Carbon capture and storage - one of the most important engineering challenges

Sequestration -- Time to Punt?

By 2035 the EIA forecasts annual US CO2 emissions of 6.32 billion metric tons, 38% of which (2.40 billion) will be from coal plants alone. To put that in perspective, consider that in Texas the huge Permian Basin oil field’s current annual enhanced oil recovery (EOR) demand is only 7 million tons of CO2, about the output of a single 1 GW coal-fired power plant. See this article from POWER magazine. Clearly, EOR in depleted oil and gas reservoirs can't handle the expected volume of CO2 that must be stored each year just from power generation.

The only other potentially available pore space, once we set aside the tiny capacity of depleted reservoirs, coal beds, and dry formations, is in deep saline formations. Although deep saline formations have lots of pore space, i.e. spaces between grains in the rock, the pores in the rock are full of brine. Deep saline formations are not empty tanks, but full tanks. Moving the brine out and the CO2 in may well be impossible at the scale of billions of tons each year. We hear a lot about the 25 years of successful experience with EOR, but it is the extrapolation of this EOR experience to permanent CO2 storage in deep saline formations that is at issue because there are not enough depleted reservoirs to accommodate the tremendous volumes of CO2 going to permanent storage. So EOR in depleted reservoirs (empty tanks) is immaterial.

Once injected into the formation, the CO2 would have to be securely contained there. This fundamental point seems to have been overlooked. In 2010, a sobering article appeared in the refereed Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering (70:123-130), authored by two distinguished full professors, Christine Ehlig-Economides and Michael J. Economides. Here's a quote from the abstract:

“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 [my emphasis].”

Profoundly non-feasible is a polite way of saying laughable. Curiously, the Ehlig-Economides paper, a peer-reviewed article authored by two prominent experts in petroleum engineering, was not among the references cited in the recent interagency report on CCS. So its optimism about sequestration may be based on ignorance.

A rebuttal was posted by Dooley et al. The Dooley, et al. paper does not dispute the merits of the Ehlig-Economides et al. paper. Instead, Dooley et al. trump the merits by claiming the analysis is irrelevant because CO2 storage formations are not closed systems, but open systems which are expected to leak through permeable seals and therefore the 25 years of successful experience with EOR in open systems can be extrapolated.

In the interest of fully informed debate on this important issue, here are links to other rebuttals to the Ehlig-Economides article:

ZEP opinion piece

American Petroleum Institute rebuttal

Cavanagh, et al. rebuttal

Oldenburg, et al. rebuttal (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)

Economides response

“Closure” is a term of art meaning that the volume is bounded vertically and horizontally by impermeable barriers, commonly called a seal. See the testimony of USGS geologist Dr. Robert C. Burruss to Congress on Ju..., p. 4. Closure is of the essence in any storage plan, so the assumption of a closed underground volume by Ehlig-Economides et al. -- so vehemently rejected by Dooley et al. -- does not seem unreasonable, at least as to deep saline formations.

In EOR the flow is steady state and not intermittent because there is a production well that provides a path out of the formation and the flow is at constant pressure. The CO2 dissolves in the oil and is recycled back into the reservoir after it is extracted. The depleted reservoir is like an empty tank, with flow in and out, i.e. an open system. All sequestration projects so far -- the “25 years of successful experience” -- are of this type, and they have been done because of the economic benefit to oil companies of capturing the CO2 and injecting it back into the formation to scavenge oil from depleted reservoirs.

Ehlig-Economides et al. challenge the steady state assumption underlying capacity calculations for deep saline formations: “models that assume a constant pressure outer boundary for reservoirs intended for CO2 sequestration are missing the critical point that the reservoir pressure will build up under injection at constant rate. Instead of the 1–4% of bulk volume storability factor indicated prominently in the literature, which is based on erroneous steady state modeling, our finding is that CO2 can occupy no more than 1% of the pore volume and likely as much as 100 times less.” I'm inclined to trust their sincere expert guidance when lives may be at stake. See here the textbooks that these authors have written.

