Saving the planet by pumping CO2 underground

UNDERGROUND INNOVATIONS
Kansas' location good for zero-emissions plant

By KAREN DILLON
The Kansas City Star
It's the one giant coal-fired power plant that everyone seems to want.
Kansas and about a dozen other states are trying hard to win FutureGen - a
$1 billion pioneering plant that pumps carbon dioxide deep into the ground
instead of into the atmosphere.
"It looks like an awfully good project," said Drew Malcomb, a public affairs
specialist for the fossil energy program at the federal Department of
Energy, which is overseeing it.
"If it is successful, which we have every indication it will be, it is going
to be a watershed event in both the energy world and in the
environmentalists' world because it is the best of both.
"This is cake and the icing too."
Instead of burning coal, the zero-emissions plant uses a process in which
coal is turned into a synthetic gas. Hydrogen is drawn off and used to
generate electricity, power hydrogen cars and could provide fuel for future
uses.
The process also produces carbon dioxide, and the larger novelty of the
plant is depositing the carbon dioxide underground. U.S. Department of
Energy officials think three types of underground storage can be used: oil
reservoirs, coal seams and deep saline aquifers.
"You will capture it, compress it to the point it becomes liquid and pump it
underground where it won't ever bother us again," said Alex Silver, a vice
president at Black & Veatch, an international engineering firm based in
Kansas City and a member of a Kansas working group on FutureGen.
Coal-fired power plants have come under heavy criticism because the
emissions from burning coal - nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds
and carbon dioxide - are thought to contribute to global warming.
The first two pollutants are under increasingly tighter restrictions by the
federal government. But carbon dioxide is not yet regulated by the federal
government although a single power plant emits millions of tons each year.
Research on pumping carbon dioxide into the ground already is being
conducted near Russell, where carbon dioxide created at an ethanol plant is
being injected into oil reservoirs, state officials said. The carbon dioxide
can be used to remove oil that couldn't be pumped out with an oil derrick,
an added benefit that would allow Kansas to increase its oil production if
it got the plant.
"They have gotten the easier stuff, and have to work a little harder to get
the rest of it," Silver said.
It's estimated that Kansas has used up about 50 percent of its oil reserves,
and that the process could recover 25 percent.
Although competition for the plant is expected to be rigorous, state
officials think Kansas has some attributes that other states may not have.
"Kansas has a leg up," said Tim Carr, head of the energy research section at
the Kansas Geological Survey.
Because the state was once a leader in oil and gas production, it has large
underground reservoirs left behind after the deposits were depleted. Once
the carbon dioxide is pressurized, it can be poured into them.
The state also has an advantage in its large network of pipelines that was
laid for the oil and gas industry. Some of those pipelines might be used or
additional ones could be built with little problem because the state already
owns the right of way.
In addition, the state's location and proximity to one of the country's
largest rail hubs makes it easier to ship a variety of coal from around the
country for testing.
"It would be a benefit to the entire nation," said Silver. But Kansas has
two major drawbacks.
It doesn't have well-placed congressional leadership fighting for it, state
officials say.
A spokesman for Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican on the House
Appropriations Committee, said the state hasn't yet asked for assistance but
Tiahrt would be ready to back Kansas' effort.
And Kansas doesn't have a seat among the industry giants that have formed a
coalition to partner with the government on the plant. Members include
American Electric Power, Kennecott Energy and Peabody Energy.
"We don't have the big boys," Carr said.
Still, he said, Kansas is working to put together a consortium of small and
midsize utilities to try to garner a seat.
Other states expected to bid on the project include West Virginia, which has
mine shafts and strong political backing from Sen. Robert Byrd; Illinois,
which has an aggressive financial package and strong congressional
leadership; and Texas, which has allocated $10 million from its general fund
as an incentive and is the president's home state.
Other states include Ohio, Montana, North Dakota, Florida, New Mexico,
Wyoming, Utah and Kentucky.
Kansas, too, has a financial incentive after the legislature on unanimous
votes put through a bill this past spring that would allow the state to
issue bonds for the plant.
Even if Kansas doesn't win the plant, Kansas City could see some of the
benefits because Black & Veatch and Burns & McDonnell Engineering, also
locally based, already are in discussions with alliance members about the
project.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, with President Bush's support, first
announced the project early last year.
Abraham, who resigned last month, said that because of the large supplies of
coal in the United States, coal will be a primary source of energy for
hundreds of years to come.
The prototype plant would be 275 megawatts, and cost nearly $1 billion. The
government hopes to select a bidder by the end of 2005 and make the plant
operational within 10 years.
The federal government would pay 75 percent to 80 percent and industry, in a
partnership with the government, would foot the rest.
A consortium of the largest industry corporations, FutureGen Alliance, has
formed and is currently drawing up an agreement with the Energy Department.
Funding could become clear as early as February and jumpstart the project,
said Henry Cialone, a vice president at Battelle Memorial Institute, which
is coordinating the FutureGen Alliance.
Even environmentalists want the project to happen and are raising concerns
that the timetable is too drawn out.
"I would prefer to see a more crash effort to see that a project like this
is up and running quicker," said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the
Clean Air Trust, a non-profit advocacy group. "The climate is getting
warmer, and coal burning is a very big piece of that, and coal burning is
likely to increase in the future.
"I think we need to find a way to make coal a modern fuel, so something like
this is going to be crucial to make that happen."

This is interesting wonder how its gonna turn out.

Peace...

