Friday, April 24, 2009

Google Group

Join our Google Group -

CO2 Sequestration Danger - 2 Ohio Sites

Is YOUR family's

Get the FACTS about
C02 Sequestration
This is NOT Green Technology
and WE are the GUINEA PIGS

This is a link to an article that talks about the CO2 sequestration projects for two Ohio counties and about some of the most obvious dangers of CO2 sequestration - the possibility of dying from asphyxiation is not on there but it is a very real threat. click here.

GreenPeace Activist Oppose CO2 sequestration in the Netherlands - how nice to see another grassroots movement put a snag in their plans! I love the time bombs on the opposition posters....Residents fear another CO2 catastrophic leak of CO2. Some of them cite an incident in Cameroon in 1986, when Lake Nyos released a lethal cloud of naturally occurring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, suffocating about 1,700 people and thousands of cattle

Shell failed to account for local opposition. Some 1,300 locals raised objections to the plan. Last month, the town council came out against it, citing "numerous reservations."

I applaud their town council!

"It's not just Nimby-ism," said Anne-Marie van het Erve, a spokeswoman for Barendrecht's council. "A large part of the carbon-storage technology is unproved. And we're saying if it's an experiment, you shouldn't be doing it in an urban environment."

The whole story is here


DOE's Carbon Sequestration Program

DOE's Carbon Sequestration Program

DOE's Carbon Sequestration Program involves two key elements for technology development:

Core Research and Development

Demonstration and Deployment

The Core Research & Development part contains 5 different areas of focus for developing the technology to sequester CO2 -

1. CO2 Capture

2. Carbon Storage

3. Monitoring, Mitigation, and Verification

4. Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Control

5. Breakthrough Concepts.

Core R&D is accomplished through laboratory and pilot-scale research aimed at developing new technologies and new systems and it provides technology solutions which support Demonstration and Deployment in the areas of Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, FutureGen, and other commercial opportunities.

Experiences with Demonstration and Deployment provide "lessons learned" which are used by Core R&D in developing further technology solutions.

From the WEB SITE -

What is Carbon Sequestration?

Carbon sequestration encompasses the processes of capture and storage of CO2 that would otherwise reside in the atmosphere for long periods of time. DOE is investigating a variety of carbon sequestration options. Geologic sequestration involves the separation and capture of CO2 at the point of emissions followed by storage in deep underground geologic formations. Terrestrial sequestration involves the net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by plants and microorganisms and its storage in vegetative biomass and in soils. There is significant opportunity to use terrestrial sequestration both to reduce CO2 and to obtain the ancillary benefits such as habitat and water quality improvements that often result from such projects. The DOE is focusing its efforts for terrestrial sequestration on increasing carbon uptake through reforestation and amendment of minelands and other damaged soils. In addition, regional efforts are examining terrestrial sequestration through various land management techniques including no-till farming and wetland restoration.

It is expected that large numbers of new power plants and fuel processing facilities will be built in the coming decades, in both the developing world as well as in some areas of the developed world, such as the U.S. and Canada. These new facilities, along with existing plants having the potential for being appropriately retrofitted, will create ample opportunities for deploying efficient and cost effective CO2 capture technologies. DOE's CO2 capture efforts seek to cost effectively capture and purify CO2 using post-combustion, pre-combustion, or oxy-combustion technologies for carbon capture.

Geologic sequestration is defined as the placement of CO2 into an underground repository in such a way that it will remain permanently stored.

DOE is investigating five types of underground formations for geologic sequestration, each with different challenges and opportunities for CO2 sequestration: (1) mature oil and natural gas reservoirs, (2) deep unmineable coal seams, (3) deep saline formations, (4) oil- and gas-rich organic shales, and (5) basalt formations.

The process of CO2 sequestration includes monitoring, mitigation, and verification (MM&V) as well as risk assessment at the sequestration site. DOE's MM&V efforts focus on development and deployment of technologies that can provide an accurate accounting of stored CO2 and a high level of confidence that the CO2 will remain permanently sequestered. Effective application of these MM&V technologies will ensure the safety of sequestration projects with respect to both human health and the environment, and provide the basis for establishing carbon credit trading markets for sequestered CO2. Risk assessment research focuses on identifying and quantifying potential risks to humans and the environment associated with CO2 sequestration and helping to ensure that these risks remain low.

