CCS Guidelines from WRI

These excerpts come from this link

Principles for Meaningful Community Engagement
(1) Identify stakeholders early. X
(2) Define the intended outcomes of community engagement. X
(3) Determine whether to inform, consult, or negotiate. X
(4) Engage communities throughout the project cycle. X X X X X
(5) Allow communities to raise grievances. X X X X
(6) Promote internal and external monitoring. X X X X

SOUR C E : HE R B E R T SON 2 0 0 8

(note - allowing communities to raise grievances - interesting that there is no conflict resolution mentioned or considered)


Water Use

"Power plants, with or without CO2 capture, use large amounts of water."

"Note that water use for PC power plants more than doubles with the addition
of capture equipment."

"The impacts of increased water use associated with CO2 capture are related to the increased need for system cooling. As an alternative to wet cooling, facilities could use dry cooling technologies. There is a trade off between energy use and water use when dry cooling is employed. As a facility reduces water use, it increases energy use, which creates an additional energy penalty."

(Note- since the ethanol plant has been operating, we have had water issues and many wells go dry in the area close to it and now this calls for even MORE water, our most precious resource)


Seismic Activity (Page 74)

" The presence of seismically active faults does NOT exclude a site from either holding CO2 or being considered for storage, although a strong demonstration must be made that there would
be no risk of leakage resulting from seismic activity. There are many places in the world where large volumes of buoyant fluids (e.g., oil, gas, and CO2) are trapped indefinitely in the presence
of seismic activity, including California, Wyoming, Alaska, Turkey, Western Australia, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and Iran. After the injection of almost 9,000 metric tons of CO2 in the
Nagaoka CCS demonstration, operations were disrupted by the Mid-Niigata Chuetsu 6.0-magnitude earthquake. Following careful evaluation, it was determined that the wells, the
reservoir, and the facility were intact and undamaged, and injection resumed (RIITE 2008)."


" Many aspects of a fault affect its ability to trap CO2 at a site. These include the geometry of the fault, its complexity, the orientation of the fault relative to regional stresses, the amount
and distribution of fault goug e, and the occurrence of either elevated or reduced pressure nearby (Yielding 1997). In some cases, it is relatively straightforward to obtain key pieces of
information that can be used to understand the potential risks presented by a fault or network of faults. Recently, Chiaramonte et al. (2007) gathered information to estimate the potential for
faults within one oil field to transmit CO2. In their calculation, one fault had a very low chance of becoming transmissive, and would require injections well above reasonable operational
pressures to act as a leakage conduit. In contrast, another fault network in a different part of the field would act as a conduit for CO2 in the presence of even a small injection. If this were an
operational site, the southern part of the field would be a good zone of storage, while the northern part would not because of the possibility for transmissive faults at operational pressures."

"This example highlights the need for careful site characterization in selection and the importance of high-quality data. The presence of large, active faults should not necessarily preclude prospective sites from selection as storage sites. Rather, the complex nature of faults in and associated with potential injection sites must be characterized, considered, and managed as part of a risk assessment and MMV plan. Hazard identification should focus on faults that could be transmissive within the injection reservoir or confining zone and expected project footprint, as faults only represent a substantial hazard if they can transmit large volumes of CO2."

(Note - the people who plan and conduct these risky experiments do not live in these communities nor do they have plans to live in them - In our community residents have been told that once CO2 injection enters the picture their homeowner's insurance will not cover man-made earthquakes.

The IMPACT OF Geosequestration on WATER SUPPLIES

April 17, 2009

America's Climate Choices
The National Academies
500 5th St. NW, W603
Washington, DC 20001

RE: Summary of Submission to the Panel on Limiting the Magnitude of Future
Climate Change

Dear Committee Members:

The American Water Works Association (AWWA), the Association of Metropolitan
Water Agencies (AMWA) and the Water Research Foundation (Foundation) are
submitting these joint comments to the America's Climate Choices Panel on Limiting the
Magnitude of Future Climate Change. AMWA and AWWA together represent drinking
water utilities of all sizes that serve more than 90% of the U.S. population. The
Foundation sponsors research to enable water utilities to provide safe and affordable
drinking water to consumers. In 2008 the Foundation established the Climate Change
Strategic Initiative – a research program focused on impacts of climate change on water
supplies.

AWWA, AMWA and the Foundation are very concerned with the effects of climate
change on water resources as many of the most critical impacts of global climate
change will manifest themselves through the hydrologic system. Because the exact
effects of climate change on water resources are uncertain and will vary by region, the
drinking water, wastewater, flood management, and stormwater utilities responsible for
managing water resources for local communities face daunting challenges. These
water utilities are already preparing to mitigate, adapt and plan for climate change in the
midst of the uncertainties about the potential ranges of climate change impacts.

This joint letter summarizes the three documents we are submitting for consideration
during the study process. The documents include:
 Comments on the Sub-Questions: We have reviewed the final four key
questions to be addressed by the Committee and provided responses to each.
The responses include suggested short and long-term actions and technological
advances that can help the water sector address its needs related to the impacts
of climate change on water resources. We submit these suggestions for the
Committee to consider as recommended future actions.

