What do you do with the billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that are spewing out of industrial chimneys into the atmosphere?
Stuff it underground.
That’s the $155-million plan our Prime Minister announced this week, as part of an effort to reduce this country’s carbon emissions. Think of it as turning those big stacks upside down, so the offending greenhouse gasses go into the Earth, rather than into the atmosphere. It’s an out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach to the problem, but it can work in certain parts of the country…for a price. Carbon capture and storage, or carbon sequestration, takes advantage of a technique already used by the oil and gas industry, where liquids or gasses are pumped deep underground into natural reservoirs that have already been tapped. When a well is dug and oil or natural gas is pumped out, the reservoir can be re-filled with other material. Often it’s water that is pumped down to force more oil out, which is a huge waste of another precious resource.
These underground reservoirs are not holes in the ground or empty caves that used to be filled with oil, but they are natural formations where porous rock, filled with lots of nooks and crannies where fossil fuels can hide, is capped by non-porous, or leak-proof rock that forms a domed roof. Geologists believe that if these natural underground storage tanks were able to trap natural gas for hundreds of millions of years, they can hold onto another gas, carbon dioxide, indefinitely. And Canada has a lot of room underground to hold that CO2. Our natural oil and gas fields are so vast we would probably run out of fossil fuels to burn before we’d run out of underground space for storage.
This idea is popular in Alberta because it doesn’t threaten the fossil fuel industry. If anything, it encourages more business as usual. They can keep drilling, digging and burning the stuff without polluting the atmosphere. Even the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change endorses the concept because almost half of the carbon emissions world wide come from power generation, so capturing and storing that would go a long way to reducing the impact on the climate. It doesn’t, by the way, deal with emissions from millions of tail pipes on vehicles. That’s another story. Still, there are a lot of good reasons to pursue carbon capture and storage, and best of all, the technology to do it already exists.
Two issues come out of this: cost and risk.
Carbon dioxide is a natural product, much loved by plants, but hazardous to humans in large quantities. So while the geologists are confident that the gas will stay a kilometre underground once it’s put there, handling the stuff on the surface involves local safety issues. On the other hand, we’ve been piping natural gas across the country in reasonable safety for decades, so that should be manageable as well.
But capturing and storing carbon dioxide comes with a cost. Power plants have to be modified to replace the chimney with a system to extract the gas, and either compress it or liquefy it. This adds about 50 per cent to the cost of building a new generating station. Then the gas must be transported to the storage site, either by pipeline or tanker truck, and when it reaches the site, pumped underground. All that uses energy, often in the form of burning more fossil fuels. The net result is about a 10-20 per cent rise in the cost of electricity for the consumer. That, by the way, puts fossil fuel energy at about the same cost as some of the alternatives.
So the question is, who is going to pay for this?
Already, the government is using tax dollars to support a feasibility study, which could be interpreted as a pre-election campaign to go green. Consumers are paying high prices for gasoline at the pumps, while the oil companies are raking in record profits. In most other cases of polluting industries, the industry itself is charged with the cleanup. Why does the oil industry need help when they’re making more money than some entire countries, and will continue to make more if carbon capture encourages more fossil fuel use?
Burying our waste underground is not a new idea. We already throw our garbage, toxic waste, and possibly in the future, even nuclear waste, deep in the Earth, with the hopes that it will just go away in time. But it’s a short term, end-of-pipe solution that doesn’t really address the source of the problem. Like a boat captain who discovers a leak and uses a bigger pump to keep the vessel afloat, sure it works, but there could be problems in the long run when the pump dies.
Carbon capture and storage has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions dramatically, which this planet’s atmosphere desperately needs. But we must be careful that it doesn’t become a license to continue with a dirty, inefficient technology that lies at the root of a much larger problem.
— Bob McDonald « Previous Post | Main
It is not enough to divert material from our landfills and reuse and recycle them by any means we can come up with and no reason we shouldn't continue to do so, creatively. It will take some genius to solve this growing problem. It seems a problem that is insurmountable but in reality it comes down to the solutions we are willing to accept. The solutions we don't accept are usually the ones with an econmic impact that is negative to growth or profitability, employment; you get the drift. This is more so when they impact the individual directly in terms of convenience or affordability.