Dangers of CO2 Sequestration in Sandstone Formation

From the New Scientist Print Edition, March 27, 2008 article by Fred Pearce -

"Coal produces around three times its own weight of CO2. This will all have to be pressurised, liquefied and moved to a site where it can be interred at depths of a kilometre or more, where the pressure will ensure that it stays liquid.

How secure would these burial grounds be? Opponents of CCS schemes recall the disaster in 1986, when a million tonnes of CO2 belched from the bottom of Lake Nyos in Cameroon. Being denser than air, the gas formed a blanket that asphyxiated some 1700 people. Though the event was entirely natural, it has left a potent image of what could go wrong. As Bert Metz, co-author of a 2005 report on CCS by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says: "Public acceptance is a possible show-stopper if things are not done properly."

Geologists don't dismiss the possibility of a catastrophic release, after an earthquake perhaps. But they see slow seepage as at least as important a concern. To prevent climate change, CO2 has to be stored safely for millennia. Even a leakage rate of 0.01 per cent a year - a suggested industry standard - would see almost two-thirds of the gas gone within 10,000 years. The legal question of who has long-term responsibility for stored carbon is also unresolved, and it could prove as convoluted a debate as that over nuclear waste. No surprise, then, that next to designing a capture plant, assessing the leakage threat is the major research focus for CCS."

Susan Hovorka of the University of Texas, Austin, the project's principal investigator,points out, " geologists will be under pressure to find burial sites close to power plants, where the rock formations may be less than perfect. "We know how to recognise an excellent site," she says. "But we need confidence about when to screen out sites that are too risky." She also admits there is no method yet for deciding how much CO2 a particular rock formation can absorb before leaking, and how to spot if things are going wrong

The furthest-advanced project is a test site at which engineers have injected 1600 tonnes of CO2 into a sandstone formation known as the Upper Frio on the Gulf coast of Texas. The rock, which once contained oil, is now flooded with salt water. An early report on the Frio project, published in the journal Geology by Yousif Kharaka of the US Geological Survey, points to a possible danger of storing CO2 in formations like these. The CO2 has acidified the brine, allowing it to dissolve metal-oxide minerals in the rock, and this, Kharaka says, might eventually create tunnels in the cap rock through which CO2 might escape.

An article about the Greenville, Ohio project, can be found by clicking you read it, make sure you note the words used over and over......"TEST" TESTING"
In their own words from that site -

"The Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP)1 is one of seven partnerships established by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to test the feasibility of geologic sequestration."

"The carbon dioxide would be stored permanently deep below the ground under the plant."

This statement suggests that it would all be contained right there, not migrate off their property.

"The site has geology that is likely to be suitable for carbon dioxide storage. The Mount Simon
Sandstone, which underlies the site, is the largest potential geologic reservoir for carbon
sequestration in the Midwest. The test will enable geologists to learn more about the capacity of this deep formation, which underlies parts of Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois and is estimated to have the capacity to store a large fraction of carbon dioxide emissions from large coal fired power plants in the Midwest for many decades."

"By the completion of the project in 2018, the injection site will be closed and will be returned to near the original condition that existed prior to implementation of the geologic storage demonstration test."

I ask you, HOW can the site be returned to "near original condition" after 1 million metric tons of supercritical CO2 is permanently injected into the ground......... who monitors this site afterwards? Who has the legal liability should YOUR home be damaged or destroyed in an earthquake as a result of this 'TEST" "EXPERIMENT"?

"CO2 measurement and monitoring approaches for subsurface processes have yet to be proven at the temporal and spatial scales relevant to geologic sequestration. While the current capabilities are not an impediment to undertaking CCS, monitoring and verification approaches will likely benefit from lessons learned through demonstration and early projects."

(Benson S. and L. Myer, 2008, “PIER white paper on Monitoring to Ensure Safe and Effective Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide.,” Assessment of Geologic Carbon Sequestration in California, E. Burton and R.Myhre, Eds. PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research, C‐500‐2008‐009.)

"the ability to assess carbon sequestration risks will improve with time and with experience. Especially in the early years, each sequestration site is not just a place to get rid of CO2; it is also an experiment that will provide valuable data for use in future sequestration efforts." (