carbon storage

[asheets]

This one is going into the newbies section since I can't think of a better place for it...

It seems like the concept of "carbon storage" is getting lots of play in the various media as a way of reducing CO2 output from coal-fired plants.  On the surface, it does make sense; after all sulfur and ash emissions are converted to capturable items easily and cheaply enough (more on that later).

But, other that biological means, what process can you use to capture carbon that doesn't involve an excessive amount of energy?  I can't think of one offhand.

--------------------

Incidentally, I'm going to throw in this somewhat related topic here.  I keep hearing (especially from that Texan doofus during the Gore hearins) that pollutant reduction/mitigation/capture/storage would bankrupt American industry.  They said that 20 years ago when the initial calls for reducing particulates and acid rain came out, yet the result (sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and ash products) became quite profitable commidities which the utilities could sell.  Couldn't the same be said for the captured carbon?  Perhaps that would be the prefered building material of the future...

Being this far off topic you should post as a Diary.

[asheets]

TomW -- can you move this over to Rants/Opinions for me?  Thanks...

[stop4stuff]

I had similar thoughts a couple of weeks ago...

A bit of research...

co2 can be absorbed by lime water, but it'd take a lot of energy so not very practical

'Ironwood' trees (there's loadsa varieties) lock away more carbon than most tree species... some ironwood types are more dense than water! Ironwood has many uses... Some types contain oils that naturally block the ingress of water & can be used untreated for construction, lasting 50 years.

The big downfall with ironwood trees is their growth rate... very slow

I did happen across info about some types of fast growing grasses that could have the potential for capturing carbon & also e used in the manufacture of biofuels (i'll have to backtrack to re-find this info as my computer died & i had to rebuild from scratch losing all my bookmarks)

I think trees & plants will be (are) the answer to carbon capture/locking/recycling.

l8r

paul

[Countryboy]

"But, other that biological means, what process can you use to capture carbon that doesn't involve an excessive amount of energy?  I can't think of one offhand."

Uh, what's wrong with capturing carbon using biological means?  That's how the Eart has been doing it for eons.

Life forms capture carbon.  From the depths of the seas, to the highest flying birds, living things capture carbon.

Sometimes it gets turned into coral, and sometimes it gets turned into diamonds.  But it all got caught with life forms.

And who cares how much energy is required to capture carbon?  I'm dead serious.  Who really cares?  Energy can't be created or destroyed, so what does it matter how much energy is put into capturing carbon?  Heck, capture that free carbon and combine it with hydrogen to make hydrocarbons.  Yeah, it'll take some energy, but you end up with a high yielding energy source known as oil/gasoline.

Or are you wanting a low energy way to capture carbon, that results in a high energy carbon based product?  (See rule about energy not being created out of thin air.)

[thefinis]

They are using mass amounts of co2 in the oil field to help produce some of the thighter formations and heavier oils. I believe it is partially absorbed by the oil and the increased pressure helps the oil absorb nat gas making it lighter and easier to move through the formation. A well is picked to pump co2 in and the gases and oil are removed by surrounding wells. Much of the co2 is recovered and pumped back into the formation to start the next cycle.

In many areas of the world there should be lots of storage for co2 in old depleted oil fields with the right formations. When co2 becomes a cheap and plentiful feedstock someone will find a way to make a buck and turn it into a saleable item. If you could strip the oxygen off cheap enough it might make a feed for carbon fiber.

I don't think it would be that expensive to strip most of the co2 from the flue gases. The problem is then what. There are no handling systems or storage areas ready for that amount of gas. To get an idea of the amount/mass of the co2 produced consider the train car loads per day of coal it takes to run a big coal fired plant. Now coal is  a hydrocarbon so most of the gases will be H2O and CO2. The pounds of co2 produced might take as many railcars to remove as the coal coming in. I would bet that they will lay gas pipelines to carry the co2 from the plant to some type of underground storage. Wonder if the years long coal mine fires could be put out if they filled them with co2?

Finis

[Stonebrain]

Only plants fix co2 they transform it to organic materal.

Animals burn the organic matter tey eat and transform it to

co2 again.So do microorganisms and so do fire.

