by BOREDGIRL on Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:45 am
Well Canada has a solution of sorts:
Take your carbon and stuff it
Comments (4)
Friday, March 9, 2007 | 04:26 PM ET
By quirks
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
Val
AT THE END OF MY TANTRUMS SOMEBODY GETS BURIED.....YOU WERE WARNED.