Field test could lead to reducing CO2 emissions worldwide (sequestration in deep basalt formation)

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=997

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Field test could lead to reducing CO[font size="3"]₂[/font] emissions worldwide[/font]

July 26, 2013

Geoffrey Harvey, PNNL, [phone]
Destry Henderson, Boise Inc., [phone]
Lindsey Tollefson, MSU, [phone]

[font size=4]Wallula carbon dioxide injection into deep basalt formation underway[/font]

[font size=3]WALLULA, Wash. – An injection of carbon dioxide, or CO[font size="1"]₂[/font], has begun at a site in southeastern Washington to test deep geologic storage. Battelle researchers based at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory are injecting 1,000 tons of CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] one-half mile underground to see if the greenhouse gas can be stored safely and permanently in ancient basalt flows.

Boise Inc. teamed with Battelle, which operates PNNL for the U.S. Department of Energy, and Praxair, Inc. to conduct the CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] injection phase of the pilot project. Injection is occurring on Boise property in deep basalt — the same massive ancient lava flows that underlie major portions of Washington, Oregon and Idaho. The joint research is conducted under the Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Partnership, which is led by Montana State University and funded by DOE and a consortium of industrial partners. It is one of seven regional partnerships throughout the United States aimed at finding safe and economical ways to permanently store the nation's greenhouse gas emissions.

"We have been conducting laboratory tests on basalts from the region for several years that have conclusively demonstrated the unique geochemical nature of basalts to quickly react with CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] and form carbonate minerals or solid rock, the safest and most permanent form for storage in the subsurface," said Battelle project manager Pete McGrail. "However convincing the laboratory data may be, proving the same processes operate deep underground can only be done by conducting a successful field demonstration. We have taken the very first steps to do that here in Wallula."

During the next two to three weeks, Battelle scientists will work with Praxair technicians to inject into porous layers of basalt CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] that has been compressed into a liquid-like state. Thick and impermeable layers of rock above these porous layers will act as barriers or seals to prevent the CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] from travelling vertically upward.

Over the next 14 months, fluid samples will be extracted from the injection well. Scientists will look for changes in chemical composition in comparison to baseline data compiled prior to injection. Scientists will also compare results to predictions made using PNNL's supercomputer. At the end of the monitoring period, rock samples will be taken from the well. They are expected to exhibit the formation of limestone crystals as a result of CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] reacting with minerals in the basalt.

…

According to recent DOE estimates, the United States and portions of Canada have enough potential capacity in geologic formations to store as much as 900 years of CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] emissions. If the Wallula demonstration is successful, basalt flows in many parts of the world may serve as storage locations to store CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] emissions from a variety of industrial facilities.

…[/font][/font]

[eppur_se_muova]

1. And compressed gas underground *could* leak back out ...

particularly if someone tries fracking nearby.

Good money for Battelle, even if it leads nowhere. Thus the project is justified.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. You’re missed the whole point of this approach

It won’t be a gas, stored indefinitely in a pressure vessel; the gas should react with the basalt to form limestone.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28622

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Western States to Host First Test of Carbon Sequestration in Lava Rock[/font]

November 4, 2005

[font size=3]…

In the experiment, the researchers will compress pure carbon dioxide to form a liquid, which it will then inject more than a half-mile underground. There, the liquid will displace some water, explains Robert Smith, a geochemist at UI and the technical lead for Big Sky’s geologic sequestration. Based on their analyses, the researchers expect the carbon dioxide to dissolve over the next few months into the water “like in a can of soda,” he says. This mixture will produce a weak acid, roughly the acidity of orange juice. Minerals in the basalt will react with the acid to produce calcium carbonate (limestone, found in seashells), magnesium carbonate (a chalky substance, used by gymnasts and weightlifters to improve their grip) and other solid carbonates.

“It’s the same kinds of natural reactions that occur all the time, except that there’s so much more carbon dioxide that the reactions are going to occur much, much faster,” Smith explains. “You’re speeding up naturally occurring processes that take carbon out of the atmosphere.”

