Showing posts with label Carbon Sequestration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carbon Sequestration. Show all posts

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Exploratory study of some potential environmental impacts of CO2 sequestration in unmineable coal seams

From the web site -  http://inderscience.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,10,14;journal,28,88;linkingpublicationresults,1:110851,1

International Journal of Environment and Pollution
  Issue:  Volume 29, Number 4 / 2007
http://inderscience.metapress.com/link.asp?id=68533067269455g4
An initial investigation into the potential environmental impacts of CO2 sequestration in unmineable coal seams has been conducted, focusing on changes in the produced water during enhanced coalbed methane (ECBM) production, using a CO2 injection process (CO2-ECBM). A high volatile bituminous coal, Pittsburgh No. 8, was reacted with synthetic produced water and gaseous carbon dioxide at 40C and 50 bar to evaluate the potential for mobilisation of toxic metals during CO2-ECBM/sequestration. Microscopic and X-ray diffraction analysis of the post-reaction coal samples clearly show evidence of chemical reaction and chemical analysis of the synthetic produced water shows substantial changes in composition. These results suggest that changes to the produced water chemistry and the potential for mobilising toxic trace elements from coal beds are important factors to be considered when evaluating deep, unmineable coal seams for CO2 sequestration.

Saturday, August 8, 2009

CO2 Sequestration R&D Overview - HIGH RISK




The information on this page comes from this link







Fossil fuels will remain the mainstay of energy production well into the
21st century. Availability of these fuels to provide clean, affordable energy is
essential for the prosperity and security of the United States. However,
increased concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) due to carbon emissions are
expected unless energy systems reduce the carbon emissions to the atmosphere.

Roughly one third of the United States' carbon emissions come from power
plants and other large point sources. To stabilize and ultimately reduce
concentrations of this greenhouse gas, it will be necessary to employ carbon
sequestration - carbon capture, separation and storage or reuse.



MORE INFO
Program Overview: NETL's Carbon Sequestration
Program
Carbon Sequestration FAQ Information Portal


The
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) underscored
the importance of carbon sequestration in its report "Federal Energy Research
and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty First Century." PCAST
recommended increasing the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) R&D for
carbon sequestration. The report stated: "A much larger science-based CO2
sequestration program should be developed. The aim should be to provide a
science-based assessment of the prospects and costs of CO2 sequestration. This is very high-risk, long-term R&D that will not be undertaken by industry alone without strong incentives or regulations, although industry experience and capabilities will be very useful." (quote color enhanced by RPR)

The joint Office of Fossil Energy and Office of Science April 1999
draft report Carbon Sequestration: State of the Science subsequently has
assessed "...key areas for research and development (R&D) that could lead to
an understanding of the potential for future use of carbon sequestration as a
major tool for managing carbon emissions."

To be successful, the techniques and practices to sequester carbon must meet the following requirements:

be effective and cost-competitive,
provide stable,
long term storage, and
be environmentally benign.

Using present technology, estimates of sequestration costs are in the range of $100 to $300/ton of carbon emissions avoided. The goal of the program is to reduce the
cost of carbon sequestration to $10 or less per net ton of carbon emissions
avoided by 2015. Achieving this goal would save the U.S. trillions of dollars.

Further, achieving a mid-point stabilization scenario (e.g., 550 parts
per million CO2) would not require wholesale introduction of zero emission
systems in the near term. This would allow time to develop cost effective
technology over the next 10-15 years that could be deployed for new capacity and
capital stock replacement capacity.

Modeling and assessments provide the capabilities to evaluate technology options in a total systems context (i.e., considering costs and impacts over the full product cycle). Further, the societal and environmental effects are analyzed to provide a basis for assessing trade-offs between local environmental impacts and global impacts.


Wednesday, July 29, 2009

CO2 Sequestration - Does NOT work


Ike Solem says:

Read the full story here


The reality is not quite as rosy as it looks. This same issue arose in 2007, when the nuclear industry tried to force $50 billion in loan guarantees through. Historically, nuclear and coal and oil have received giant federal subsidies in the form of loan guarantees, tax breaks, and direct subsidies via zero-oversight federal contracting deals. Despite popular pressure to roll back these subsidies and promises by politicians to do so, they largely remain intact – only gross expansions of these subsidies have been defeated – and according to reports, the $2 billion for the FutureGen “clean coal” project remains in the bill.

That’s $2 billion for one generation plant using an apparently failed technology. (The U.S. federal budget for ALL solar photovoltaic research is about 1/20th of that, $100 million) The technology is secret and proprietary and is controlled by a financial consortium of private coal interests (i.e. Southern, Peabody, BHPBilliton, etc.) and military government contractors (Battelle, the primary organizer). There are no published papers on the technology, which they refuse to talk about because it is proprietary. Try asking the technical advisers about it:

http://www.futuregenalliance.org/alliance/advisors.stm

Battelle is the world’s largest private research corporation, who manages five National Labs for the Department of Energy and plays the leading role in the U.S. biological warfare program, as well as in many other areas of military and commercial R&D. They are the proprietary controllers of FutureGen technology, and they’ve never published anything on it either. Despite the public financing of the project, Battelle insists that only “non-proprietary performance data” can be released, whatever that means. Fraud is the most likely story here.

