately fetched a small glass bottle with a curved opening. The curve perfectly matched the lower eyelids of the emperor so that the bottle could be placed there and his highly valuable tears could be collected and saved once he stopped crying and the bottle was stoppered.
Sounds pretty stupid doesn’t it? Well, just imagine society about 2,000 years from now producing some sort of holographic operatic entertainment depicting people in the here and now trying to somehow save for all time the very same CO2 that they exhale with each breath they take.
Now the immediate foregoing thought certainly doesn’t detract from the imbecilic stupidity of capturing an emperor’s tears but there’s no denying that capturing the same thing as our very own breathing is orders of magnitude stupider. So I think that we’ll have plenty more to be embarrassed about in the presence of our successors than the Romans may have had with us.
I’ve seen several articles lately about converting CO2 into Methanol. It appears there are several variants on different innovations with promise. Perhaps the chemists here have some insights into feasibility:
Too Green to Be True? Highly Effective Method for Converting CO2 Into Methanol
Another claim to innovation in the area is Princeton:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S33/95/96G16/index.xml?section=featured
Do you think this will get funding? I might want to invest in this nice little earner.
Some dogooders don’t think CCS is a good idea.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/05/2891671/carbon-capture-storage-earthquakes/
Assuming that it is economically and chemically feasible and commercially viable, I agree that the only reason for capturing CO2 emissions would be for conversion of the gas into biofuels for commercial use. Any other reason is sheer idiocy.
All too often human stupidity is our own worst enemy.
P.S. Using it for fracking is economically and commercially sound as well.
It gets another vote from me.
@Bill Parsons 11:15 am
From your link:
This is what happens when you look at the CO2 “hole” and not the process “donut.”
We ought to store CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean. Oh… we do?
Ok then. Never mind.
Maybe a bit of CO2 in beer too then. (personal reasons)
Let us debate about whether to build a tower to heaven in Babel. Another archaic, dumb idea.
The process in question begs only one question:
Why the hell would you want to?
(My apologies to those of you who have mistaken my French for some other language–I’m only following what the Prez does!)