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.
As a more general remark on industry, cogeneration, and flue gas usage: The larger issue involved is that old-school coop style markets are long gone for industrial products. So there’s a lack of a good market place as well as transport infrastructure for such byproduct captures.
It provides a rather chicken and egg problem of the same sort you see with battery cars and charging stations. Though there’s perhaps some good investment oppos for outfits that would handle distribution and installation costs for various outfits.
Who are these numpties trying to kid; ever seen an old oil or gas well (full of scale and corrosion after 20 to 30 years), and somehow a well used to pump carbonic acid into a saline acquifer isn’t going to rust away to dust and start leaking?
what did Einstein say about the difference between genius and stupidity again?
Isn’t limestone a good way to store CO2? That’s where most of it went. CaCO3 where do you think most of that CO3 came from?
In spades. Net energy producer, ROI less than two years. We’re excited down here!
To CRS, DrPH
Thank you!
It is pleasing to see that there are scientist that are working on solutions to problems instead of exaggerations of them. And since price of petrol to end user is more then 9 USD per gallon in Sweden, I don’t think that the price discussions above are significant in the long run.
Keep up the good work!
Has it been ask and tested that over time will the pressure of co2 from below eventually saturate all sub-soil basically killing the sub-surface soil bacterial life rendering it dead? How big of an area will this effect if found true? Oppositely, methane under pressure underneath can seep and is already oxidized and fixed by certain bacteria as energy in the presence of oxygen from above in depleted gas formations. Show me one organism able to metabolize co2 without sunlight.
Seems like a bad, bad idea to me. Still say if anyone it will be the “environmentalists” that contaminate and ruin the Earth. Just go to some of their meetings and soak up the crazy talk.
Some excellent, some funny, some slightly serious and some very apt posts there guys and gals
Take a bow!.
From my perspective as now retired south eastern Australian grain farmer.
The world’s plant breeders and plant geneticists and researchers along with the world’s farmers have to produce the food to feed over 8 billions and climbing to close to ten billions of humans by 2050 and beyond.
We / they will need all the help they can get to achieve this and increasing CO2 is one of the fastest, best, cheapest and easiest ways of at least going some of the way to achieving that goal.
And that is only an almost frightening just a half a life time into the future.
Since 1990 it is estimated that around 20% of the increase in global crop yields are due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
The “CO2 Science” site in it’s “data” tables has some good researched data on the increases in plant bio-mass and therefore yields in grain crops with increasing levels of CO2.
[ As an aside; One good food crop plant breeder who right now is starting to create and breed another of the ever improving varieties of grain and food crops that will feed the 8 billions plus of humanity in 2025 / 30 is worth hundreds of climate scientists when the future of humanity is being considered.
It takes about 12 to 15 years from the start of a grain food crop variety’s breeding program sequence before that new and improved grain variety reaches the customer as bread, pasta, starch, gluten, noodles, animal feed and etc and etc.
In our totally blind stupidity we now pay even totally incompetent climate scientists much more than we pay a good plant breeder.
Whose hands would you place your future in?
A food crop plant breeder, more CO2 and a full belly and health and a comfortable life style far into the future
Or
The climate alarmist scientists, less CO2, less fossil fuel energy and an empty belly, starvation and death all around you but the satisfaction that you have done your bit to “Save the Planet”? ]
I have said this before many times.
I will say it again here.
The world’s plant breeders and farmers will more than adequately feed the increasing numbers of mankind into the future if the world warms and CO2 increases.
If the global climate cools but CO2 still increases, then perhaps, operative word is “perhaps” the world’s farmers will be still able to feed the increasing global population, just!
If the world cools and mankind through rank stupidity tries to reduce atmospheric CO2 and succeeds then all bets are off for the world’s farmers in a colder climate and with less of that absolutely essential plant food CO2 may not be able to grow enough of the world’s food crops to feed mankind’s increasing numbers.
And that means hunger and possible starvation on a scale unmatched in human history.
A cold world and failed harvests are synonymous throughout the annals of history and millions, hundreds of millions have died throughout history when famine has struck.
