Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

An Ocean Trap for Carbon Dioxide

A New Jersey plant is planning to put ocean-floor carbon sequestration to the test.

By Amy Coombs

Thursday, May 14, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

In an attempt to address global warming, a handful of power plants are capturing carbon dioxide during the energy-generation process, liquefying the gas under high pressure and piping it to geologic storage sites miles away. But sequestering carbon dioxide underground is impractical in many areas, and it raises fears that the stored gas will escape.

Offshore: SCS Energy hopes to pump carbon dioxide pollution into sandstone located almost two miles beneath the floor of the Atlantic Ocean.
Credit: Daniel Schrag

Now a new plant in Linden, NJ, will test an ocean carbon-sequestration technology that could expand its potential dramatically. If permits are approved, the plant, operated by SCS Energy, based in Concord, MA, will pump its carbon dioxide pollution into sandstone located almost two miles beneath the floor of the Atlantic Ocean.

Previous storage efforts have focused on filling underground structures such as depleted oil reservoirs, but these structures don't contain enough volume to accommodate the vast amounts of CO2 produced. On the other hand, undersea storage has raised concern that carbon dioxide could slowly leak into ocean water.

Harvard University professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences Daniel Schrag addressed some of these concerns in a 2006 PNAS paper, in which he suggested storing carbon dioxide in porous sediment hundreds of meters below the sea floor in deep parts of the ocean. Stored at this depth, under higher pressure and temperatures, the carbon dioxide should be less buoyant and remain trapped indefinitely.

The two injection sites being surveyed for the new carbon-sequestration project are under about 100 meters of water, and about 2,500 to 3,500 meters down in the rock. "We are going deeper overall under the floor, but we aren't working in a deep region of the sea," says Schrag, who serves as a consultant to the project.

Story continues below


Pressure-management systems should make the process possible, Schrag adds. "It turns out pressure management is the most important part of this, and it's much easier under the ocean," he says.

Both on land and offshore, pumping carbon dioxide into sandstone usually displaces water, causing pressure to build up. "If you inject vast amounts of CO2, you have to make space," says Schrag. "You push the water to the side, but it can't go anywhere." Injecting the CO2 too quickly, or adding more than the rock can hold, risks fracturing the sandstone, allowing the CO2 to slowly leech out over time.

Comments

  • Seafloor spreading, movement
    I had to read the article twice to be sure that they are serious about CO2 infusion into the seafloor. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand the danger by applying the proposed infusion. Seafloor spreading, underground volcanic activities and the slow movement of the plate tectonics should point out that this is a risky procedure. A crack could occur any time and the consequences are very dangerous. I would say plain and simple review your procedure, think it over.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Dersegler
    05/14/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • [no subject]
    It's simple.  Let's just convert all that CO2 into Carbon nanotubes. Then we can make all our clothes from them and stop polluting the air & water with the insecticides from natural fibers and emissions from synthetic fibers.  Plus, all our t-shirts would be bullet-proof.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    kmerkle
    05/14/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • Why stop at clothing?
    carbon is the basis for our ecosystem and our bodies.  Turn it into solid carbon compounds.  Add hydrogen and oxygen and you have plastics.  Put it into sheets and put resin and you have the carbon equivalent of fiberglass.

    Build it into carbon girders for small skyscrapers.  FOr larger skyscrapers or arcologies, huge fabricated in place or 'grown' with enzymes carbon tubes can be lifted with balloons like the one proposed for Tokyo bay.

    Carbon nanofibers can re-inforce concrete.  build sewage and plumbing pipes out of it.

    And they have now found that using charcoal or charcoal like carbon compounds added to farm soil dramatically increases yield or restores depleted soils where organic compounds have been lost or never there to begin with.

    We're in the process of digging up 7 times the carbon as fossil fuels from the ground vs what is in the air already so is clear we can't just spew filth into the air forever.  Make it useful by taking it out of the air and make money doing this.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    erbium
    05/14/2009
    Posts:136
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Simply Alarmists
    First, to address the article, I believe it should be done, as an easy and efficient stop a large portion of our CO2 emissions, or as the buzzword has it lately our "Carbon Footprint"

    To address the alarmists, this isn't drilling into tectonically active areas, it's sandstone bedrock, not shale.  This is actually a lot environmentally safer then drilling for oil anywhere off-shore.

    Now, to address the humorous suggestion to turn it into oxygen and carbon nano-tubes.  This process requires energy, in fact more energy then the coal plant that produced it as a byproduct makes.  In essence what you're suggesting is to make more coal power plants, so we can power carbon nano-tech factories.  Ok, not a bad idea, but it doesn't solve the fact that we still have 99% of that CO2 that we don't have the energy/facilities to turn into carbon nano-tech.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Shiladie
    05/16/2009
    Posts:56
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • Stops Short
    I agree with those who point out that earthquakes could release CO2. But, if they used multiple dispersed sites, the risk would be mitigated in the short term. In the long term over a few thousand years, it all gets released.

    As a petroleum engineer, I can attest that mistakes will be made and fractures will likely occur at the injection sites on occasion. It's unclear from this article just how large an impact that would have, but it would create leaks of some kind.

    But the real bottom line is economics. The project being described is quite expensive of money and energy. Utilities will not likely sequester all of their CO2, but rather just enough to offset costs that are imposed by governments. At some point, rates of return will not favor continued sequestration. My guess is that would occur at a low rate of sequestration.

    To date, I have not thought of or learned of a single means of carbon capture and storage that would not require great expense and great energy requirements. While not quite a CCS technology, using CO2 to feed algal biodiesel installations would be the most economic way to make use of this byproduct. The diesel could be used as fuel or as a chemical feedstock. We'll see if the numerous startups on that front succeed in a commercial solution.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    MakeSense
    05/17/2009
    Posts:99
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • CO2
    Check out A2BE Carbon Capture to learn how CO2 can be made into useful products. Personally, I'm very leery of pumping massive quantities of it into the rocks. Can anybody prove this is going to be stable? Nope. Why not turn that stuff into something useful? Fertilizer, animal feed, biodiesel, oxygen? Carbon sequestration is just letting the energy companies and the fossil fuel companies off the hook for the time being. Shove the problem off to future generations. Public policy needs to get behind this kind of tech, big time. It's looking like the administration is waffeling already. Try extending your time frame beyond 4 years.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    madsci
    05/18/2009
    Posts:7
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Fuggeddaboudit
    I foresee problem with this. They're going to be competing with local "entrepenurers" for prime dumping sites.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    durs
    05/18/2009
    Posts:35
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Doomed Project
    I would advice the Harvard Professor to think of other alternative. This a not only going to cost but also increase C02 at the same time. The nett decrease cannot justify the costs and future risks, including polluting the oceans.

    I will go for ideas where microbes could convert carbon to useful byproducts. Our plants are the most natural example of converting carbon to food. I dont see why microbes cannot do a much better job.

    est Regards
    Rate this comment: 12345

    gurby1
    01/07/2010
    Posts:2

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Malleable Maps, Artistic Robots and Bubble Interfaces
Technology Review January/February 2010

Current Issue

Security in the Ether
Information technology's next grand challenge will be to secure the cloud--and prove we can trust it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.