Other rock types convert carbon dioxide to solid form, but much more slowly. Because volcanic rock is young and reactive, the conversion happens tens to hundreds of times faster than in other types of rock, in just a few centuries. That’s a blink of an eye in geologic time.

“These rocks have a large capacity and they react very rapidly,” Smith says. “Because the final products are solids, they don’t come back to the surface. They’re not going to leak out.”

…[/font][/font]

[eppur_se_muova]

9. Yes ... react *slowly*.

Until then, it's still CO2 under pressure.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Gas, sealed beneath a layer of basalt

It all works in the lab, so, now they’re doing field testing in the real world.

This is a good thing.™

Let’s say the worst happens. There is a catastrophic failure, and every bit of the CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] escapes into the atmosphere (where it would have been, had it not been captured in the first place.)

I’m hard pressed to see how this is a bad thing. Oh, yes, I know, “People will think they can burn all the coal they want, because the CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] is being captured.” (Right?)

Well, no, I don’t think this will lead to increased burning of coal, because any way you look at it, this process means additional expense, making alternative sources look even more attractive by comparison.

Right now, the price of coal-fired electricity is artificially low, because we aren’t requiring people to pay for the carbon emissions that result. In effect, this plan will.

[kristopher]

17. Well stated.

Unlike using the carbon stream to create a profit center, this is a definite disincentive for coal. Even if it isn't workable at scale, a working process gives us something we have heretofore only had through the process of political give and take - a solid basis for where to set the price of a carbon tax.

[Yo_Mama]

5. That's the point of using this particular geology

They expect the CO2 to convert to a non-gaseous state, thus avoiding the threat.

[GliderGuider]

2. I can't help but think

That not producing the CO2 in the first place would be a better idea. Of course, asking humanity to cut its fossil fuel use would be like asking everyone to take an 87% pay cut, so I guess it's no surprise that we're fiddling about with band-aids.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Right, much better to do nothing.

Seriously, we’re not going to stop burning fossil fuels overnight. You know this.

OK, so… given that knowledge…

[GliderGuider]

6. Actually, I think it is.

I'm not much into putting band-aids on a sucking chest wound and whispering sweet nothings to the victim as she slips away. I really, really don't want to pretend to help get us out of this jam. I see nothing noble in that work.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. And, if there were a chance that the band-aid would help, even a slight chance?

You would say… better to do nothing. Because… why exactly?

I mean, with your construction, in theory, you’d be saving the band-aid for someone else, performing triage with limited medical supplies. But in this case… that logic doesn’t apply. There’s only one patient here.

Are you going to do your best to save the patient? Or…?

[GliderGuider]

8. No, I'd go and do something else with my energy.

There is no bandaid. Bandaids in this case are a comforting self-delusion. Plus, I'm not that much into "saving", frankly. Not that I think humanity isn't a very nice species, but I prefer to let things unfold without intervention on the species front. Especially since if I participated in the intervention that would give inadvertent credibility to the idea that it might help. It won't.

I'll intervene for things I can help with, like making sure my partner gets to her physiotherapy sessions, and making sure the food in the fridge as as organic as I can afford. CCS and similar schemes aren't on the menu.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. CCS had better be on the menu

Because we need to actively reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

[GliderGuider]

12. CCS won't help that. It's designed to work with concentrated CO2 collected at source IIRC.

To take it back out of the air after we release it we'd need old what's-his-name's balloons, with CO2 chillers on board. Or somefink.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. CCS actually can help reduce carbon

If you burn renewable fuels (e.g. biomass) and capture and sequester the carbon, it is a net negative. (Remember the biochar concept?)

However, if we go to capturing atmospheric CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] (which I believe we may have to) we’ll need some way(s) to store it.

[GliderGuider]

14. Good luck with it.

I mean that seriously. But you'll have to go on without me. I'd much rather sit here in the shade, watch the world go by, and chat about things with people who stop.

[wtmusic]

15. We would need 15,000,000 similar storage units to store the equivalent of 1 PPM CO2

I have no idea where they're getting the notion that we could conceivably store 900 years of CO2 emissions.

Something's not adding up.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Well, we might suspect it is your math that is at fault

Although, naturally, several years of research may be refuted your several seconds of back-of-the-envelope calculations.