Sunday, August 2, 2009

RISKS - What They DON'T Want You To Know!

Do you have a CCS Project targeted for your community?

Do your research!

Many companies pushing this "technology" have done, or participated in, studies to determine how to gain public acceptance and trust. Some of the information include statements referencing when and if to tell the public.... (some suggesting you should tell when VISIBLE)

Other companies and consultants do risk analysis.....

Development of Risk Log -

16 experts and stakeholders rank priority and cost for each event and damage - with the results tabulated and assessed"


Harm to Workers
Harm to the Public
Environmental Damages
Cautionary Events
Property Damage
Project Delays/Cost Overruns

To see a PowerPoint that addresses this issue, click here

Note Page 15 on the above PowerPoint - "Short term, the potential for low probability/high cost events is problematic because it is not zero"

Carbon sequestration frustration Burying carbon dioxide from coal-fired plants could increase other pollutants

To read the entire article from Science News please click here.....

Another reason why CCS does not make sense.......... it exists to keep Big Coal burning.

Web edition : Wednesday, August 13th, 2008
font_down font_up Text Size
As pollution bad guys go, carbon dioxide may be the media darling, but trying to capture it and lock it away could allow other repeat offenders to go free.

Power plant emissions that cause acid rain, water pollution and destruction of the ozone layer may actually be made worse by capturing the CO2 and pumping it deep underground, a new study reported online and in an upcoming International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control suggests.

This increase of other emissions is largely because collecting and burying CO2 — a process called carbon sequestration — requires additional energy, new equipment and new chemical reactions at the plants. And using current technology, meeting all of these requirements releases extra pollutants.

“Other studies mostly just look at one aspect, the carbon capture,” says study coauthor Joris Koornneef, an environmental scientist at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. “This is a first step in trying to quantify the [environmental] trade-offs.”

Captured CO2 must be compressed to about 100 times atmospheric pressure (which takes energy), transported to a suitable underground reservoir (which takes energy) and pumped into the ground (which takes energy). A coal-fired power plant that sequesters its CO2 must burn about 30 percent more coal than conventional plants to cover these energy needs. And that extra coal must first be mined (which has environmental effects) and transported to the plant (which takes fuel) — the list goes on and on.

Even with this extra burden, a CO2-burying plant emits between 71 and 78 percent less CO2 than a normal coal-fired plant for each unit of usable electricity produced, Koornneef and his colleagues report. But when the researchers factored in all the “cradle to grave” pollution of a CO2-burying plant, emissions of acid rain-causing gases like nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides were up to 40 percent greater than the total cradle-to-grave emissions of a modern plant that doesn’t capture its CO2. Continue

How long has Darke County (Greenville), OH been on the MRCSP radar?


Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership
NETL Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-05NT42589

Submitted by Battelle
November 2007

Apparently, much longer than we were aware of...... this report mentions a geological study being done in 2002 and many more "interesting" facts about the Battelle-led MRCSP Phase III large-scale project, including some of these:

Test Location Primary Site:
The Andersons Marathon Ethanol (TAME) Plant, Greenville,Ohio.

Optional Site:
Duke IGCC plant, Edwardsport, Indiana

"CO2 storage simulations have been carried out in earlier research by members of the MRCSP
team for the Mt. Simon in west-central Ohio near the TAME Ethanol site (Gupta et al 2002).
While these early models were not in the exact same location as the proposed projects, the
results are similar to what may be expected for these general areas. Key input parameters in the
simulations were based on best available regional data, and the parameters are not site specific,
but they are fairly reasonable for the Mt. Simon in the respective area. These initial models indicate that injection rates of over 1 million tons of CO2 per year may be sustained in the Mt. Simon at the TAME site."

"Emissions from large point sources in the MRCSP region are approximately 765 million metric tons CO2"

"Continues to develop and establish a CCS framework in the region with ongoing geologic framework, regional carbon sequestration exploration, and outreach efforts. "

Workshop Summary - Long Term Liability Potentially Associated with Carbon Capture and Sequestration

The excerpts below are from the following web site and the entire article can be found there. Click here to go to live link -

Workshop Summary
Long Term Liability Potentially Associated
with Carbon Capture and Sequestration

1 November 2007

Review of Priority Ranking of Risks - done so they can step back and look at CCS projects with an investors eye..... to make sure they will fund the projects.

Click here to go to the WRI site