More CO2 storage than previously thought for Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio

Despite the fact that CCS is extremely expensive, risky, and hard to monitor and is very controversial  --- the studies and push for CCS continues.  It simpley makes no sense to me.....now we find a report  from December 2009 that says we can store about 74% more!  NO THANK YOU!

As a reminder - In Ohio, a large portion of the Mt Simon Sandstone sits below one of the largest fresh water aquifers in the world -  our most precious resource. States are running out of water...

Much of the proposed CO2 to be used for CCS in the midwest comes from ethanol plants.....  in our area we had a great harvest last year with the extra CO2 -  if CCS is so "safe" why are there no plans to  inject it under the cities that produce the bulk of it? 

I do remember reading a study done  in Ohio that said it would not happen in Columbus, Ohio because "it was too urban and densely populated".

The quote below is from the article that is linked below...

The total storage capacity for the region, calculated, using efficiency factors of 0.01 and 0.04, is estimated to be 37.8 and 151.2 billion metric tons of CO2 respectively. This is approximately 74 percent higher than the values of 21.7 and 86.9 billion metric tons of CO2 estimated by the MRCSP for the capacity of the Mount Simon Sandstone in the states of Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio.

 Read the abstract here...

FROM EOR TO CCS: THE EVOLVING LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE

Below is the link to this article.... if you scroll down to page 10 you will find a map with CO2 pipelines as of 2008.


FROM EOR TO CCS: THE EVOLVING LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE

Carbon DISASTER

Lawrence Solomon: Carbon disaster

Posted: August 15, 2009, 1:38 AM by NP Editor

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/08/14/lawrence-solomon-carbon-disaster.aspx

Don’t worry about the risks of earthquakes or suffocation or water contamination. Carbon capture is good, really

By Lawrence Solomon

I

f you live in or near a community that manufactures chemicals or cement, or that has a refinery or a coal or natural gas electricity generating station, or that has abandoned mines or other suitable geological formations, you may soon be asked to save the planet from global warming by hosting an underground carbon dioxide storage facility.

You and your neighbours will be told not to worry about carbon dioxide poisoning your water supplies. Yes, ruptures or large leaks of the gas could not only make the water undrinkable for you but also kill vegetation and aquatic life, the authorities will acknowledge, but inventors are working on new, improved technology that will prevent underground pipes and other infrastructure from leaking.