On the other hand, it’s always possible that we shouldn’t worry so much about a trace gas in the atmosphere.

The proposed bury carbon dioxide ‘solution’ begs the question of what the ‘problem’ is exactly.

Is sequestration a genuine chance to mitigate at least some of the greenhouse gas problem, or simply a tool for big business to quell fears and to reinforce their lobbying for business as usual? Following their outstanding success in creating a market ecosystem which thrives in a culture of political paralysis, is big business now turning to pseudo solutions in an attempt to pre-empt any legislative and market-based carbon disincentives, which threaten business as usual security?

The energy industry has created a marketplace gambling on ‘waste leveraging’ – disturbingly reminiscent of infamously failed financial practices. Following the guiding hand of market forces, power supply companies have created a network of interdependent suppliers, not to ensure security of supply, but to ensure maximisation of profit. The system not only contains but actually relies on inherent inefficiencies. An example of this is the practice under which the Swiss import foreign electricity when cheap, using it to wastefully pump water up to mountain reservoirs, in order to reuse it to generate electricity at times of premium rates. All the time hiding such wastage economic practices behind a veneer of ‘green energy policies’.

If business criteria are used as delimiting parameters, solutions are not possible, because they are the origin of the problem itself. It is unlikely that a disease will evolve to cure itself, if we want a simplistic metaphor. On the other hand, pathologists first study the pathogen before seeking a counter-measure.

Pursuing this metaphor relentlessly, leads to visions of thinking being liberated laterally through thinktanks such as an institute for economic pathology. And the IPCC could be renamed the ‘Cassandra Institute’ for heightening the symbolic impact of their alarming reports.

A characteristic of environmental issues is that the specific debate immediately becomes embroiled in ideological digressions. So it is the case with carbon sequestration, which is similar to any geoengineering ‘solution’, in that it seems to threaten a delay in making any genuine move towards a sustainable world in every sense. Our greatest danger perhaps is finding a half-way answer to the problem as defined by a vision of economic continuation, rather than economic sustainability. The solution is alluring in seeming to be in the right direction, but is alarming in its potential to pacify and distract the voice of dissent.

Andrew Bone

I understand that this is a different geological setting, but what geochemical data are being studied, and where can I get my hands on those papers?

Unfortunately the second option is exactly what is happening in Australia right now, and I’m sure as hell its happening in plenty of other places too. 

Intermittent solutions are beneficial, but only if they’re treated as intermittent solutions and not an end game.

http://mhalb.pagesperso-orange.fr/nyos/index.htm  .

You’re right ,the geologic conditions at sites that are being used for this type of experiment
are entirely unlike those at Lake Nyos. However, the mechanism of leakage of CO2 from underground tank till the underground water is the same. What is the reliability information
about  of the impenetrability of the geological structures over large areas for many hundreds or thousands of years? Or we dont know   the natural and man-made processes that can destroy the continuity of geologic structures? What a catastrophes could occur during and after this process? Not so easy in this world! I respect your opinion, but the article does not convinces about the security CCS.

Of course, there are presumably lots of these kinds of seeps in the area, most of which don’t actually stay lit very long and aren’t really “eternal flames” as such :)

Here’s a photo from the article Maggie linked to of the most well-known gas seep in WNY – it’s underneath a waterfall: http://blogs.agu.org/magmacumlaude/files/2010/11/gas-seep-5.jpg

Anyway, even in such a leaky area leakage of CO2 wouldn’t be a concern since it would go into much deeper reservoirs than the shallow ones that are leaking.

And again it must be emphasized that the geologic conditions at sites that are being used for this type of experiment are entirely unlike those at Lake Nyos!

The site you link to is, uh, interesting…

Supercritical fluid flows into porous sandstone and displacing the brine – it is variant of environmental man-made pollution with unpredictable consequences. In addition, in the nature no  “impermeable” materials.

2.«…The CO2 will sit there for somewhere between a few hundred and a few thousand
years, Finley says, until it mineralizes…»

This is just a hypothesis, which has not been proved by observations for a period of few hundred and a few thousand years.

3.«…when a carbon storage site springs a leak? The primary concerns are really A)
groundwater quality and B) that you’ve just wasted a lot of money capturing and storing carbon dioxide that’s now leaking back into the atmosphere…».

The primary concerns -   the safety of people.

4.«…Most researchers don’t think a leak from a reservoir is likely to cause any loss of
life. There’s a reason for that.»

Groundless and irresponsible opinion.

5. «When you think… about Lake Nyos. In 1986… asphyxiated humans and animals for miles around. That’s not the kind of leak you get from underground reservoirs.»