The fact of the matter is that carbon sequestration-based coal combustion does not work, and will never work, on simple physical arguments. There’s also no prototype – for example, a car that drives down the road while capturing all CO2 emissions in the trunk. Try sticking a potato in the tailpipe – that’s what all CO2 sequestration involves – massive power losses. It’s likely that if you could design a coal plant that captured 90% of its CO2 emissions, it would only produce 10% of the power (per ton of coal) that a dirty modern coal plant does. There’s no way around it, especially if the coal is loaded up with sulfur and mercury and arsenic, as is typical.

What we don’t see is $2 billion to build an integrated wind-solar power system with backup biomass generations in some city as a test case. They are doing this in Germany – but not here. The reason for that is that the Democratic politicians from the coal states are dedicated supporters of the coal industry, and yes, that does include Obama and Dick Durbin, as well as Jeff Bingaman.

The last thing the coal industry wants to see is a city anywhere in the U.S. that operates entirely on renewable power – but it can be done, and it would be the perfect example. $2 billion would be a good initial investment – but there would be howls from the fossil fuel industry, that’s for sure – and they own Congress, more or less. You don’t see oil executives and coal executives being hauled before Congress the way the auto and finance executives were, do you? And no one is asking financiers why they are investing their bailout money in fossil fuels and not in renewables, either. (Bloomberg reported that Morgan Stanley and Citigroup were buying oil up and storing it in supertankers – a way to drive up the price, or to reserve oil for when prices rise – and these banks are also invested in fossil fuels, thanks to the repeal of Glass-Steagall banking rules c.1999 – and that’s why those rules were put in place – banks should not be able to loan their customer’s money to firms that they hold shares in, period).

I would put the celebrations on hold – this stimulus package is the equivalent of a band aid on a shark bite. There’s a whole lot of work to be done still, and the issues are very complicated. This was not a defeat for coal interests – they lost nothing, and even gained a little something. It would be a lot easier if the press would honestly cover this story, but they haven’t.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Western KY Drilling of Test Well underway



This information comes from the Kentucky Geological Survey site
Click on the link to be taken to the this article on their web site
http://www.uky.edu/KGS/announce/joint_project.htm

Joint project involves state, public and private participants

Fifteen months after project planning began, drilling has started in Hancock County, Ky., for a test well to research the permanent storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) deep underground in western Kentucky. The 8,300-foot well will help determine the feasibility of injecting CO2 into geologic formations to help reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The project is the result of a joint effort between Kentucky state government agencies, the Kentucky Geological Survey (KGS), and a consortium of public and private participants.

This project was made possible by a $5 million grant awarded to the geological survey from the Kentucky Department for Energy Development and Independence as a result of appropriations from the Kentucky General Assembly. A portion of this grant is used for the west Kentucky project, with substantial matching funds provided by industry partners. The KGS recruited corporate partners who have contributed the majority of the funding and services crucial to completing the project.

NorAm Drilling, Inc. of Houston, Texas, has been selected to drill the well, a task that is expected to take 45 to 60 days. To protect shallow groundwater and oil and gas resources of the drilling site, the upper 3,800 feet of the well will be lined with steel casing.

Project plans call for drilling through the Knox and Mount Simon formations to test their potential to permanently store CO2. Studies have indicated these formations may have characteristics needed for such storage. The well will penetrate Precambrian basement rocks at its total depth. Samples of geologic formations will be taken for testing and analysis, and up to 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide will be injected into deep formations to further the understanding of the feasibility of commercial CO2 storage.

State grant funding will also be used for a similar deep carbon dioxide storage test in eastern Kentucky and enhanced oil/enhanced gas recovery projects. Progress reports on all of these projects are available at the website of the Kentucky Consortium for Carbon Storage, www.kyccs.org.

TENTATIVE PROJECT TIMELINE:

  • Spring 2009: Drilling phase. (Drilling expected to take 45 – 60 days; well of about 8,300 feet will be cored in intervals, geophysical surveys completed and interpreted and prepared for injection testing.)
  • Spring - Summer 2009: Start of injection testing with brine and CO2. Deeper porous zones will be tested for injection capacity.
  • Summer - Winter 2009: Post-injection monitoring of well site. Interpretation of drilling and testing results and preparation of final reports. Project completed, and well plugged and abandoned per Kentucky and U.S. EPA specifications. Environmental monitoring to continue over the next several years.

PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT:

  • Kentucky Geological Survey
  • University of Kentucky
  • Commonwealth of Kentucky
  • Kentucky Energy and the Environment Cabinet
  • Western Kentucky Carbon Storage Foundation: (Members: ConocoPhillips, E.ON US, Peabody Energy)
  • Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
  • Tennessee Valley Authority
  • Schlumberger Carbon Services
  • GEO Consultants, LLC
  • Sandia Technologies, LLC
  • Smith Management Group
  • Wyatt, Tarrant, and Combs

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Keep your eyes open - an easier introduction of CCS into your area

Attention Ohioans! Don't let this happen to you!

It's an interesting article - mentions how Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS or CO2 sequestration) could be introduced into an area without the public being aware of it as a CCS project.... or with more public acceptance........after all, who wouldn't let them explore your property if they thought they'd find oil and gas....and needed to push it out of the ground with CO2.... known as EOR - Enhanced Oil Recovery.

Ohio is mentioned in this article!


Read the entire story by clicking on this link -