|
The storage hazards of carbon die-oxide make nuclear waste look benign by comparison because;
- Unlike nuclear waste that degrades after several thousand years carbon sequestered underground must be secure forever.
- Reservoirs of sequestered carbon die-oxide must be monitored forever.
- The cost of monitoring reservoirs will have to be borne by someone.
Corporations have already suggested that the public pay for monitoring.
- It is unclear what remedial work can be done, if any, should carbon die-oxide leak from a reservoir.
- Many trials of CCS technology have leaked and some projects factor in a leak factor per year.
Government reports on this subject offer some sobering points.
Australian Government reports highlight CCS dangers
Concentrated CO2 is a toxic substance that can kill plants, animals and people. Below are excerpts from Australian Government research documents.
“The local risks associated with pipeline transport of carbon dioxide (CO 2) could be similar to or lower than those posed by hydrocarbon pipelines already in operation.
The local health, safety and environment risks of geological storage would be comparable to the risks of current activities such as natural gas storage, enhanced oil recovery, and deep underground disposal of acid gas. An effective monitoring regime is very important in terms of an overall risk management strategy for carbon dioxide capture and storage.
For storage of CO2 in the ocean, experiments have shown that sustained high concentrations of CO2 in the ocean would cause mortality of ocean organisms. CO2 effects on marine organisms will have ecosystem consequences. Ocean sequestration also results in increasing the acidity of the ocean.
The environmental impacts of mineral carbonation are similar to those of large-scale surface mines, including the production of large amounts of material requiring disposal.
Endquote. Source: Aust Gov’t Website. Was at: http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ccs/publications/key-findings.html#qu9 item 10. quoting the IPCC report. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_summaryforpolicymakers.pdf emphasis added.
Comment;
Hydrocarbon pipelines do leak, and CO2 is a smaller molecule than most of the hydrocarbons, giving it a greater tendency to leak.
The ‘very important’ role of monitoring would have to continue forever. By comparison the dangerous life of radioacive waste is short.
Higher concentrations of acid in the ocean will, along with killing masses of marine life including the food we harvest from the sea, decrease the ability of coral to grow as coral needs a certain Ph to make it’s hard structures, decrease the ability of oceans to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thereby increasing the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and further contributing to climate change.
Carbon Dioxide is poisonous to humans at concentrations greater than 5-10% in the atmosphere, meaning that if a pipeline broke the lives of people nearby would be threatened.
Too see what a large scale surface mine looks like checkout the Google earth page.
From another government study;
“It is currently difficult to quantify with confidence the likelihood of unplanned releases ofCO2 from geosequestration sites.”
“There is a slight risk of CO2 migrating out of the storage reservoir and into one or more surrounding geologic formations. This in turn could result in the contamination of freshwater aquifers, and/or interference with the activities at producing oil/gas reservoirs or coal mines. In the case of CO2 injection into deep saline formations, there is also the small possibility that displaced brine could contaminate groundwater. The contamination of freshwater aquifers could be caused by vertical migration of stored CO2. Buoyancy forces, caused by the density difference between the injected supercritical CO2 and the formation waters, will tend to drive stored CO2 upward. If the formation is not a geologic trap or not adequately sealed by an impermeable caprock, CO2 could leak from the storage reservoir. There is then the potential for the vertically migrating CO2 to dissolve in shallow aquifer waters, form carbonic acid and lower the aquifer water pH, which in turn could result in the mobilization of heavy metals and/or the leaching of nutrients. In a worst-case scenario, the contamination of a freshwater aquifer could exclude its use for drinking or irrigation supplies. CO2 migration within the subsurface also has the potential to contaminate energy and mineral resources as well as pose an occupational safety hazard for mining and exploration activities. “
Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/co2sequestration/subs/sub5.pdf Attachment B, Page 31 (39 of 59) Emphasis added.
Comment;
The Barrow Island Carbon Capture and Geosequestration demonstration project (funded with $60 million of taxpayer money) has the potential to pollute Western Australian aquifers used by farmers and townships. If they could not tap into the underground aquifers they could be out of water. Given their remoteness it would be difficult to supply them with water from other sources during the dry season.
The Australia Institute warns of the risks involved
Quotes from The Australia Institute ”Geosequestration”
3.4 Technological risk
The discussion in the previous section indicates that there is a significant risk that CCS from coal- fired power plants will not be an economically viable greenhouse abatement option compared to other options, including energy efficiency, natural gas substitution and some renewable energy technologies. This is only one example of technological risk and uncertainty in relation to CCS. As large-scale commercial capture and storage of CO2 from coal- fired power stations has not yet been achieved anywhere in the world, there remains a real risk that one or more of the numerous technologies involved will not be viable.
Table 7 Environmental risks associated with geosequestration
Slow, long-term release of CO2 to the atmosphere (i.e. reservoir leakage)
Reduction in the net climate change mitigation achieved through CCS, resulting in worse than expected global warming
Sudden large-scale release of CO2 to the atmosphere
Reduction in the net climate change mitigation achieved through CCS, resulting in worse than expected global warming
Asphyxiation of humans, animals and plants
Escape of CO2 to shallow groundwater
Water acidification, mobilised toxic metals, leached nutrients (Bruant et al. 2002)
Displacement of deep brine upward
Contamination of potable water sources
Escape of other hazardous captured flue gases (e.g. SOx, NOx)
Local air pollution
Source: http://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP72.pdf (emphasis added)
Marine sequestration has special dangers
CO2 stored in the oceans will gradually be released. Depending upon the depth it is injected to it can release up to one third in the first hundred years and up to two thirds in the first five hundred years. The CO2 thus released would then add to the concentrations in the atmosphere so while we may be able to reduce our emissions today, and comply with targets, storing CO2 in the ocean is only delaying the impact of those emissions. This may well create a false sense of security now and exaggerate climate change for those who live in the centuries to come.