Just get out of the bloody way and let Nature look after all that supposedly so dangerous and absolutely essential plant food called Carbon Dioxide, just as Nature has always done for the 4.5 billion years of Earth’s known existence.
CRS: “In spades. Net energy producer, ROI less than two years. We’re excited down here!”
Fantastic to here. You’ll have to use light the Koch signal and let the Wattmen know where to keep eyes peeled for it when you’re out from under NDA.
Jim Cripwell says:
November 8, 2013 at 11:07 am
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…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They are called green houses…. I am building one does Obama want to pay me to take CO2 and turn it into food?
Thank you, Gunnar! I’m very fond of Sweden, my step-daughter Jessica lives in Vittinge!
I’m an optimist, we can solve anything when we put our minds to the task. Best, Charles!
My favorite method of CO2 storage is a nice juicy steak…
Robert of Ottawa says:
November 8, 2013 at 2:49 pm
Isn’t limestone a good way to store CO2?….
Not if it is wet. Water plus CO2 is how caves are formed.
CRS, DrPH says:
November 8, 2013 at 2:07 pm
After all I have said about the idiocy of so many of today’s “scientists” for the way in which they are destroying the historical image of science as a beacon and a hope for a better future, it is very uplifting to my lifetime’s belief in Science to find some scientists who are positive, forward looking and intent, and acting on it, to hopefully make our’s and humanity’s future even better.
It seems that we once again have the stark differences being shown here between the unreality of the hypothesis based alarmist mentalitism of climate alarmist science and the always solution seeking, pragmatic engineering based science that looks to a better future for all..
Thank you Sir.
ROM says: @ur momisugly November 8, 2013 at 3:13 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Excellent! Too bad the world’s elite are more in favor of capturing the world’s food supply than they are in feeding people.
The Race for the World’s Farmland
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/land-grab-the-race-for-the-worlds-farmland-0
“The world is experiencing a grain rush. With increasing frequency, food-importing countries and private investors are acquiring farmland across the developing world. This new publication marks one of the first efforts in the United States to bring together perspectives from international organizations, farmers, and investors alike about a trend often referred to as a new phase of the world food crisis.”
Assuming permanent or semi permanent sequestration is actually possible, it could be a really serious mistake. We actually have no clue what the long term ramifications of removing carbon from the carbon cycle, possibly until the demise of Earth, may be. We are already relatively low on CO2 versus geological time. Talk about tipping points.
R Taylor says:
November 8, 2013 at 9:25 am
“CO2 storage gets my vote as the most stupid large-scale human endeavor, ever. With the pyramids, etc.”
I would think, that pyramids are much, much more useful – at least they generate significant income for Egypt, Mexico and where else this monuments of time are from tourism.
But otherwise I fully agree. One can hardly imagine more futile nonsense, which anyway will not get ever used at large scale – I mean global scale – because CAGW hype, fossil carbon reserves and therefore the confederacy of dunces called EU itself could fade out long before of any possible economic viability of such absurdities as CO2 anthropogenic sequestration in most of the world. There simply aren’t resources available to do it even if it would be for any good – which it obviously isn’t in any case.
But it is not just laughable absurd stupidity, it is still very possible that global turmoils of unprecedented scale will inevitably arise in the wake of the fossil carbon resources ultimate depletion (if not fully replaced by technologies of at least same potential already during our lifetimes) which advances fast, will preferentially affect large carbon (in fact most important fossil carbon resource, covering more than half of world fossil carbon consumption is coal, which is elemental carbon) and hydrocarbon consumers as so called first world economics and can lead to very unstable and most dangerous geopolitical situation which could be of such desperation that it can very possibly result even in wiping out life on this planet in total global war for last fossil carbon resources, long before atmospheric CO2 content can possibly achieve its infamous doubling (which is given the known fossil carbon resources rather unlikely to ever happen) and before such absurd things as pumping CO2 into ground could possibly have any larger effect on its atmospheric content – even if such effect would be desirable, which it obviously isn’t in any case.