The steady state assumption is clearly not appropriate with respect to deep saline aquifers, where there exist no means for flow out of the formation, and injection would have to be against high pressure into a full tank, raising the pressure. Pumps to hammer in the supercritical CO2 and displace the brine would produce pulsed, not steady, flow. As the more CO2 goes in, the pumps will have to work even harder against higher pressure.

The density of the injected supercritical CO2 is only 50-70% of the density of the saline water, (Burruss, p. 4) so sequestered CO2 would be buoyant and would have to be physically trapped by caprock and lateral containment. Hydraulic fracturing of the sealing formation by high pressure (the fracture pressure of the sealing formation is >4200 psi), pulses during supercritical CO2 injection might have disastrous consequences. Lateral leakage of buoyant supercritical CO2 out of the sealing formation would also be a disaster because this high pressure bubble could find its way around the caprock and erupt at the surface, or into groundwater supplies. The CO2 cannot dissolve in the brine or become carbonate quickly enough to mitigate the danger from leakage. When sequestration proponents expect the storage formations to leak enough to be classified as open systems, then there seems to be no point (other than EOR for the oil companies) of injecting CO2 underground and it probably is safer to dump it in the atmosphere.

The lifetime emissions from just one large coal-fired power plant would displace water equal to the size of a giant oil field (4.1 billion oil barrels), as USGS research geologist Robert Burruss pointed out in his testimony to Congress in 2008. Work would be required to lift all of that brine to the surface to make way for the tremendous volume of CO2. That work would presumably come from combustion of fossil fuels, adding to the CO2 emissions. Will the energy for CCS create more CO2 than it stores?

What will be done with all of that brine once it is extracted? Reverse osmosis reject brine (brine concentrate) is classified as “industrial waste” by the EPA, and the extracted deep saline brine will be even saltier (up to 463,000 ppm). Disposal of reverse osmosis reject brine is already a limiting factor in desalination deployment, and this will be a much bigger and saltier waste stream.

You can't just dump it, so where will that deep saline brine go to make way for the tremendous volumes of CO2 that will replace it deep underground? If the plan is to hammer the supercritical, buoyant CO2 into the saline formation in order to force the water to flow elsewhere underground, will that even be possible against the tremendous pressure at the depth required to maintain supercriticality? Will the displaced brine flow up to pollute fresh water supplies or increase soil salinity, leading to famine? Will the hydraulic hammering of pumping CO2 fracture the sealing formation, leading eventually to a disaster like Lake Nyos in 1986, where 1,700 people died from asphyxiation when CO2 erupted from underground? If a CO2 plume does escape from the sealing formation, what can be done about it?

Repeating the “25 years of successful experience” line is not an answer to these questions. Especially not after the BP blowout.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report of September 30, 2008, noted that sequestration also faces huge political obstacles, such as: (1) the vast infrastructure that would have to be built to transport and inject the CO2 emissions, (2) public resistance to a lethal gas dump under their neighborhood, and (3) the liability issues associated with ownership of a CO2 dump. Public resistance (e.g. Mattoon, Illinois) is already hardening.

It's time to punt sequestration. Let's not blow what remains of the scarce Recovery Act CCS research money on a “profoundly non-feasible option” which might result in an even worse environmental disaster -- migration of brine into groundwater supplies and CO2 eruptions that kill people.

Tags: Economides, geologic, sequestration, storage

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Erich J. Knight on October 11, 2010 at 5:43

Recent NATURE STUDY;
Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n5/full/ncomms1053.html

Not talked about in this otherwise comprehensive study are the climate and whole ecological implications of new , higher value, applications of chars.

First,
the in situ remediation of a vast variety of toxic agents in soils and sediments.
Biochar Sorption of Contaminants;
http://www.biorenew.iastate.edu/events/biochar2010/conference-agend...

Dr. Lima's work; Specialized Characterization Methods for Biochar http://www.biorenew.iastate.edu/events/biochar2010/conference-agend...
And at USDA;
The Ultimate Trash To Treasure: *ARS Research Turns Poultry Waste into Toxin-grabbing Char
http://www.ars.usda.gov/IS/AR/archive/jul05/char0705.htm

Second,
the uses as a feed ration for livestock to reduce GHG emissions and increase disease resistance.

