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.

Risks Related to CO2 Sequestration, - LOTS OF RISKS

This is a great link to a web page that has A LOT OF INFORMATION about the risks associated with CO2 sequestration, also referred to as Geosequestration or "GS" - scroll up and down... you will find it addresses things like - risks to workers, the public, ecosystem, microbes in the ground, drinking water and the contamination it is likely to cause, it is one of the most complete sources of risks that I have seen for CCS ( Carbon Capture and Sequestration)

Click below -
This link is WELL WORTH YOUR TIME!


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Below -from the web site:
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090320/ccs-cant-make-tar-sands-clean
Click on the link to read the entire article... bold print is my emphasis.

"Chasing CCS is a money burner and an energy hog, and it may not deliver much carbon savings. The whole reactive proposition raises extreme security and liability issues for industry and taxpayers alike.

It Takes Energy to Bury CO2

The chief obstacle to CCS is cost. Right now, no country buries lots of CO2 because it is not economical. John Pavlish, a senior U.S. researcher on CCS at North Dakota's Energy and Environmental Research Center, notes that CCS would raise the cost of a power plant by 35 to 100 percent which, in turn, would increase electric bills by 30 to 80 percent. Without a $40 to $80 price tag on a tonne of CO2, not much carbon will ever get buried.

It takes a lot energy to capture, compress and inject CO2 into the ground. In fact 30, percent of the power generated by a coal-fired facility or tar sands power plant would be cannibalized by a CO2 retrofit.

That’s great news for coal companies because CCS demands that utilities burn more coal instead of building windmills.

Storage problems

Security of storage is also a concern. Not too many places in North America are suitable for carbon burial due to earthquake risks or high density oil and gas drilling. Improperly sealed wells or faulty cement jobs could invite great volumes of CO2 back to the surface. Leaks could also acidify groundwater.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example, dutifully notes that Alberta is a pin cushion. With more than 350,000 oil and gas wells, it is one of the most intensely drilled landscapes in the world. In other words, CO2 could find its way back to the surface and into people’s basements and wells.

CO2 injection may also cause man-made earthquakes. The rapid depletion of gas wells and the water flooding of oil wells have caused a series of documented earthquakes in Alberta, Texas and the Netherlands. Geologists call it “induced seismicity.” The largest earthquakes ever recorded in Alberta were triggered by oil and gas activity. Natural Resources Canada recently studied a series of earthquakes caused by sour gas removal at the Strachan gas plant in Rocky Mountain House.

Although the technology for capturing, compressing and piping carbon is doable, not much is known about rapid CO2 injection into old oil reservoirs or salty aquifers.

Independent research by University of Calgary engineer Minzghe Dong shows that each and every reservoir behaves differently and has to be carefully prepared. If most of the oil and water isn’t removed, the reservoir will chemically react with CO2 and limit the amount of disposal space. Scientists have yet to show that the rock cap sealing salt aquifers can actually safely contain CO2.

Liability is no small cross in the carbon cemetery either. Buried CO2 must be monitored for thousands of years, a task few regulators really want to undertake. Industry doesn’t want to invest in CCS until government (read taxpayers) assumes the liabilities of leaks and groundwater contamination. Wyoming, the largest coal producing state, wisely passed legislation that places the liability for the unintended consequences of CCS on the utility or oil company that injects it.

It is reactive program, not a proactive one. The technology costs too much and won't scale up in time to make a difference. It directly robs taxpayers and subsidizes the world’s wealthiest industry. And it steals dollars from renewable programs. What CCS does is give coal and oil companies taxpayer money to accelerate hydrocarbon consumption by nearly one third."

Carbon sequestration: bury the idea, not the CO2

I'm a long way from the Dutch town of Barendrecht but I feel the same way.........Not under MY backyard.....and I'll go the extra mile and say..........OR YOURS!!!

Carbon Capture and Storage does ONE THING successfully - it allows the Coal Industry to keep on burning coal..................that is the real goal, isn't it now?

________________________________________________________________


Dutch Stand Up to Shell’s Plan to Bury CO2 (Update1)
( link to the complete story is included below)

By Fred Pals

April 20 (Bloomberg) -- The Dutch town of Barendrecht has a message for Royal Dutch Shell Plc: Not under my backyard.

The oil company and the Netherlands government intend to build the first of a new generation of carbon-dioxide storage facilities in two depleted natural-gas fields in Barendrecht. The plan is to capture emissions from a gasification hydrogen plant at Shell’s nearby Pernis refinery and then store the CO2 more than a mile below area homes, preventing the greenhouse gas from reaching the air and harming the environment.

“I don’t think this is the solution to the CO2 problem,” said 53-year-old resident Gerard van Gils. “Why do a project in a residential area and not offshore? The atomic bomb wasn’t tested under Manhattan. To me this means: Not under my backyard.”

Barendrechters like Van Gils say they’re concerned about safety and a possible drop in property values. Governments around the world want energy companies to store CO2 instead of releasing it, to combat global warming. The Netherlands aims to bury 30 million tons of CO2 by 2030 and is spending about 750 million euros ($980 million) in three years on CO2 reduction.

Carbon capture and storage, or CCS, involves extracting CO2 from power generation and industrial projects, compressing it and injecting it into depleted oil and gas fields or saline aquifers. The technology would allow prolonged use of coal for electricity generation while reducing greenhouse pollution.

Environmental Assessment

An independent environmental assessment this month will determine whether the project at Barendrecht, on the outskirts of Rotterdam, addresses all concerns. The city council, which so far has opposed the plan, will deliver a final decision by June 29. That can still be overruled by the Dutch government, which commissioned the project.

In its preliminary finding, the council said public support was “lacking” and asked Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer to halt the venture.

“This project is an experiment, and we don’t think that it is a good idea to have that in a densely populated area,” Simon Zuurbier, alderman of the city council, said in an interview. “It would be better to do it somewhere else.”

Test Projects

The Barendrecht project is one of two Dutch prototypes for a pair of larger facilities that must be up and running by 2015 for the country to cut emissions by 30 percent in 2020.

The second prototype is being developed in the southern province of Limburg, where a unit of French utility GDF Suez SA and Dutch chemical company Royal DSM NV plan to store at least 2 millions tons of CO2 in the next decade.

Civic opposition to the Barendrecht facility may make the project a test case for similar projects elsewhere in Europe. The European Union plans to make 9 billion euros available for CCS pilot projects near power plants in the 27-nation bloc to prove the commercial viability of the technology.

Shell plans to store 400,000 tons of CO2 a year at Barendrecht, the equivalent to 5.4 million euros worth of European Union carbon dioxide permits, based on the April 17 spot price of 13.40 euros a ton on the BlueNext exchange.

Shell Netherlands CEO Peter de Wit said the Barendrecht project is the quickest way to gain experience for large-scale CO2 storage in the Netherlands.

International Efforts

“Given its geologic resources and its position as a gas supplier, it is commendable that the Netherlands take a leadership role in trying to build global consensus on a liability and regulatory solution for CCS,” the IEA said in a February review of the Dutch energy policy.

In Barendrecht, Van Gils isn’t so sure. He said he’s concerned that his apartment, which is next to an elementary school and above the perimeter of the proposed storage site, may be prone to gas leaks or shifting earth. More than a 1,000 people showed up to question the government and Shell on the project at town hall meetings in February, according to the city council’s Web site.

“The vast majority doesn’t want this,” Van Gils said. “It has to take something to get people in Barendrecht out of their homes and attend such a meeting.”

Last Updated: April 20, 2009 Read the complete link - The link to the above article is here