Was at http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ccs/publications/key-findings.html#qu9 item 9 (emphasis added)
The dumping of Carbon Dioxide into or under the ocean would likely be in contravention of the 1972 London ‘Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. Unless the Australian Government sought permission to dump what is now a banned toxic waste into the oceans.
Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/co2sequestration/subs/sub5.pdf
The costs will be huge and continue forever
The cost of CCS would double the cost of the electricity where storage sites are distant.
Source: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2006
It's unlikley that CCS technology will ever be economically viable, and even if it were to become so in the provision of energy then the cost of monitoring the storage facility forever would make it unviable in the long term. Australian Government research highlights the cost;
“The issue of cost recovery may be a consideration in relation to long term responsibility for geosequestration sites. It has been proposed by the Regulatory Working Group that government accept long term responsibility for site monitoring and maintenance following demonstration by the proponent that a minimum set of criteria is met. Whatever the service provided, it may be appropriate to seek cost recovery from industry. If cost recovery is not undertaken, the costs to government are effectively borne by the community (taxpayers). However, where cost recovery is undertaken, the additional costs to those utilising government services may be passed on the final consumers of the product, (in this case energy), otherwise make carbon dioxide geosequestration an unfeasible technology.”
Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/co2sequestration/subs/sub5.pdf Item 5.2 paragraph 2 (emphasis added)
'Geological Periods of Time'
Santos (a major oil and gas company) own representations state that "...stored carbon dioxide will need to remain in place for geological periods of time (in the order of thousands to millions of years)." and when it comes to paying for storage states that liability should fall on the government "...in any event, government must take responsibility for long-term aspects of the environment." they state.
Comment: Santos suggestion is that the current Australian Government, which has only been functioning since 1901, make a committment on behalf of all governments to come to bear the cost of CCS facilities for a time frame that is tens of thousands of times longer than the government has existed.
Source: http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/energy/energy-policy2/greenhouse-challenge/near-zero-emissions/submissions/latrobe-valley-brown-coal-submissions-santos (emphasis added)
Santos submission to Victorian Government. 2 October 2007 point 7.3 "Post-closure liabilty and responsibility"
Even the International Energy Agency (IEA) sees problems and delays
According to the International Energy Agency, IGCC technology “is not yet fully mature… currently, capital costs are high and operationally the plants do not match the availability or flexibility of conventional units… IGCC will require time before it is commercialised for use with coal, even with high value coals (Rousaki and Couch 2000, pp. 30, 69).
All the effort is undone if the CO2 escapes
2008 Victorian Fellowship awardee Dr Zhejun Pan, working on CCS at the CSIRO Ian Wark laboratory in Clatyon, states that the time frame for storing carbon could be "possibly over hundreds of years". (Waverley Leader, 7-10-2008 page 14)
If all the obstacles and the huge costs can be overcome the entire excercise is rendered pointless if the CO2 escapes from storage. You then have the exact problem that CCS was trying to address in the first place, only at a time when the world may be many degrees hotter than it is now, thereby compounding the effect of global warming at a time when the planet can least afford it.
In fact it would be worse because of the extra CO2 stored away (caused by the added energy needed for the process). The amount of CO2 in storage would likley be larger again because, at the time, people thought it a safe solution and continued to use coal for energy as before and didn't bother to reign in their energy use.
Experiments in the USA have shown unexpected results, with the gas dissolving the rocks that are meant to contain it.
Source: Frio Brine Pilot Experiment, Texas, 2006
Will Australia be able to export the CCS technology?
The ability to pioneer, develop and re-sell CCS technology has been touted as one of the reasons for investing immense amounts of taxpayer dollars into 'demonstration' projects (see elsewhere under grants). We may have already missed the boat on CCS technology.
The European Union is funding a demonstration plant in China under the 'Near-Zero Emissions Coal Iniative'. In 2005 the UK and China signed an agreement on UK funding and in 2006 the European Union signed a similar agreement with China. The goal was to have a demonstration plant up and running in 2014. Source: Stern Review page 593 item 24.7
Countries like Germany are already many years ahead of Australia in development without using the vast sums of taxpayer money the Australian Government has directed towards 'research'.
Even if Australia is first to patent a CCS process to cash in on that patent would mean that 1/ No other country develops a slightly different method. 2/ Australian technology is so superior to all others that nations will pay a premium to use it. 3/ Our researchers don't leave the country and take their knowledge with them to high paying jobs overseas as has happend with our Solar IP. 4/ All other countries respect Australia's Intelectual Property (something China and other developing nations often don't). 5/ That we can actually bill other contries for using the technology and they will pay.
It would also mean that Australia, as the worst per capita greenhouse poluting developed country, will be extracting money from poor developing countries with a fraction of the per capita emissions a premium for doing what we didn't have the will to do ourselves.
Links on CCS
Rising Tide www.risingtide.org.au/cleancoal
External Link to quotes on 'clean coal' http://action.thisisreality.org/facts
Marketing 'clean coal' in the USA was a US$35-US$45 million effort http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/25/groups-spend-millions-in-clean-coal-ad-war/
|
Fossil Fuels 