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Instead of burning coal, the zero-emissions plant uses a process in which
coal is turned into a synthetic gas. Hydrogen is drawn off and used to
generate electricity, power hydrogen cars and could provide fuel for future
uses.
The process also produces carbon dioxide, and the larger novelty of the
plant is depositing the carbon dioxide underground. U.S. Department of
Energy officials think three types of underground storage can be used: oil
reservoirs, coal seams and deep saline aquifers.
"You will capture it, compress it to the point it becomes liquid and pump it
underground where it won't ever bother us again," ... Research on pumping carbon dioxide into the ground already is being
conducted near Russell, where carbon dioxide created at an ethanol plant is
being injected into oil reservoirs, state officials said. The carbon dioxide
can be used to remove oil that couldn't be pumped out with an oil derrick,
an added benefit that would allow Kansas to increase its oil production if
it got the plant.
"They have gotten the easier stuff, and have to work a little harder to get
the rest of it," Silver said.
It's estimated that Kansas has used up about 50 percent of its oil reserves,
and that the process could recover 25 percent. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

the gist of it is tantalizing for the world,
more oil, more hydrogen, less CO2.
hope it works.

but what of all the co2 they pump into the ground... it will someday leak it's way out right...? just sounds funny that they plan on putting gas under ground and don't expect it to ever come back up
LOST

there are gases underground that have been trapped there for millions of years.
proly long enough for our purposes.

I don't know,
it seems that an idea
that is only
"good enough"
for now
and potentially harmful
in the future
doesn't seem like
the best plan,
though it may be
the best plan one has.
Kind of like dumping
in oceans, only
(in human's eyes)
more long-term.
At least as we see
the world right now.

Something new will always turn up... earthquakes perhaps... or gas eruptions... maybe the core will heat up, heating the earth's surface destroying plant life... who know's.... but i'll tell ya one thing, if it's here, and we find it, we'll find a way to fuck it up...

jeez,
bitch if we pump it in the air,
bitch if we dump it in the oceans,
bitch if we pump it underground.
what are we supposed to do with it,
hide it up our ass ?

(Message edited by admin on December 09, 2004)

[mojorisin]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

what are we supposed to do with it,
hide it up our ass ? <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

San Pedro/ CO2 enemas....Trip for hours while you save mother earth! or actually be telling the truth when you say "baby if you give me some ass it will save us all"

jeez,
bitch if we pump it in the air,
bitch if we dump it in the oceans,
bitch if we pump it underground.
what are we supposed to do with it,
hide it up our ass ?

Just yours, Hip.

I'm a big fan of just getting it all off our
planet - wish we could use all that CO2 to power
rocket ships to blast it all into space. However,
I saw something once that was about how, if people
keep sending satellites into orbit and leaving
them there how eventually we'll have a sort of
shield between space and us and then or asses are
stuck here until that shit stops orbiting and
burns up, hopefully before falling down on us.
And I wonder how much any other life in the
universe would take to flying their spaceship
along one day and then WHAMMO! Covered in
McDonald's refuse. At least it's space and it
won't be stinky.

[willey]

Saw an article recently purporting that petroleum was not likely a product of breakdown over zillions of years, but rather a byproduct of gasses like CO2 trapped during the formation of the earth which through enormous pressure were chemically reacted into the long-chain hydrocarbons we love and adore. The pointy heads further asserted enough dead dinasours and plants could account for surface coal seams, they could not account for the massive ammounts of natural gas that originated around 20,000 feet underground, far deeper than any plants or animals ventured. Further stated they had recreated petroleum with CO2 under lab conditions that would exist at that depth. I'll look for a link to an article. So give the Hip a break, perhaps these CO2 pumpers are working off the pretense of that research and may brew us more natural gas eventually!

[willey]

QUOTE
I'm a big fan of just getting it all off our
planet - wish we could use all that CO2 to power
rocket ships to blast it all into space
-------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------}
If we have no CO2; eventually we have no plants and trees to convert CO2 to O2 and thus no more us. No us, then no fuss, no muss.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

wish we could use all that CO2 to power
rocket ships to blast it all into space<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

lol
not thinking it thru.
what about all that rocket exhaust fumes in the air?
what about the cost ?
over $500 to ship a pound into orbit,
more than that if you want to leave
orbital for deep space &amp; permanent removal.

a
$1 billion pioneering plant that pumps carbon dioxide deep into the ground
instead of into the atmosphere.

A BILLION?!!!}

[life]

forget teh cost ond exhaust.. what happens if you start shipping the mass of the earth away from the earth 1 spaceship at a time? the earth LOSES WEIGHT.. this would become an issue as the tons floated away year after year.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

what happens if you start shipping the mass of the earth away from the earth 1 spaceship at a time? the earth LOSES WEIGHT.. this would become an issue as the tons floated away year after year.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

i don't know about that.
the earth currently gains several thousand tons a year from micro-meteorites [space dust] raining down constantly.
if we shipped the CO2 out slowly enough
any loss in mass would be easily offset,
the impact would be that the growth in mass slowed

(Message edited by admin on December 10, 2004)

I wonder if global warming is actually from the massive increase in humans over the last few hundred years. Bodies generate heat - maybe it's us affecting the temperture (it's obvious it's us, I mean us in our personal physicality and our tendency to generate bodyheat).

no more us. No us, then no fuss, no muss.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Bodies generate heat - maybe it's us affecting the temperture <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

lol
that'd be ironic eh ?

Or you could just build a power station that doesnt produce any waste... click http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/eddesk.nsf /0/A7BD712D34AE25B3CA256B12001BA833?open or http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,36 04,776735,00.html (same story, two websites)

I like the idea. What nobody has remembered is carbon dioxide is heavier than air. It will have to be sealed deep enough that the weight of the air above it will hold it in place. That will prevent leakage. We take so much shit out of the ground, it's a good idea to start putting some of it back in.