The Authoritative Resource on Safe WaterSM
 Water Embodied in Bioethanol in the United States: This article, which was
recently published in Environment Science and Technology, addresses the
continually increasing amount of water used during the production of bioethanol
in the United States. The energy sector and the water sector are becoming more
and more interdependent, and the implementation of new climate change
mitigation technologies could have significant impacts on the availability of our
water resources. We submit this article for consideration during the discussion of
limiting the magnitude of climate change.

 Comments developed for EPA on Geologic Carbon Sequestration: In 2008,
AWWA and AMWA developed comments on the Environmental Protection
Agency’s proposed rule on geologic carbon sequestration injection under the
Underground Injection Control Program. These comments are submitted for
consideration because they provide more detail on our specific concerns
regarding the use of carbon sequestration as a large-scale greenhouse gas
mitigation technology.

AWWA, AMWA and the Foundation are also submitting detailed joint comments to each
of the other three panels within the America's Climate Choices Study and to the
Committee on America’s Climate Choices.

Sincerely,
q
Diane VanDe Hei Tom Curtis
Executive Director, AMWA Deputy Executive Director, AWWA
Robert C. Renner
Executive Director, Water Research Foundation

Read the full article with attachments here

Interesting - CO2 - Water Displacement and Usage

Is it just me or does something seem wrong here?

For months, I've been reading articles about the "safety" of injecting CO2 into the deep sandstone aquifer that is filled with saline water - often called "fossil water". It is said to be considerably more salty than ocean water, so much so that it would never be considered for desalination.

Now this article talks about the Jim Bridger power plant, representing Wyoming's largest source of CO2 emissions, and saline being displaced with the CO2 injection and bringing the saline water to the surface......and being desalinated and returned to the river. (Even MORE POWER (COAL) AND WATER USED - MORE CO2 released into the atmosphere.......with no mention of it possibly getting into our fresh water aquifers)

From the Casper, WY Star-Tribune, March 30, 2009 -

"Thousands of feet below that plant are several sandstone and limestone dome-shaped strata sealed under pressure in a way that makes the "Rock Springs Uplift" ideal for storing huge amounts of injected CO2 -- in excess of 26 billion metric tons, according to early estimates.

"Injecting CO2 into the rock -- no problem. The rock will accept it. The critical problem is the water. That's a major challenge," said Zunsheng Jiao, senior geologist at the Wyoming State Geological Survey.

The porous sandstone and limestone formations are packed with saline water. Jiao said CO2 can be injected into the formations, but it will displace the water on a one-to-one basis. Managing this water presents another set of logistical and fiscal challenges, and it demonstrates the awkward and arduous task of making carbon capture and storage a reality."

It goes on to say, "The technology to capture CO2 is available for large-scale demonstration today, but you wouldn't say yet the technology has been proven at large scale," Procopis said. "These are expensive projects. In the absence of carbon regulation and carbon credits, a utility can't justify the expense."


"The problem of displacing huge amounts of saline water through the injection of CO2 also represents opportunity, according to Wyoming State Geologist Ron Surdam.

The water can be brought to the surface and treated for drinking water or for industrial use, or even for displacement water in accordance with the Colorado River Compact, a multistate agreement governing water distribution in the Colorado River Basin."

Read the entire article here

CO2 Sequestration Requires LARGER fresh water supply!

"The exhaust must be compressed and liquified to inject it into the ground. Most of the heat must be removed from the exhaust in order to compress it. In a normal coal-fired powerplant, a large fraction of the waste heat is rejected by simply venting the exhaust into the air. In a CO2 sequestrating facility, you need a big heat exchanger and a cooling tower to do that work. Oh, and a larger fresh water supply."

The link to the entire article is here

Impact of Carbon Capture and Sequestration on Water Demand

Impact of Carbon Capture and Sequestration on Water Demand for Existing &
Future Power Plants

Not only does Carbon Capture and Sequestration use more COAL - it also uses MORE of our most precious resource - WATER! You will want to click on the link below to read the full article and look at their example of the amount of water used.



"Impacts of Operation on Water:

Capture & Compression: Increased power consumption for capture and compression directly reduces the facility power output -- results in increased water consumption above that for a similar facility without capture

Pipeline Transport: Pumping power required to boost carbon dioxide pressure during pipeline transport to maintain supercritical conditions further diminishes power generation facility output -- results in increased water consumption

Underground Injection: Additional power may be required for injection operations -- indirectly increases water consumption; water may be produced by sequestration operations which displace reservoir fluids"

"Conclusions

• Extreme variability exists in water production rates associated with geological sequestration operations

- The viability of potential sequestration locations requires assessment of the geological features of each specific site

• In some cases, water production during sequestration activities can be greater than water consumption during power generation and carbon capture

- Water generated during sequestration is often re-injected into a reservoir to aid continued oil/gas production

- Water produced during sequestration activities may require extensive remediation to make it potable or acceptable for agricultural uses

• Water production/usage during sequestration operations can dramatically effect the economic"

Click here to read the entire article