TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

CCS - Carbon Capture and Storage

Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by dpeilow, Nov 6, 2010.

  1. dpeilow

    dpeilow Moderator

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    8,572
    Location:
    Winchester, UK
    Netherlands stops Shell's CO2 storage project

    Netherlands stops Shell's CO2 storage project


    Shell’s Barendrecht Carbon-Capture Project Canceled

     
  2. Fuzzylogic

    Fuzzylogic EU Sport 359 & S94

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    336
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I live about 2 Km from the injection point, so i'm glad that they didn't allow Shell to continue with this stupid project.
     
  3. doug

    doug Administrator / Head Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    15,914
    Location:
    Stanford, California
    Living on Earth: Death of Carbon Capture?
    TOPccs%20copy.jpg

     
  4. TEG

    TEG TMC Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    17,252
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    Some more quotes:

    (Since it costs extra money to operate, they only intend to take it past the demonstration stage if it is government mandated...)
    So they demonstrated that some parts of the technology can work, but that is about it.
     
  5. Doug_G

    Doug_G Lead Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    15,853
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    It might work, but does the gas really stay in there long-term? After all they've made a bunch of holes in the reservoir. Can you tell if it doesn't stay in there? Also it takes about 30% more coal to generate the energy required to capture the carbon.
     
  6. doug

    doug Administrator / Head Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    15,914
    Location:
    Stanford, California
    Yeah, it's the storage part that I'm wary about. I'd be worried about a Lake Nyos type disaster. Would be better if we could do something productive with the captured carbon. Use it to feed algae (for biofuels), or greenhouses, or some chemical-industrial processes.
     
  7. zack

    zack Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    946
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Storage of CO2 underground is just kicking the can down the road to future generations. Solar and wind, please! Wave, geothermal, and anything else we can think of! Let's not waste time and money on something that puts CO2 somewhere that might end up back in the atmosphere eventually. Let's put all of our efforts into fixing this problem!
     
  8. Eberhard

    Eberhard #421 Model S #S32

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,141
    Location:
    Germany
    The best way to store carbon - keep the fossils in the ground. No need to store C02. What about the oxygen? - The level will be sent down will burning fossils. Or we can turn wood to charcoal and burry the charcoal into the ground - an great fertilizer.
     
  9. S-2000 Roadster

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    636
    The public reaction to these plans makes no sense in terms of science. What possible danger could CO2 present in an underground reservoirs? If the reservoirs did not already exist, then I would certainly understand opposition to drilling or digging, since that might upset things above ground. However, they were considering using natural gas reservoirs which have already been emptied in the past. If anything, it seems that it would be safer to replace that natural gas with CO2 instead of leaving it empty (well, I suppose there's 'air' in there now, not a vacuum).

    Does anyone have actual scientific reasoning to fear storing CO2 in existing, depleted natural gas reservoirs?
     
  10. dpeilow

    dpeilow Moderator

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    8,572
    Location:
    Winchester, UK
    Is it stored under pressure?
     
  11. Eberhard

    Eberhard #421 Model S #S32

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,141
    Location:
    Germany
    around 30bar, depends on temperature
     
  12. dpeilow

    dpeilow Moderator

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    8,572
    Location:
    Winchester, UK
    So with a failure of the injection equipment or fissure in the geology it could leak out. There's your reason.
     
  13. Lloyd

    Lloyd Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,886
    Location:
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Also, the amount of Carbon that you would be able to inject would be infintessimal compared to the amount already naturally in the environment.
     
  14. TEG

    TEG TMC Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    17,252
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    Sometimes people worry that a large pressurized storage facility could leak into a valley or a building and cause asphyxiation...
    http://www.maineoxy.com/images/monthsafetips/may06safetip.pdf
    I think CO2 is heavier than air so it can collect along the ground and doesn't just float away readily like some other gasses.
     
  15. S-2000 Roadster

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    636
    Good points. Maybe these systems will always be "catch and release," except that they'll get carbon credits for catching the CO2 and then it will end up being released while nobody is watching.
     
  16. dpeilow

    dpeilow Moderator

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    8,572
    Location:
    Winchester, UK
  17. dhrivnak

    dhrivnak Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,150
    Location:
    NE Tennessee
    One of the neatest ideas I have heard to capture CO2; is to use power plant flue gas to make a type of calcium carbonate cement. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cement-from-carbon-dioxide The idea is to scrub about 90% of the CO2 from the flue gas by combining it with calcium in seawater to make calcium carbonate cement. With cement production being the #3 emitter of CO2 this solves two problems by eliminating this large source of CO2 emissions and by helping to scrub it out flue gas in a coal powered plant. If we make buildings and roads out of the stuff it would effectively sequester CO2 for centuries. And there is no chance of CO2 seeping out and suffocating people.
     
  18. Doug_G

    Doug_G Lead Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    15,853
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    CCS sounds fishy to me. It reportedly takes 30% more energy, and therefore more than 30% extra coal (the extra coal produces more CO2), to produce the energy needed to pump the CO2 into the underground reservoir. That's a pretty big overhead. Plus if there is any risk of the stuff leaking out, it will make things worse instead of better.
     
  19. VolkerP

    VolkerP EU Model S P-37

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,455
    Location:
    Germany
    I am not sure if this will help. Turning CO2 into carbonic acid and making it react with Calcium from sea water will speed up the acidification of our oceans.

    It is a lot easier to leave the carbon in the ground then to sequester it.
     
  20. dhrivnak

    dhrivnak Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,150
    Location:
    NE Tennessee
    I agree it is far better to leave the carbon in the ground. But it will take time to make the switch and we will need concrete. This process does not lead to acidification as the CO2 ends up being locked in aa solid concrete.
     

Share This Page