Of course; we are faced with either not producing waste as much as possible. Affordability and technological capability are accepted limitations. They are current limits. Social or technological evolution changes that tomorrow if it happens tomorrow. Some say it will have happened five years ago and we are only just hearing about it tomorrow. Likely hypothesis. Think of the waste diverted if suddenly it was no longer legal to use packaging as a marketing tool. You can see the item on the store shelf and there it is in a plain simple package. No fancy expensive wasteful packaging. It boggles the mind as stated in another posters comments.
Last year; our community dealt with the issue of underground storage of nuclear waste and many northern Ontario communities stamped a big fat "NIMBY" on that issue and said no to transport through our communities. We also said a resounding "NO Freakin Way" to Toronto's garbage dumped in the Adams Mine and thanks to noble and worthy efforts by the opponents; there was legislative change to be sure it would not be revisited and the Lake, protected. That being said and all the arguments and very good reasonns why the ill fated proposal didn't fly but could have been made to work if it ended up as ambitious and totally clean as it was proposed to be; at the end of the day we've still got a problem. even our community is running out of space in it's landfill(s). Who isn't and are you surprised?
So; we have all the spent nuclear, spent carbon, spent minerals, gases, elements,compounds, fluids, matter ;organic and synthetic and what the hell can we do about it except stop makin it. Then the one product we can't stop producing along with all the biologicals we produce from living and that's heat which coincidentally and causal is being trapped on the planet by all our other gaseous 0emissions. The place is a freakin pig sty. We're not healthy for all we've spent from spending. Attention KMart Shoppers. You're a Patriotic Army Now in the War on Terror. Some say we have to stop bying it so they stop making it.
It's a good thing that in the end; there are a lot of conscientous people to do their part and fight the fight or just follow along in the struglle to help preserve the future of humanity and humankind and with hope we can save the warm and fuzzies in the process. If they go; we're done. Time will run out and perhaps not for our lifetime or even one more after that but in the foreseeable future. That concept of forseeable should be enough to hasten our resolve. You would think so. Yes; it's that money thing. Seems to me there should be some positions for all those out of work advertising and marketing types in waste management as the demand for it grows. If it's grown.
I think there would also be a risk that the gases would seep into the earth, and change water, soil for crops, and who knows what else. While many people might think this is a great idea … burying their waste … when presented with ‘well how about in your back yard, then’ … we’d all say no.
I agree, of course, that we need to do something about packaging. Some laws that legislate how many times an item can be wrapped before it goes to the consumer … forget about this individually wrapped cookie packets, and small portable yoghurts. Can’t we all just have our own containers? How about a tax break for all the money we spend on reusables like containers and cloth shopping bags?
I think there would also be a risk that the gases would seep into the earth, and change water, soil for crops, and who knows what else. While many people might think this is a great idea … burying their waste … when presented with ‘well how about in your back yard, then’ … we’d all say no.
I agree, of course, that we need to do something about packaging. Some laws that legislate how many times an item can be wrapped before it goes to the consumer … forget about this individually wrapped cookie packets, and small portable yoghurts. Can’t we all just have our own containers? How about a tax break for all the money we spend on reusables like containers and cloth shopping bags?
While deep well injection is quite deep and pushed into containing strata in the ground which is not the same as a landfill sitting on surface over a few metres of clay but, yes; people are wisely recognizing that waste disposal is actually only a word that means waste containment that implies no real destruction of the waste. I know several landfill projects that got dug up for testing and remediation and technicians were able to read newspapers and letters from the turn of the century.
Over the years we have recognized the innefficiency of landfill and that measures must be added to take the waste to decomposition and make use of the gases or feed the waste into fluid bed destruction and cogeneration. Our community in northern Ontario is not only facing a proposed expansion of our landfill for obvious reasons we are facing the tragedy of leaking effluent. Our time bomb exploded. We are also living in an active fault zone.
Landfills leak and they inevitable hit the water table if they are not remediated. This is what makes TWR "total waste recovery" a big interest. ie)Esdex and the Dutch Model of Waste management. Oddly; Toronto was sending it's waste to such facilities and one is North in Barrie but they aren't using the idea themselves. The Adams Mine might have succeeded in becoming a waste dump if the TWR was left in the project. There was a Major NIMBY camapign which is still strong.
