Skip navigation.

olelog

What on earth

Carbon Storage in Deep-Sea Basalt

, ,

Emission to the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, mainly resulting from combustion of fossil fuels, is considered a major player in global warming. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main greenhouse gas, accounting for around 65%. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an approach to mitigate global warming by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from large point sources such as fossil fuel power plants and storing it instead of releasing it into the atmosphere.

Since 1996 the Norwegian oil and gas company Statoil has been injecting 1 million ton CO2 per year into a salt water containing sand layer, called the Utsira formation, which lies 1 km below the bottom of the North sea. Other countries in Northern Europe have very advanced plans (some under construction) to store CO2 in terrestrial reservoirs, typically consisting of sand or sandstone (aquifers) sealed by an overlying layer of clay or other impermeable rock.

There are, however, concerns about putting large amounts of CO2 into the ground. You don’t want any leakage so that it seeps up to atmosphere, which is missing the point by the injection. In the case of deep ocean storage, there is a risk of greatly increasing the problem of ocean acidification, a problem that also stems from the excess of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere and oceans. (So far there has been no leakage from the Norwegian Sleipner project).

It would be better if the CO2 through chemical reactions were bound in minerals. E.g. a reaction between calcium (Ca) and CO2 to form (stable) calcium carbonate (CaCO3).

According to a paper published online (and with open access!) deep-sea basalt offers a unique environment for CO2 storage (or CO2 sequestration as it is often called). The paper by Goldberg et al. is titled Carbon dioxide sequestration in deep-sea basalt (PNAS of 22 July 2008, vol. 105. no. 29). Oceanic crust is mainly composed of basalt (welling up at mid-ocean ridges), which means that vast volumes of seawater-filled pore space are available. Within deep-sea basalt aquifers, the injected CO2 mixes with seawater and reacts with basalt, both of which are rich in elements with which the carbon dioxide can react. The release of Ca2 and Mg2 ions from basalt will form stable carbonate minerals as reaction products.

Important mechanisms for trapping CO2 injected within deep-sea basalt further include
i) blanketing deep-sea sediments, which form a low-permeability stratigraphic barrier impeding vertical fluid migration;
ii) the formation of CO2 hydrate, which is denser and less soluble than liquid CO2 in sea-water of 2°C;
iii) gravitational trapping at water depths of at least 2,700 m, where injected CO2 is denser than typical seawater, causing it to sink.
All three of these mechanisms are simultaneously available within ocean crust, providing independent protective barriers that could safely isolate the oceans, oceanic ecosystems,
and the atmosphere from leakage of CO2 escaping from deep-sea basalt aquifers.

The deep-sea basalt region of the Juan de Fuca Plate off the coast of Oregon and Washington is suggested as CO2 storage region for US. Here an area of 68,000 km2 has water depths of at least 2,700 m and a covering sediment thickness of at least 200 m. The total storage capacity for injected CO2 in this area is 208 gigaton of carbon.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/29/9920.abstract
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/futures/35017

A small fact sheet in pdf format about the Norweian Sleipner project and the Utsira fomation can be downloaded from:
http://www.bellona.org/factsheets/1191928198.67

See also my post on Carbon Dioxide Storage

Arizona geology has a recent post on geologic sequestration of CO2 here.




Replant MangrovesConodonts, temperature and biodiversity

Comments

P2O2 26. July 2008, 23:23

Sir,

Did you write this seriously? Really? I hoped you would never publish this crappy human idea which are absurd in nature, based on false foundations, and invented on falsed data (NASA GISS).

Will you opt for storing water vapor or cows' farts? Water vapor is far more potent and dangerous gas contributing to greenhouse effect. What about other methane sources? Perhaps capping volcanoeos could be patented too. Let's connect a volcanoe going to explode to a cone of dormant one with a huge pipe then cork the new storage.