Mechanism of leakage of carbon dioxide (CO2), using  which was  caused the limnological catastrophes at Lake Nyos in 1986 and at Lake Monoun in 1984, is suitable for creating the catastrophes during  leakage CO2, which was injected into deep geological formations for long term storage .

http://nyos.lv/en/nyos/mehanika-vkljuchenija-spuskovogo-mehanizma-31859

http://nyos.lv/en/nyos/nios-limnologicheskaja-katastrofa-32235

http://nyos.lv/ru/nyos/vlijanie-atmosfernyh-osadkov-na-gazovuju-kavitatsiju–v-donnom-osadke-otkrytogo-vodojoma-32263

Twenty-five years, mankind can not eliminate CO2 leakage from deep geological strata in Lake Nyos and Lake Monoun.

Regarding c02 leaks and the risk to people – yes there is the Lake Nyos disaster in Africa, but 
there are places in Africa where the c02 seeps out and because it is heavier it settles low to the ground. While adults are not in danger, small children sometimes suffocate and die because they are closer to the ground.  Don’t have a link or anything, but it was in some documentary about Africa. C02 can kill very quickly, there are many cases of people walking into a confined space and collapsing and dying immediately.  There was an incident in BC where two men died in a fermentation tank at a winery. The first one passed out and fell in and the second one tried to rescue him.

Perhaps a less expensive solution might be to have algae biodiesel plants setup next to coal plants using the heat and co2 to grow algae. Then harvest the biodiesel and simply bury the left over plant material. No danger of leak and you get a second use of the c02.

The pine-beetle has been spreading the past 20 years thanks to a warmer climate. There aren’t enough sufficiently cold days in winter to kill the larvae.  This would be a win for everyone – jobs where the mills are closing and  clean energy and storage of energy and improved soil.  

Those trees are dying and will give of co2 in the process, so this is a way to utilize them and the area is so vast there is no way we could harvest them all anyway.  Bio-char is one of the ways of natural sequestration that could actually make a difference.

It could also be done with farm waste and garbage.

The second low tech and natural way to deal with c02 sequestration is through grass farming – ie. Polyface Farms – they raise cattle, pigs, chickens etc also using a natural cycle. The cattle are grass fed – they graze on specific area marked out by movable fencing after several days of grazing and fertilizing the soil  they are moved and chickens are brought in which eat the larvae from the droppings before they hatch etc. When a perennial crop such as grass is cut or grazed on the surface it sheds and equivalent amount of root matter – this is also a way of sequestering c02. You don’t need to till the soil and fertilize it for grass and you get better tasting beef and healthier livestock (rather than feeding them corn which they don’t digest easily and require antibiotics etc)

looking forward to reading your book Maggie,
Petr

However fracking is completely different in that instead of pumping slowly so that the gas/fluid is absorbed into the porosity of the rock, it is pumped very quickly and at very high pressure in order to create a big fracture through which the hydrocarbons in the ground can then flow towards the well more easily. It is performed when the rock in a reservoir contains hydrocarbons but it just can’t flow through it very well because of low permeability.

If (and that’s a big “if”) that’s true, then while there’s some non-zero risk of leakage, it’s not an indefinite risk.

Of course, maintaining some CO2 reservoir for even a few hundred years is pretty iffy itself. There aren’t very many public works programs with that kind of longevity. And the idea that we’re capable of a commitment lasting a few thousand years seems incredible to me.

Another mitigating factor is, assuming the claim that CO2 leaks in this context would be relatively slow, is that with proper monitoring a leak could be detected and addressed before it significantly affects the viability of the solution. Again, this depends on a proper social commitment to continue the maintenance, but it’s at least technically feasible in theory.

Good Job!

Not to be a pill, here, but if you read my upcoming book about the future of energy, (pre-order now on Amazon! http://www.amazon.com/Before-Lights-Go-Out-Conquering/dp/0470876255/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322859343&sr=8-1) I do point out that energy efficiency is our greatest, cheapest tool in the effort to create a more sustainable world.

And that’s true for everybody. It’s true for us. And it’s true for developing countries. What we all want are the services energy provides. Quantities of fossil fuels burned and emissions produced are side-effects of that, not equivalents. It’s easy to get the services for less. Far easier and cheaper than it is to find more energy. 

I didn’t mention that in this article, because this is an article about one, specific technology and, frankly, I can’t talk about everything that’s important in every single article. 

Lake Nyos is specifically mentioned in the article. As is the risk of catastrophic outgassing.

Catastrophic outgassing? Anything about me after eating dried apricots?

In the end, though, you’re still talking about replacing the whole carbon economy with plants, either as substitute biofuels or as carbon stock you store somewhere, and it takes a lot of plants. To give you an idea, reversing the carbon concentration increase to date would take about a trillion trees- which works out to a forest about the size of Russia. You can start down your road, of using more efficient plants like algae, and interrupting their life cycle so they don’t rot, and growing them under intensive conditions with greenhouses and concentrated gases, and the requisite area keeps dropping- as the requisite capital keeps going up.

So, the answer is, yes, biological solutions can certainly participate. But it’s not of a case of “why don’t we do this simple green thing instead of this scary industrial thing,” it’s “here are two industrial things that are scary for different reasons- how much of each would you like?”

And of course none of this matters if there’s not a framework where people pay  for their carbon.