Trees store this material in the form of wood.The faster the tree grows,

the more co2 it fixes.

A tree ready to cut has stored allready 50 - 100 years of production.

You can prevent the wood to be burned or eaten(by fire,microorganism and insects)

by making long lasting wooden constructions.

Or by burrying the wood in the swamps,where it can be conserved for thousends years,lol.

Coal and oil is just very old organic matter.

Pumping co2 into the ground is some kind of theory that is not yet practiced and probably never will.

The only way to 'fix' co2 is by avoiding organic matter(fossil or not).

cheers,

stonebrain

[Stonebrain]

Last line must be:

The only way to 'fix' co2 is by avoiding organic matter(fossil or not) to be burned.

[Stonebrain]

Sorry,

The only way to 'fix' co2 is by avoiding organic matter(fossil or not) to be burned.

And plant lots of trees.

[electrondady1]

 it's obvious  the best way ,
(simplest ,most comprehensive)
to store the carbon is by organic means.
what is required is a cultural change in order to manage the scope of the process.  
i am guessing long term it needs take the form of a new or modified religion.
perhaps with less emphasis on the after life and a little more on the relationship between humans and nature.
 

[nanotech]

Kind of like what most of the Native American Indian cultures were like?  

[finnsawyer]

This is somewhat redundant to another comment, but many marine animals fix carbon dioxide by producing calcium carbonate, which falls to the sea floor when the animal dies and may eventually form limestone.  This is the real process that removes CO2 from the air.

[asheets]

I don't particularly want anything.  I'm familiar with the laws of thermodynamics, but I'm afraid that others aren't.  It just seems to me that all the folks talking about carbon storage (1) don't have a clue how to actually do it, (2) think it will just automagically happen, and/or (3) will bankrupt the economy if we try.  

I'm all for biological means to do this, but if you look in a previous rant/opinion I posted I came up with a calculation several billion dollars worth of organics to be needed just to meet Sir Richard Branson's $25 million publicity stunt.

And for "who cares about how much energy is required to capture carbon?"  I suspect a utility that is involved in selling energy as a profitable product might care.

[Stonebrain]

"This is the real process that removes CO2 from the air."

you think so ?

Where does the calcium for those marin organisms come from?

The rivers bring calcium solution (ca++)in the ocean

where do the rivers get this calcium from?

They get it from the rocks that contain calcium carbonate.

the calcium carbonate get dissoluted in the water freeing the

carbonate (=co2),the ca++ goes with the river to the sea

and get transformed to carbonate again,catching the co2 again.

Sorry,finnsawyer,

No free lunch.

And what if the oceans are transformed in chemical soup

without any organisms.That's what we're doing now.

cheers,

stonebrain

[Countryboy]

And for "who cares about how much energy is required to capture carbon?"  I suspect a utility that is involved in selling energy as a profitable product might care.

Nope.  They don't care about initial cost.  They care about PROFIT.  Initial cost does not control profitability...selling price controls profitability.

[DanG]

And the geological structures that leach carbonates into the rivers were formed under shallow seas; GeoM has it correct the seas are the major carbon trap. One of the earliest nutrient long absent from the oceans surface waters is free iron. Marine organisms fertilized with it in just the top warmest layer of ocean (where sunlight is strongest) have greater success and fix multiples more carbon to precipitate down to the ocean floors.

[Bruce S]

  "And what if the oceans are transformed in chemical soup

without any organisms.That's what we're doing now."

easy  WE DIE

[Stonebrain]

Right,the algae in the oceans(which are primitive plants)produce

organic matter.This organic matter is eaten by microscopic animals

which are eaten by fish which are eaten by whales,seals,birds and humans.

In this proces most of the organic matter is burned.Finally,some of it sinks to the

bottom of the seas.(it seems that whales go to the bottom,but even in the deep sea there are animals that continue to eat these cadavres)Maybe you can consider this as a 'mayor'carbon trap,Though nobody can tell how much matter this represents,it's safe to state that this amount represents a ridiculous small proportion of the amount of oganic matter we burn.