I too would like to see reduction of packaging. Sadly; the buying public needs to be unconditioned to our current methods. People get into their habits. Does anyone remember "Consumers Distributing" stores. You could go into the store to shop for the items and when you went to the counter to order item 76 you got it in a plain box with no fancy labels and the goods were quite a bit cheaper crap than the crap in the fancy package on other store shelves. Bulk food stores are another good o but unfortunately they don;t really get the response they should or would with a little human reconditioning.
Sim
BYO container stores is a right foot forward but generally only appeals to lower income and the really conscientous. More affluent people resist the stigma of appearances. That's people for ya..
it blows my mind... instead of 'buying more time' to deal with these problems.. such as what to do with all of our waste.. or how to supply all of the oil we use, WHY DON'T THEY EVER ATTACK THE PROBLEM AT ITS ROOTS?!?!? alternative energy, eco friendly packaging... cloth bags instead of using disposable plastic?!?!?!?!?
damn i'm getting grumpy in my old age.. 28 years old..
Northern canopy, woodland caribou falling victim to development pressures
Mar 27, 2007 04:30 AM
Peter Gorrie
Environment Reporter
Logging, roads and other human disturbances are cutting into Northern Ontario's tree cover at a rapid rate, says a scientist who analyzed dozens of satellite images of the area.
The changes reduce the ability of the boreal forest to combat climate change by storing carbon. They also threaten the survival of woodland caribou and other species, said Peter Lee, executive-director of Global Forest Watch Canada, a research group based in Edmonton.
Lee looked at 65 Landsat images acquired from the Canadian and U.S. governments, each of an area 180 kilometres square. Taken together, they cover nearly half the province, from about as far south as Sault Ste. Marie to as far north as Moosonee, on James Bay.
"I was surprised at the extent of the logging that's occurring," Lee said in an interview.
Loss of the original forest cover is important for climate change, because even when logging companies replant trees, the resulting "managed" forest can store only half as much carbon.
A report released this month states that each year, logging in Ontario's boreal forest releases the equivalent of 15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, about 7 per cent of the province's total greenhouse gas emissions.
As well, the cut areas and roads are widely scattered across the region, which increases their impact on caribou, which generally move out of any area within 10 kilometres of a disturbance.
These "no-go" zones meet and overlap. As a result: "We found that over two-thirds of the study area, which is half of Ontario, was likely no longer suitable for caribou habitation," Lee said. "This has serious implications for the survival of this species within much of Ontario."
The study – part of a research project that will eventually cover all of Canada's boreal forest – looked at changes across all of the Ontario study area between 1989 and 2001. It also analyzed changes within three smaller chunks of that area between 2000 and last year.
In both periods, human activity – mainly clear-cut and salvage logging, and construction of access roads – reduced the intact forest by .5 per cent a year, and, because of the expansion of the "no-go" zones, cut caribou habitat by 5.6 per cent annually.
The woodland caribou is considered "threatened," under Ontario's endangered species legislation. The provincial government says new legislation, unveiled last week, would help the caribou to survive.
But critics say little has been done in areas where logging is allowed, and note that the same pattern is emerging in Ontario's far north, where development is just starting.
In fact, the new study says the biggest increase in disturbance was in two logging areas just below the line that marks the start of the northern wilderness.
it will never end... i'm sure of it now... the time to fix things is longed passed. America should have changed back in the seventies when there was the big gas shortage... we did nothing, continued on the same path. the rain forest is being cut at a rate far worse than the logging roads in canada... we do nothing... o'well...
I agree we should have changed years ago but we can't afford to believe it's too late.
Why?; you may ask. Many of our purchasing choices and honestly some of our alternative choices for food or energy are significantly responsible for rainforest devastation. That and global pollution leading to increased global warming effects.
We do something alright; we perpetuate it. time for change that's long overdue. Perpetuate better changes.
Sim
Quote:
Originally Posted by workinman
it will never end... i'm sure of it now... the time to fix things is longed passed. America should have changed back in the seventies when there was the big gas shortage... we did nothing, continued on the same path. the rain forest is being cut at a rate far worse than the logging roads in canada... we do nothing... o'well...
