Talk:Carbon capture and storage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] "Complete" CCS project?

this article currently says that there is not a "complete CCS project" anywhere. Sleipner, In Salah and Weyburn are complete projects doing all three processes. should we edit that to a few projects?

Here's what the IPCC report has to say on the subject

"The technical maturity of specific CCS system components varies greatly. Some technologies are extensively deployed in mature markets, primarily in the oil and gas industry, while others are still in the research, development or demonstration phase. Table TS.1 provides an overview of the current status of all CCS components. As of mid-2005, there have been three commercial projects linking CO2 capture and geological storage: the offshore Sleipner natural gas processing project in Norway, the Weyburn Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) project in Canada (which stores CO2 captured in the United States) and the In Salah natural gas project in Algeria. Each captures and stores 1–2 MtCO2 per year. It should be noted, however, that CCS has not yet been applied at a large (e.g., 500 MW) fossil-fuel power plant, and that the overall system may not be as mature as some of its components."


I guess they ought to be mentioned as complete CCS projects. However, none are considere projects exemplifying CCS in combination with a large-scale fossil fuel power plant, which is the application of main interest for CCS, so that should surely be mentioned too. Jens Nielsen 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPCC report

I've just done a major update on the article based on the recent IPCC report.

To do
- Add table with costs for different types of CCS
- Figure out a neat solution for references. Currently, all information comes from IPCC, 2005.
It seemed to me a bit lame to repeat [IPCC, 2005] all over the article.
- find some good illustrations to put in.

Jens Nielsen 09:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


The link for the IPCC report is broken Rainmansweep (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

It has recently been proposed to merge the article.

I oppose this move because the subjects are clearly different, though of course there are overlaps.

CCS specifically refers to a climate mitigation idea to be applied industrially. Carbon dioxide sinks is a more general concept, and carbon sinks as such are independent of human activities. However, there is much content on the sinks page that should be removed because the information is on this CCS page. Jens Nielsen 10:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jens and oppose merging this page. This page represents an important international initiative and conceptual approach to mitigation of global warming. Carbon dioxide sinks is a component of the carbon dioxide cycle and is distinct from any human activity designed to alter the CO2 budget. --B Carey 06:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


I just want to reiterate what others have said; CCS and carbon sinks should not be merged. The CCS article has a lot of information specifically about industrial application that wouldn't be appropriate in the carbon sinks article. Jhamon 04:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CO2 Hydrate Layer Suppression of CO2-water mixing

Anybody seen any work done on this? It was mentioned in the Nobel Intent reference I listed that the geologic survey penetrated a hydrate layer. I wonder if given enough time an unperturbed CO2-water boundry layer would form a protective CO2 hydrate, much in the way a reactive metal is oxidized by atmospheric O2. This could reduce the effective pH change. Then again, I'm not an expert on hydrate formation/stability. ScienceJunky 01:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC) well I found an answer in that IPCC document. Apparantly the hydrate layer does undergo some dissolution when fresh sea water is introduced...

[edit] Is it safe?

I'm reminded of the Lake Nyos Limnic eruption disaster where CO2 leaked out and killed thousands. Is there any information on safety? 84.13.248.194 18:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty in the IPCC report quoted. I suggest you read it and add some info on it here. Jens Nielsen 20:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we pump it into space?

A space elevator is in the works for transporting objects, would it be possible to pump carbon dioxide out of our atmosphere? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zbuckholz (talk • contribs) 08:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't think this is even remotely possible. First, a space elevator is very much science fiction. It's unclear if it will ever be realized - certainly not in the next 20 or so years. Secondly, to permanently get rid of the CO2, you would have to accelerate it beyond 11.2 km/s. That needs a lot of energy. Combine it with the cost of capturing it in the first place, and I doubt this is even energetically feasible. If you just transfer it to some orbit around Earth, this will decay and the gas will eventually fall back (doing interesting things to existing satellites and the high atmophere, no doubt). Finally, you would be changing the atmospheric composition of Earth forever, with unknown long-term consequences.--Stephan Schulz 09:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon Air Capture

First Successful Demonstration of Carbon Dioxide Air Capture Technology Achieved by Columbia University Scientist and Private Company --Stbalbach 14:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Any numbers on how much energy is required to extract the CO2 from the air? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.138.109 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge CO2 sequestration

The stubby CO2 sequestration article should be merged into this bigger one, with a redirect from that title to here. However, although the "CO2" part of the title does not have much appeal, the "sequestration" word is key here, so we need to arrange things so that people searching for that word readily find the main article about this subject, whatever it is actually called.-69.87.200.226 10:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, when I searched "carbon sequestration" I got diverted to Carbon dioxide sink which is confusing since one is a man-made process and the other is generally natural. I should have been diverted to Carbon Capture and Storage. Zatoichi26 (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Klaus Lackner demonstration prototype

Klaus Lackner from Columbia University was featured yesterday on the 1jun07 Science Friday radio program.[1] He claims to have a practical method for extracting CO2 from the wind, and is working on better ways to recycle the chemical. About one meter-squared of vertical surface would be needed in a windy spot to harvest the annual CO2 emissions of a US citizen, through large sheets spaced about 1 cm apart. It seems like his name and proposals should be integrated into the article, and perhaps links to some of the resources listed in the radio program link above.

