US research paper questions viability of carbon capture and storage

[CHIMO]

A new research paper from American academics is threatening to blow a hole in growing political support for carbon capture and storage as a weapon in the fight against global warming.

The document from Houston University claims that governments wanting to use CCS have overestimated its value and says it would take a reservoir the size of a small US state to hold the CO2 produced by one power station.

Previous modelling has hugely underestimated the space needed to store CO2 because it was based on the "totally erroneous" premise that the pressure feeding the carbon into the rock structures would be constant, argues Michael Economides, professor of chemical engineering at Houston, and his co-author Christene Ehlig-Economides, professor of energy engineering at Texas A&M University

"It is like putting a bicycle pump up against a wall. It would be hard to inject CO2 into a closed system without eventually producing so much pressure that it fractured the rock and allowed the carbon to migrate to other zones and possibly escape to the surface," Economides said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/25/research-viabilty-carbon-capture-storage

[kristopher]

1. "CCS is the last refuge of the scoundrel," he said.

I'm looking for the paper. Thanks.

[kristopher]

2. "a profoundly non-feasible option for the management of CO2 emissions"

Here is another account by a blogger who spoke to the author
http://texasvox.org/2010/03/08/industry-experts-confirm-carbon-capture-and-sequestration-a-pipe-dream/


And here is the paper (behind a firewall):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDW-4XRJX7V-1&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1228095188&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f44dad5100eb292c7663a63cf90eb009

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering
Volume 70, Issues 1-2, January 2010, Pages 123-130
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2009.11.002
Copyright © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.


Sequestering carbon dioxide in a closed underground volume

Christine Ehlig-Economidesa, 1, E-mail The Corresponding Author and Michael J. Economidesb, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author

a Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA

b Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204, USA

Available online 20 November 2009.

Abstract

The capture and subsequent geologic sequestration of CO2 has been central to plans for managing CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. The magnitude of the task is overwhelming in both physical needs and cost, and it entails several components including capture, gathering and injection. The rate of injection per well and the cumulative volume of injection in a particular geologic formation are critical elements of the process.

Published reports on the potential for sequestration fail to address the necessity of storing CO2 in a closed system. Our calculations suggest that the volume of liquid or supercritical CO2 to be disposed cannot exceed more than about 1% of pore space. This will require from 5 to 20 times more underground reservoir volume than has been envisioned by many, and it renders geologic sequestration of CO2 a profoundly non-feasible option for the management of CO2 emissions.

Material balance modeling shows that CO2 injection in the liquid stage (larger mass) obeys an analog of the single phase, liquid material balance, long-established in the petroleum industry for forecasting undersaturated oil recovery. The total volume that can be stored is a function of the initial reservoir pressure, the fracturing pressure of the formation or an adjoining layer, and CO2 and water compressibility and mobility values.

Further, published injection rates, based on displacement mechanisms assuming open aquifer conditions are totally erroneous because they fail to reconcile the fundamental difference between steady state, where the injection rate is constant, and pseudo-steady state where the injection rate will undergo exponential decline if the injection pressure exceeds an allowable value. A limited aquifer indicates a far larger number of required injection wells for a given mass of CO2 to be sequestered and/or a far larger reservoir volume than the former.

[Nihil]

4. Thanks for the links ...

> Our calculations suggest that the volume of liquid or supercritical CO2
> to be disposed cannot exceed more than about 1% of pore space. This will
> require from 5 to 20 times more underground reservoir volume than has been
> envisioned by many, and it renders geologic sequestration of CO2 a profoundly
> non-feasible option for the management of CO2 emissions.

:thumbsup:

> to sequester the CO2 emissions from just one small, 500 MW coal plant
> over the course of 30 years would require an aquifer the size of Rhode Island.
> Economides pointed out that one 500 MW coal plant is only about 1/600 of the
> total coal plants in the United States. So for coal plants alone you’d need
> about 600 aquifers the size of Rhode Island in order to make CCS a viable
> solution to man made global warming. We just don’t have that kind of potential
> storage space.

Nice summary of the space required (and the problems with using either EOR or
"deep saline aquifers").


> ... so since these new CCS plants cost about $1 billion, or 1/3 more than a
> conventional plant, shouldn’t we be putting the money in to cheaper alternatives
> – such as energy efficiency and renewable energy? The CO2 is already sequestered
> in the ground in the form of coal. Let’s just leave it there and save ourselves
> a world of hurt.

The above makes so much sense that the only reasons for ignoring it are as stated
in one of Kristopher's other recent posts: human stupidity, bureaucratic
incompetence, and greed.

:-(

[Statistical]

3. The bad news is there is a lot of industrial CO2 release that is non-energy related.

If you take a very large view of CO2 emissions it is in 4 groups. From easiest to hardest to mitigate:
1) electricity
2) heating
3) transportation
4) industrial

Electricity is actually the easiest to solve. An ipod plugged into the wall doesn't care what make the energy it uses just that it is there.

Heating is harder to solve due to amount of energy used however geothermal heat pumps can vastly replace most fossil fuel heating (assuming we can solve number 2).

Transportation is even more difficult. Hydrocarbons as insanely useless in terms of energy density. Also some things like commercial aviation will never work with batteries.

Industrial is the hardest to solve and likely will require some form of CCS. Many industrial processes involve CO2 release and lots of CO2 release. Aluminum and steel production as well as refining certain chemicals. Even if there was unlimited free CO2 neutral power that would still be an issue.

Even recycling doesn't completely remove CO2 release. Recycled steel usually needs to have carbon added in the smelting process and that ends up releasing some CO2. So even if CCS is a minor solution it is a necessary component.

[wtmusic]

8. Without CO2 from power generation and most transportation

350ppm atmospheric CO2 is a realistic goal. A carbon tax would be a magical incentive to find alternative industrial methods, and promote local manufacturing.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XLmoWsAyN9c/S7PDjExF23I/AAAAAAAAACo/9xzReOX_FSI/s320/CO2+emissionsbytype.jpg.png

[kristopher]

5. kicked

[pscot]

6. Well I must say

this comes as a complete surprise.

[Nihil]

7. Kick for visibility. (n/t)