In the cycle of calciumcarbonate,the amount of calcium that is dissoluted is the

same as the amount of calcium carbonate that is formed in the seas.So this cycle is not a carbon trap,contrary to what some rotten 'scientifics' want to make you believe.

cheers,

stonebrain

[Stonebrain]

About fertilizing the oceans,

Tru,the oceans have low production,

Some areas,mostly coastal areas,contain more fertilizing substances,

and have bigger production.These are the areas that we are destroying the most.

Some scientist believe that fertilizing is the solution.The solution of what?

If it works maybe it compensates some of the destructions.But these men don't believe

we can destroy the oceans too.

I believe we can,but this maybe is human vanity... lol

cheers,

stonebrain

[Gary D]

 I've been watching this thread with interest. Plants do store carbon, however it is a carbon neutral process. Coal plants "can" burn switchgrass, hay, straw, woodchips, etc. at a higher cost, mostly in man hour wages. A coal plant partial changeover using switchgrass is producing "green power" now (midwest I think). People in their(power plant) area can purchase it at a premium. Same as in methane digesters this can be part or all of a "base power" plant. Costly but carbon neutral. This is slightly "off topic", not sequestering carbon, but is a way to not dig carbon up to have to sequester it in the first place.

 As the above plants die naturally, yearly or otherwise, they release the co2 back into the atmosphere normally. They would not release any more being burned as power. The harvesting acreage would have to be tremendous tho...

 Conserving power voluntarily just doesn't seem to cut it. Any  U.S. Administration would create panic if they publicly acnowledged we are in for a bumpy ride weather wise (or so they think). Can you imagine the cost of copper if the Feds. mandated Solar domestic hot water heating in all new housing (let alone businesses) for instance??? Just a few thoughts from a non expert... Gary D.

[thefinis]

Pumping co2 into the ground is some kind of theory that is not yet practiced and probably never will.

Stonebrain I am afraid that just is not so. Here are a few links to what has been going on in the oil field for over 30 years and is getting more use as availablity of co2 increases.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/11/65852

http://www.oxy.com/oil_gas/technology/co2_tech.htm

http://www.shell-me.com/english/oct2006/features5.htm

http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17488159&BRD=2288&PAG=461&dept_id=474107
&rfi=6

I could post more links but I think that this will show what I mean. I have friends working on drilling rigs right now where they are using co2 as part of the intial production methods. The scary part of all this is that for years there have been naturally occuring co2 gas wells drilled and produced to furnish the co2 for oil field recovery.

I should have done more research and asked my friends specific questions before my first post as they say all the co2 used is piped in or recovered at the field.

Finis

[Stonebrain]

Thanks for the links.

OK, co2 is pumped into the ground,for pushing the last oil from the wells.

Ofcourse this is a profitable activity and is allready practiced on the oilfields.

Indeed,if they drill co2-wells for doing this,the information you passed to me looks much like a giant scam.

I take one citation:

"As a first step in implementing projects to capture CO2, Shell has aligned itself with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries [MHI], the world's leading provider of technology for CO2 capture from flue gases emitted from power plants. In December 2005 Shell signed a Memorandum of Understanding with MHI to establish a strategic alliance to co-operate on business opportunities relating to CO2 capture and recovery in the Middle East.

So,shell and Mitsubitsi did agree,in december 2005 to do "the first step"

Well,maybe you can tell me if they have gone beyond their first step.

cheers,

stonebrain

[Gordy]

Stonebrain,

"the information you passed to me looks much like a giant scam."

Last night I went to my Electric Coop's meeting. They get some of our power from Basin Electric, out in the Dakotas. They (B.E.) have a coal gasification plant running that makes synthetic natural gas, several types of fertilizer, and tons of CO2. The CO2 has for years been sent through a pipe line to a Canadian oil field, that field has locked up 140 million tons CO2 per year and increased oil out put 40%. And B.E. gets paid for  the CO2. They played a clip from FOX News on the plant's Co2 pipe line and how it works. This is NOT a scam, or theory, it WORKS.

Gordy

[thefinis]

I think if you look at the real history of the oil patch it has always had scams and scoundrels in it. If any of the suits act like they are doing you a favor better grab a jar of (what else) petroleum jelly. It runs by the golden rule he who has the gold makes the rules.