Third,
Recent work by C. Steiner showing a 52% reduction of NH3 loss when char is used as a composting accelerator. This will have profound value added consequences for the commercial composting industry by reduction of their GHG emissions and the sale of compost as a nitrogen fertilizer. ,

Since we have filled the air , filling the seas to full, Soil is the Only Beneficial place left.
Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.

Thanks for your efforts.
Erich

Erich J. Knight
Chairman; Markets and Business Review Committee
US BiocharConference, at Iowa State University, June 27-30
http://www.biorenew.iastate.edu/events/biochar2010/conference-agend...

Other Reports:

This PNAS report (by a Nobel lariat) should cause the Royal Society to rethink their report that criticized Biochar systems sequestration potential;
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Reducing abrupt climate change risk using
the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory
actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/09/0902568106.full.pdf+html

United Nations Environment Programme, Climate Change Science Compendium 2009
http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/PDF/Ch5_compendium2009.pdf

Congressional Research Service report (by analyst Kelsi Bracmort) is the best short summary I have seen so far - both technical and policy oriented.
http://environmental-legislation.blogspot.com/2010/02/biochar-examination-of-emerging-concept.html

For those looking for an overview of biochar and its benefits, These authors have done a very nice job of distilling a great deal of information about biochar and applying it to the US context:

US Focused Biochar report: Assessment of Biochar's Benefits for the USA
http://www.biochar-us.org/pdf%20files/biochar_report_lowres.pdf

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wilmot H. McCutchen on October 11, 2010 at 17:19

I don't see how biochar relates here. Burning trash adds CO2 to the atmosphere, so it seems more prudent to convert that trash to biochar and bury it, but that won't have any impact on CO2 emissions from fossil fuel.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Erich J. Knight on October 11, 2010 at 20:11

Gasifiers, Pyrolysis furnaces and Hydro-Thermal carbonization only "Burn" the Syn-Gas & Bio-Oils, not the 1/3 of carbon in the lignin-cellulose of the plants cellular structure.
The biomass energy cycle of these char systems is generally 1/3 Carbon negative !

Biochar Soils.....Husbandry of whole new Orders & Kingdoms of life

Biotic Carbon, the carbon transformed by life, should never be combusted, oxidized and destroyed. It deserves more respect, reverence even, and understanding to use it back to the soil where 2/3 of excess atmospheric carbon originally came from.

We all know we are carbon-centered life, we seldom think about the complex web of recycled bio-carbon which is the true center of life. A cradle to cradle, mutually co-evolved biosphere reaching into every crack and crevice on Earth.

It's hard for most to revere microbes and fungus, but from our toes to our gums (onward), their balanced ecology is our health. The greater earth and soils are just as dependent, at much longer time scales. Our farming for over 10,000 years has been responsible for 2/3rds of our excess greenhouse gases. This soil carbon, converted to carbon dioxide, Methane & Nitrous oxide began a slow stable warming that now accelerates with burning of fossil fuel. Agriculture allowed our cultural accent and Agriculture will now prevent our descent.

Wise Land management; Organic farming and afforestation can build back our soil carbon,
Biochar allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, ( living biomass & Glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar.

Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration (= to 1 Ton CO2e) + Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels = to 1MWh exported electricity, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle.

Biochar viewed as soil Infrastructure; The old saw;
"Feed the Soil Not the Plants" becomes;
"Feed, Cloth and House the Soil, utilities included !".
Free Carbon Condominiums with carboxyl group fats in the pantry and hydroxyl alcohol in the mini bar.
Build it and the Wee-Beasties will come.
Microbes like to sit down when they eat.
By setting this table we expand husbandry to whole new orders & Kingdoms of life.
( These oxidised surface charges; carbonyl. hydroxyl, carboxylic acids, and lactones or quinones, have as well a role as signaling substances towards bacteria, fungi and plants.)