"Global Research Technologies, LLC (GRT), a technology research and development company, and Klaus Lackner from Columbia University have achieved the successful demonstration of a bold new technology to capture carbon from the air. The "air extraction" prototype has successfully demonstrated that indeed carbon dioxide (CO2) can be captured from the atmosphere. This is GRT’s first step toward a commercially viable air capture device." [2] -69.87.200.226 10:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mineral storage: enthalpy change

The enthalpy changes given in the table - in kj/mol (sic) - are for reaction of the oxide with CO2. However, none of the basic elements is present in the earth's crust as the oxide - they exist as silicates or aluminosilicates, which are substantially less basic and so give a lower enthalpy of reaction. Thus the table overestimates the effectiveness of the capture reaction. In view of the fact that the reactant minerals can't be simply defined, there is no point in having an enthalpy column here. . . .LinguisticDemographer 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] material cut from Carbon dioxide

This was in the main carbon dioxide article, but should be here instead. Please incorporate whatever isn't in this article already. Calliopejen1 04:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Methods of carbon dioxide extraction/separation include:

  1. Aqueous solutions
    • Amine extraction
    • High pH solutions
      • For example, carbon dioxide reacts with dissolved CaO, to form calcite (CaCO3)[1]
  2. Adsorption
  3. Solid reactants
  4. Membrane gas separation[6][7]
  5. Regenerative Carbon Dioxide Removal System (RCRS)
    • The RCRS on the Space Shuttle Orbiter uses a two-bed system that provides continuous removal of CO2 without expendable products. Regenerable systems allow a shuttle mission a longer stay in space without having to replenish its sorbent canisters. Older lithium hydroxide (LiOH)-based systems, which are non-regenerable, are being replaced by regenerable metal-oxide-based systems. A metal-oxide-based system primarily consists of a metal oxide sorbent canister and a regenerator assembly. This system works by removing carbon dioxide using a sorbent material and then regenerating the sorbent material. The metal-oxide sorbent is regenerated by pumping air heated to around 200 °C at 7.5 standard cubic feet per minute through its canister for 10 hours.[8]
  6. Algae Bioreactor Technology
    • Originally developed at MIT using power plant flue gas to support bio diesel feed stock, they use algae to process out the CO2. Commercial studies have been performed on over 2000 MW of power plants in the United States since 2001. As of March 2007, this is the only commercially installed technology for CO2 mitigation on active power plants. The largest test site for an Algae bioreactor system is connected directly to the smokestack of the Arizona Public Service Redhawk 1,040 megawatt power plant, producing renewable biofuels as a process by product. At commercial scale, this organic process holds the potential to "scrub" CO2 without the considerable solid and fluid waste issues associated with other technologies[9]
  7. Underground geological storage.
  8. Deep ocean storage. At sufficiently high pressure, around 500 m depth, carbon dioxide forms a solid hydrate with water.[citation needed]
  9. Terra preta - Charcoal enhanced soils
    • Amazon soils that are valued today for their rich agricultural abilities are found to contain charcoal that was put into the soils by Amazonians thousands of years ago. Plant and organic material converted to charcoal can be used to enhance soils and keep CO2 out of the atmosphere for thousands of years. Oak Ridge National Laboratory has found a way to further enhance charcoal's agricultural benefits and capture more CO2 by combining ammonia and fossil fuel exhaust to form ammonium bicarbonate in the charcoal lattices. The work by Oak Ridge National Laboratory is currently being commercialized by a corporation called EPRIDA, Inc.[10]

[edit] Suggest Renaming this article

I suggest this article is renamed as Carbon capture, storage and Conversion. Converting CO2 to hydrocarbons is in a sense equivalent to storage but has the added benefit of reuse thereby reducing CO2 emissions twice.81.132.9.192 (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Converting CO2 to hydrocarbons in no sense equivalent to storage. Rather the opposite. This is a big problem in the general understanding of the carbon cycle and greenhouse gas emissions and this article, via the inclusion of Reuse, is adding to this confusion. I agree with renaming, if reuse is to be kept here, but prefer that the Reuse topic be removed or moved to a more suitable article, like carbon offsets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphriz (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable objectivity

Can some information be provided on the main technological hurdles to be overcome? I feel that this would provide more objectivity, as without outlining the difficulties the reader is lead to assume that there are none.

One section I find particularly misleading is "CO2 capture", in which one sentence reads:

"The technology is well understood and is currently used in other industrial applications.

This implies that there are no technological barriers to capturing CO2 in this way. The efficiency, cost, and barriers to using this method on a large scale need to be stated. At least provide a reference! --Bvvad (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CCS is not a solution: it is only a futil remedy and should not be extensible in a large scale !!

If I understood well, climate change is because of some changes on the atmosphere gases' proportion which are produced by human beings. So, human industrial process transform coal or hydrocarbons into CO2 by mean of exothermic oxidation reactions. At this point, the easy answer to the question on solving the issue could be: Ok, let's recover an earlier gases' proportion by mean of getting rid of the CO2 that we have produced. By the way, this elimination is not real but only a temporary storage that could have leakages with non-measurable consequences. My point is that, burying CO2 is not the solution because with the carbon we are undergrounding O2 as well, the oxigen that living beings need as part of their own oxidation reactions in order to provide them energy as well. We can not forget that perhaps we can artificially keep a ratio between O2 and C02 in the atmosphere, but not for the remaining gases in the way that CCS is foreseen: N2, which is in 78% in atmosphere will become in a larger ratio whether CCS processes would develop at industrial scale. This should have some effects too. --Olvapanomix (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Pablo A. Simon--Olvapanomix (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why bother separating out the CO2 before storage?

One question I haven't seen addressed anywhere, but which would seem like an obvious thing that readers might wonder, is why is it necessary to use energy to separate out CO2 before pumping it underground? I understand that pure CO2 has uses which make it more cost effective (e.g. forcing out oil), but if the CO2 wasn't separated out, the whole process would require less energy and hence might be cost effective in and of itself. Why not pump the full exhaust from coal plants underground? Scott Teresi (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)