The latest Big Idea for storing CO2 from carbon capture and sequestration or CCS (still a technology in development) is to force it into basalt, which is volcanic rock. This rock is plentiful off the U.S. east coast, where 1/4 of Americans live. But obviously not the whole country lives on the east coast, so this basalt won’t help anyone else in the country, unless they can move the basalt. Also, many people who live on the coasts might be moving inland as climate change escalates in future decades.
Reportedly, basalt can absorb a huge amount of CO2 (though not all that we emit for the next 100 years) and after it’s absorbed, it turns into a limestone-like rock. That means there is no danger of the CO2 escaping. The problem with this seemingly good idea is that they aren’t even started on this yet, it’s merely an idea, and we don’t have time to depend on unproven technologies to mitigate climate change at this late date. We are in a climate crisis situation, trying to avoid tipping points, and this process and technology development is yet to be made and implemented. The Waxman-Markey bill devotes more money to CCS, inexplicably, than renewable energy, but that doesn’t mean we have to throw money away on this now. We can throw money away on it later. It would make more sense now to put money into things we know will work to try to get the carbon dioxide levels down as quickly as possible. CCS could take 20-30 years to develop and then there is no guarantee it can be done on a large enough scale to have the necessary impact.
This is discussed in the latest Climate Files podcast and the article below from SolveClimate. The article’s author claims:
A July 2008 study by the same researchers found that 208 billion metric tons could be stored in the offshore basalt formations of the U.S. Northwest’s Juan de Fuca tectonic plate — that is as much as 150 years’ worth of U.S. emissions. . . . . In a study released Monday, ABI Research predicted that new CCS projects will keep 146 million tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Their estimates are based on markets for carbon emissions allowances encouraging firms to seek out technologies like CCS to limit their emissions.
The problem with that claim is that the U.S. emits about 7.1 billion metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) of greenhouse gases per year, (my estimate of 5.7 billion metric tons in the podcast was low) and that means only about 34 years of U.S. emissions could be forced into basalt, if the procedure even works. Considering that our emissions have to peak and then taper off starting in about 10 years or less, and the technology might not be developed for 20 or more years, it’s hard to see where planning to store CO2 in basalt gets us. Look at all the money they want to sink into CCS!
From 2009 through 2014, they predict, $14.6 billion will have been invested in 73 new CCS projects.
But Rochon [from Greenpeace] worries that these projects will redirect funds that might be better spent on technologies like those used to generate renewable energy.
Here is part of the SolveClimate article:
Now, researchers say, those basalt formations could become a main depository for excess carbon dioxide. A study in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences points out the advantages of using the East Coast’s on- and offshore basalt flows for the sequestration of carbon dioxide captured from power plants in the region.
In carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), carbon dioxide from emitters like coal-fired plants would be compressed into a liquid state and pumped into underground reservoirs such as empty oil wells. The idea is to minimize the climate change-related effects of carbon dioxide emissions by keeping, as much as possible, the carbon released from formerly underground mineral deposits out of the carbon-overloaded atmosphere.
The PNAS study’s authors, from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, say basalt — particularly offshore basalt — may be the ideal choice for a sequestration reservoir.
Basalt’s advantages are several-fold. The igneous rock is full of tiny pores into which the liquefied carbon dioxide might be pumped. Once contained deep within the rock formations, the carbon dioxide would react with the basalt to form, over a relatively short time period, a carbonate mineral resembling limestone. This is expected to significantly decrease the risk of leakage, a major concern with previous CCS proposals that looked at shale and sandstone repositories.
“The basalt itself is very reactive, and in the end, you make limestone,” co-author Dennis Kent said. “It’s the ultimate repository.”
But even storing carbon in basalt is far from a perfect a solution to the world’s fossil fuel-caused problems, some activists say.
“It’s great that the science is advancing, but the fact is the science isn’t going to be ready in time,” says Greenpeace’s Emily Rochon.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says global emissions are going to need to peak in five to seven years to avoid the worst effects of climate change, she says, and CCS technologies will not be commercially ready until 2020 to 2030. She says the focus, rather, should be on reducing the burning of fossil fuels.
It is not clear how much time it would take to implement the Columbia team’s basalt plan, still in the preliminary stages. 
The next step would be “to get some exploratory surveying and drilling going,” said lead author David Goldberg, a geophysicist. The study suggests nine areas to start with.
The main point of the study is that basalt may be a superior alternative to other CCS plans. A plan to inject carbon dioxide from a coal-fired plant in Linden, N.J., for instance, has drawn criticism because it is not clear the sandstone into which it would pump would prevent the carbon dioxide from leaking out again.
But deep within the offshore basalt formations, the carbon dioxide would be too heavy, relative to the surrounding water, to come back up, in addition to the fact that it would become solidified into carbonate minerals — and would have hundreds of feet of marine sediment above it. As it fills in the porous interstices of the rock, the carbon dioxide is expected to displace only seawater.”
Read the rest of the article here.
Recent Comments