This is what I try to get across to Farmers, as to how I feel about the act of returning carbon to the soil. An act of penitence and thankfulness for the civilization we have created. Farmers are the Soil Sink Bankers, once carbon has a price, they will be laughing all the way to it.
Unlike CCS which only reduces emissions, biochar systems draw down CO2 every energy cycle, closing a circle back to support the soil food web. The photosynthetic "capture" collectors are up and running, the "storage" sink is in operation just under our feet. Pyrolysis conversion plants are the only infrastructure we need to build out.

To me, in the long run, the final arbiter / accountancy / measure of sustainability will be
soil carbon content. Once this royal road is constructed, traffic cops ( Carbon Board see below ) in place, the truth of land-management and Biochar systems will be self-evident.

A dream I've had for years is to base the coming carbon economy firmly on the foundation of top soils. My read of the agronomic history of civilization shows that the Kayopo Amazon Indians and the Egyptians were the only ones to maintain fertility for the long haul, millennium scales. Egypt has now forsaken their geologic advantage by building the Aswan dam, and are stuck, with the rest of us, in the soil C mining, NPK rat race to the bottom. The meta-analysis of Syn-N and soil Carbon content show our dilemma;
https://www.agronomy.org/publications/jeq/articles/38/6/2295

The Ag Soil Carbon standard is in final review by the AMS branch at USDA. Both Congresional Ag Committees have asked for expansion of Soil Carbon Standard to ISO status.
Read over the work so far;
http://www.novecta.com/documents/Carbon-Standard.pdf

In my efforts to have Biochar's potential included, I have recruited several to join the list, briefed the entire committee about char when issues concerning N2O & CH4 soil GHG emissions were raised, fully briefed a couple of the 100 members when they replied individually to my "Reply all" briefs. The members cover the full spectrum of Ag interest.

With the Obama administration funding an inter-departmental climate effort of NASA, NOAA, USDA, & EPA, and now even the CIA is opening the data coffers, then soil carbon sensors may be less than 5 years away. I'm told by the Jet Propulsion Lab mission specialists responsible for the suite of earth sensing satellites, that they will be reading soil carbon using multiple proxy measurements in 5 years. Reading soil moisture to 3 foot dept in two year with SMAP, Reading GHG emissions and biomass from the tree tops down next year when the Orbital Carbon Observer (OCO, get it:) is rebooted, to 1 Ha resolution.

Then, any farmer can click "Google Carbon maps" to see the soil carbon accounted to his good work, a level playing field to be a soil sink banker.
The Moon Pie in the sky funding should be served to JPL

Global Clean Stove Initutive:
Another significant aspect of low cost Biomass cook stoves, that produce char, is removal of BC aerosols and no respiratory disease emissions. At Scale, replacing "Three Stone" stoves the health benefits would equal eradication of Malaria & Aids combined.
The Biochar Fund :
Exceptional results from biochar experiment in Cameroon
The broad smiles of 1500 subsistence farmers say it all ( that, and the size of the Biochar corn root balls )
http://biocharfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&a...

State Dept. Release;
100 million clean-burning stoves in kitchens around the world.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/09/147494.htm

WorldStoves in Haiti; http://www.charcoalproject.org/2010/05/a-man-a-stove-a-mission/

NSF Awards $1.6 million in grants;
BREAD: Biochar Inoculants for Enabling Smallholder Agriculture
http://iapnews.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/cornell-university-wins-bio...

NASA’s Space Archaeology; $364K Terra Preta Program
http://archaeologyexcavations.blogspot.com/2010/08/time-traveling-v...

For those looking for an overview of biochar and its benefits, These authors have done a very nice job of distilling a great deal of information about biochar and applying it to the US context:

US Focused Biochar report: Assessment of Biochar's Benefits for the USA
http://www.biochar-us.org/pdf%20files/biochar_report_lowres.pdf

This PNAS report (by a Nobel lariat) should cause the Royal Society to rethink their report that criticized Biochar systems sequestration potential;
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Reducing abrupt climate change risk using
the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory
actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/09/0902568106.full.pdf+html

Congressional Research Service report (by analyst Kelsi Bracmort) is the best short summary I have seen so far - both technical and policy oriented.
http://environmental-legislation.blogspot.com/2010/02/biochar-examination-of-emerging-concept.html