Ken Silverstein, EnergyBiz Insider
Editor-in-Chief
American Electric Power says it is not waiting around for the feds to mandate carbon controls on all power plants. On its own accord, it is setting the process in motion to capture carbon dioxide emissions that are tied to climate change. Advanced tests will begin at one of its power plants in West Virginia in 2008. Once those trials are deemed successful, the Columbus, Ohio-based utility will implement the technology at another facility in Oklahoma. By 2011, AEP says that the operation that uses chilled ammonia to scrub the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions can be ready for prime-time. Those releases would then be compressed and stored permanently underground or be used to help retrieve oil deposits.
Clearly, it's now possible to dramatically cut such pollutants as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide. But, it's also becoming increasingly real to trap CO2 in trees or bury it underground. By most accounts, energy usage will rise in the coming decades and coal will remain the primary fuel source to generate electricity. Carbon sequestration therefore holds the key to future power plant production using fossil fuels.
"With Congress expected to take action on greenhouse gas issues in climate legislation, it's time to advance this technology for commercial use," says Michael Morris, CEO of AEP, in a prepared statement.
Ever-escalating levels of CO2 contribute to global warming that could cause rising sea levels, floods and extended heat waves. The matter is exacerbated because the population around the globe will increase while developing countries are advancing and will use more coal -- all of which will push up the earth's temperature another 2-10 percent by the year 2100, says a United Nations panel.
A report published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology acknowledges coal's prominence and therefore calls on government to provide incentives for utilities to invest in technologies to capture CO2 emissions. Basically, the university advocates a carbon tax that would motivate companies to apply the latest and greatest technologies if they decide to build coal plants.
Without that, it fears a rush to build cheap generators that would have unbearable consequences. The U.S. government, in fact, is leading the charge when it comes to building FutureGen, a zero emissions power facility that costs $1 billion. It is expected to be online by 2012 and will have carbon capture technologies applied to it.
"There are a lot of good things happening in the power-from-coal arena that very few people know about yet," says Paul Grimmer, CEO of Eltron Research in Boulder, Colorado. He expects the first advanced coal generation to hit markets in five years. "The solutions AEP are pursuing for existing power plants are very good but the coming technologies will likely be even better." Economic Opportunities
Power companies contribute 60 percent of all CO2 emissions in the United States. Older coal-fired facilities could be retrofitted so as to trap the CO2 before it leaves the smokestack. But such remedies are expensive and less efficient than building modern coal plants called integrated gasification combined cycle generators, commonly referred to as coal gasification.
Such plants scrub the mercury, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide before they would separate the remaining byproducts: CO2, carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which could be used to power everything from cars to power plants. The largest demonstration projects are in Norway, where Statoil is placing 1 million tons of CO2 per year into a saline aquifer deep in the North Sea, and in Canada, where the CO2 is going into the Weyburn Oil field just north of the North Dakota border.
For its part, AEP says that it will follow a dual course of retrofitting older plants while also building modern facilities that have the potential to capture carbon emissions. Meantime, ConocoPhillips, General Electric and Shell Corp. are spending billions to develop not just coal gasification technologies but also the tools to bury CO2.
Canada, furthermore, is building a pipeline to transport carbon dioxide from Alberta's oil sands for sequestration. The chief executive of Alberta's biggest utility, TransAlta, is helping to head the project -- a direct implication of the emphasis now on Canadian oil sands. While that commodity has the potential to displace some Middle Eastern oil, it is also a major contributor to CO2 emissions.
Some environmental organizations bemoan any technologies that would encourage more coal use, with the Sierra Club calling the Canadian government's participation in the pipeline a "subsidy" for the fossil fuel industry. Many environmental groups, however, applaud the efforts to store carbon underground, noting that Asia, Latin America and parts of Africa are undergoing rapid expansion and their energy use will rise as a result.
In the case of Canada, the Natural Resources Defense Council there says that the country could store up to 9,000 megatonnes of CO2, which is 11 times the nation's current greenhouse gas emissions. By developing carbon capture tools, it says that Canada can help meet global energy demand while also earning a profit.
"By deploying carbon capture and storage technology on a wide scale domestically, Canada can demonstrate that this technology is effective in both cost and environmental terms," says the Natural Resources Defense Council. "As other nations develop their own fossil fuel resources, they can look to Canada for the technology to develop those resources in an environmentally responsible way."
All public and private initiatives to sequester CO2 emissions and minimize pollution show resolve. They are expensive undertakings. But, with energy production steadily rising, the endeavors are needed now more than ever.
Carbon Capture
Linear Mode
Similar Threads for: Carbon Capture