Why highly educated people go down so low sometimes to support those who want earn money at the expense of a whole society implementing moronic ideas? Sir, you should be ashamed. And back 40-50 years the world wasn't so screwd up as it is today. What went wrong?

Przemysław Pawełczyk

galanga 1. August 2008, 12:56

Originally posted by P2O2:

What went wrong?


Quite a lot of stupid and rude persons like you were born and/or became adult.

-------------------------
Ole, thank you for this article, AND for the links to previous one's, all together they show that such a method is quite far to be the perfect answer.
I'm wondering how the CO2 is filtered from the plants gas, or from the air. The article at www.abc.net.au tells that it will cost a lot of money, but what technic is used ? And do the technicians have thought to calculate how much energy this may use ? (and then how much greenhouse gases it will produce...)

nielsol 3. August 2008, 13:41

Let me start with an oversimplification, just to show one of the principles.

You place a filter filled with lime in your flue gas stack.
The lime (calcium oxide or CaO2) reacts with carbon dioxide (CO2) to form calcium carbonate (CaCO3)
CaO + CO2 = CaCO3
This reaction is reversible so in a next step you heat your new calcium carbonate in a kiln to drive off carbon dioxide
CaCO3 = CaO + CO2
You collect the carbon dioxide and store it (e.g. underground).
You reuse the newly produced lime from the kiln in your filter.
The main cost is the use of energy in your kiln.

Instead of lime (or pure lime) you can of course use any chemical that will absorb carbon dioxide (in a more economical way, hopefully), and this is where people from the industry get a bit evasive. Big money is at stake, and there are such things as industrial secrets and industrial espionage. Anyway much research is still going on to find the most economic solutions

Instead of storing the carbon dioxide it would be nicer if you produced a product that you could sell - and here the industry and rersearch people get even more secretive.

Here are a couple of relevant links:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080519092205.htm
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn12727-chemical-sponge-could-filter-cosub2sub-from-the-air-.html

You are absolutely right that the use of energy and other resources + the extra emissions of greenhouse gases in the process have to be taken into account. I know that some researchers are looking for a process where only water is emitted and where the filtering of the flues gas leads to useful (economic and sellable) products, but it takes a few years to get such techniques patented and integrated in industrial plants.

Ole

galanga 3. August 2008, 23:00

Thanks ! it's very clearly explained ! :smile:
But I am a little bit worried to see that such person like Richard Bronson is interested in that subject, that means that like you say, there's a LOT of money hidden under the rainbow.
And if this is patented, that means the company that own that patent may come very important, and then can dictate the prices.
Maybe the future Microsoft will be a company like that...

nielsol 7. August 2008, 15:48

Warsaw is concerned about planned EU caps on emissions of carbon dioxide, one of the main gases held responsible for global climate change, and which is produced by burning coal.

Poland, which has a population of 38 million, generates 96 percent of its electricity in power stations fired by coal, much of it from the country's still-plentiful Silesian reserves in the south.

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Poland_seeks_allies_to_block_EU_carbon_caps_report_999.html

Behind this I can see a reason for a pole like Przemyslaw Pawelczyk (see comment above) to be a denialist when we human beings’ responsibility for at least part of the global warming is concerned. Of course economics will always play a role. Experience has however shown that it can be economically interesting for the industri to adopt environmentally friendly technichs, including reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Personally I have confidence in the scientists behind the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The IPCC is a scientific body. The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. Climate change is indeed a very complex issue.

galanga 11. August 2008, 21:14

Interesting, it seems that Poland (and maybe others Europeans countries) now follow the USA way of thinking, by saying that reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would hurt their economy.
Indeed, I can't blame the Polish government, because if the USA can think like that, I don't see why Poland should forbid itself to do so.
By the way, my personal feeling is that it is already too late, and our civilisations will soon collapse.

Write a comment

You must be logged in to write a comment. If you're not a registered member, please sign up.

Download Opera, the fastest and most secure browser
July 2009
M T W T F S S
June 2009August 2009
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31