We definitely need carbon in the atmosphere for it to be sequestered naturally in the natural carbon cycle and with the added value of the surplus energy – delivered by Sun – needed to split CO2 into carbon and oxygen (aided by photosynthesis) which is the most energy consuming process for most common non-harmful gases in the nature (ΔHf0=-393.5 kJ/mol) – even much more than splitting water vapor in oxygen and hydrogen (ΔHf0=-241.8 kJ/mol) and maybe that is the reason why nature or possibly evolution, or God, whatever you like, chose hydrocarbons (created from atmospheric CO2 by splitting it into carbon and oxygen using solar energy and stabilize carbon by binding it to hydrogen while returning oxygen into atmosphere) as chief energy carrier in biosphere. So CO2 must rest there available in largest amounts possibly achievable (which are anyway low).
In fact nothing is perfect and part of the carbon dioxide is sequestered by nature irreversibly, so its content available for biosphere depleted slowly during the geological times. Without human intervention in form of fossil carbon and hydrocarbon resources use its natural level would further slowly tend to lower and lower sustainability of the natural carbon cycle. In fact the return of irreversibly sequestered carbon in form of coal, oil and natgas by burning them into the system by sophisticated human activity (which btw. directly caused the fastest progress in human civilization ever) actually was and is desirable for both man and the nature.
And this was common knowledge more or less on the level of high school education in the times when I was in that age, before it was taken over by vicious orwellian environmentalism, which in fact wants to replace this truly vital common knowledge by unreal schemes which aren’t favorable neither for man nor for the nature but only for personal gain of few.
More scientists playing “how-hard-can-it-be- this-engineering?”. With the golden age of science apparently over and fraying in frustration and desperation into strings and dark matter, I suppose it is natural to encroach on the successful terrain of engineering, the creator of the nuts, bolts and wires of modern civilization. Similarly, social scientists smell the blood of the once lofty hard sciences and are confidently moving into the killing fields of science, publishing climate science papers and prescribing what we should be doing to stave off climate disasters. When we reach the post normal engineering stage we are on the path to extinction for sure. At this stage, Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, two creators of the concept of post-normal science, will be fancying a project where the citizenry design and build a bridge over the Mississippi, learning by doing.
I guess one benefit of massive CO2 storage in rocks will be to block any attempts at fracking that would otherwise provide “dirty” $3.50/mcf natural gas. (sarc/off)
Geological carbon capture and sequestration is a disaster, since it will remove the element carbon from the biosphere permanently. Carbon cycles itself endlessly in our planet – carbonates, chalk, fossil forms, sediments, biomass, etc. All life depends upon this. Eventually, the carbon becomes reintroduced into the biosphere and is reused over and over. To lock this resource away in deep geologic structures is ridiculous, future generations would have to try to get to the stuff eventually.
Power plants, cement kilns and other large point-source generators of carbon dioxide would be smart to start selling shares of their emissions! When the final engineering problems for conversion of carbon dioxide into polymers, fuels etc. are resolved, there will be a run on the stuff that will make heads spin.
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it! We’ll all be broke if they keep this bs up.
Possible, but pointless. And pricey.
Skipping over all the Technocratic Engineering approaches, and dismissing all the Sequestration-Cannot-Possibly-Matter-To-Reality arguments….
How many of you remember a tale from 1971: “Denver Is Missing,” by D F Jones…?
I keep thinking of that, whenever I envision CO2 being pumped into underground pockets at Horrendous Pressures.
How can anyone possibly imagine that *any* gas can be kept underground for a truly indefinite period??
I’m surprised the climate kooks don’t want to bottle it up and send it over to Mars for terraforming, the prime directive be damned ( economics too ).
Yeah I know, there is 95% concentration CO2 on Mars already, but they now say that it just needs more.
Claim: Safe long term storage of CO2 is possible
Nature already does that for us. We only have to give it to her by venting it into the atmosphere.
Moose says:
“Nature already does that for us. We only have to give it to her by venting it into the atmosphere.”
Sure but nobody makes any money off it and nobody get’s taxed, so that won’t work.
As a chemical engineer I must admit that so stupid ideas like CO2 storage are hard to find.