My point was it can be done, it is being done and really what better place to store the carbon than the place you took it from.

I like the point being made that wood, grass, and other bio methods for co2 capture can be some what temporary. If we don't learn how to use cleaner power then there will be a lot less of us eventually.

Finis

[Stonebrain]

ok,according to gordy the tecnique is more viable than I suspected,sorry.

It apperently can work for powerplants,but cars and households is another story.

However,I don't think this the miraculous solution.

Some lobby could use it as argument to speed up the burning of

organic matter.Better stay suspicious about it.

Thanks for the instructif discussion

cheers,

stonebrain

[finnsawyer]

I presume that I am the rotten 'scientifics'.  Well, if the oceans were not a carbon trap the climate of Earth would be much like Venus.  That is not my idea.  Researchers believe that the Earth was once an ice ball.  That lasted for millions of years.  The ice cover prevented the seas from utilizing CO2 in any form.  Volcanoes, however, continued to spew out CO2, much as they do today.  In time the CO2 level reached 10 times the level today.  The resulting global warming melted the ice.  The CO2 reacted with the rain to form acid.  This acid in turn reacted with calcium compounds (there are compounds of calcium such as calcium chloride that do not contain carbon) to form calcium carbonate.  This form of limestone would not contain fossils.  Anyway that's the theory.  The Earth contains a truly immense amount of limestone.  While some will always be recycled, most is not at any given time.  It is truly fortunate that the Earth has contained and still contains a vast amount of calcium that is not bonded with carbon.

[BigBreaker]

and in a thousand years the earth returns to normal...  the blink of an eye in geological time.  Biodiversity will take lot longer to recover, and coral beds will need a few thousand more years.

It is likely that a small clutch of humans will survive to (re)build civilization all over again.  Who knows?

[finnsawyer]

I was thinking about where to throw in my two cents about carbon storage using trees.  This looks like a good place.  How about giving people yearly carbon credits for growing trees?  I have fifty acres currently in woods and another thirty in hay fields, which I'm getting tired of working.  If people were issued carbon credits, which they could sell for planting or growing trees, It could help people in remote areas have a better life.  Of course, when the trees are harvested the credits would have to be repaid by some formula, but the land owner should still come out ahead over time.

[Stonebrain]

Sorry Finnsawher,I didn't mean to offend you.Not all

scientifics that do statements without foundation try to manipulate the people.

Sometimes they just don't have the ability to criticise a statement that seems

so confortable.

So,you are a scientific?So am I but I guess we didn't go to the same university,lol.

If you want to know where the co2 went,why not in the giant stock fossil combustibles that has been accumulated in millions of years?

Well I recognise this theory is very unpleasant,because this would mean that if we burn

all of it,we just won't be able to live on this planet anymore.Ugly theory,better stay to the theory that co2 dissapear somewhere.Only I didn't see a plausible explication,where it actually goes.

I don't believe something only because the one who is saying it call himself 'scientist'.I want facts,with a description of the chemical process involved.  

you're saying

'Volcanoes, however, continued to spew out CO2, much as they do today.'

and

' It is truly fortunate that the Earth has contained and still contains a vast amount of calcium that is not bonded with carbon.'

Well,in the second statement you say 'fortunate'

Why did you forget to say 'unfortunate' in the first statement?

cheers

Stonebrain

[finnsawyer]

I will pit the amount of carbon locked in fossil bearing limestone deposits around the world against the amount held in coal and hydrocarbons any day.  There is even a limestone deposit high in the Himalayan Mountains.  Keep in mind that for all the burning we've done we have actually raised the level by CO2 by a small amount, much less than that factor of 10 from millions of years ago.  Anyway, to answer the basic question of this posting:  Find an economical process that locks the carbon into calcium carbonate.  As I've said, there are available sources of calcium where it is not now locked up with carbon.

[finnsawyer]

I didn't forget to say "unfortunate" in the first statement.  It is actually fortunate that the volcanoes had a role in ending the "Ice Ball Earth" phase.  Without that ending, you and I and others would not be here to have these discussions.