Role of Carbon Sequestration in Removing Carbon from the Atmosphere - Case Study Example

Carbon sequestration is a feasible solution to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Introduction Carbon sequestration removes the carbon present, in any form, from the atmosphere and stores it; a technique devised to lessen its amount and in turn the global warming. NAS (1992, p.918) defines geosequestration as a “large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry.” This involves carbon capture and storage (CCS); the techniques involved require high expenditures to carry out the process using fossil fuels. In a nutshell, the process of carbon sequestration involves capturing carbon dioxide at any industrial resource and transporting it through pipelines to an appropriate site for storage. Once at the storage location, it is injected into a deep geological formation beneath the surface of the Earth stored in isolation from the atmosphere for an extended amount of time. At present atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are rising by over 10 per cent every 20 years (UNFCCC, 2006) which means that by 2050 we will be encountering the worst of the impacts of climate change. The unfortunate news is that these greenhouse gases tend to remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years if they are not dealt with which means we not only have to deal with our GHGs but also the ones emitted long before us. The methods used to convert and capture carbon are summarized below in fig. 1: Fig.1 Methods of carbon dioxide capture Source: http://www.co2crc.com.au/dls/factsheets/CO2CRC_FactSheets.pdf Nevertheless, carbon sequestration is perhaps the only allowable option for lessening the emissions of greenhouse gas while using fossil fuels and preserving the existing reserves of energy-distribution. Carbon dioxide has been inserted into oil fields to boost retrieval of oil since the 1970s. Some of the added carbon dioxide remains in the oil field, so in this logic; insertion and storage has been ongoing commercially for almost 40 years. The matter The issue here is not only to combat the hazardous effects of global warming but also to mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level. There are many arguments about the use of sequestration and its possible promises and perils. One of the major concerns is that storing carbon compounds this way can make the ground unstable pumping it with such unnatural amounts of carbon dioxide; which may eventually damage the Earth more than global warming itself. Still, the oil and gas industries has been studying the prospective of carbon sequestration in dealing with large amounts of carbon dioxide that occur in nature mixed with methane in various inartificial gas fields. Fig. 2 As time goes on, increasingly secure trapping mechanisms come into play and the overall security of storage increases. Source: http://www.co2crc.com.au/images/geopics/trappingsecurity.jpg Carbon dioxide is known to trap heat from the sun and give off that heat in the Earth’s atmosphere which leads to an unnatural change in the climate, especially when it takes place in excessive amounts. Unfortunately, this natural method of keeping the Earth warm enough for sustenance of life is working to our disadvantage by overuse. Typically, when fossil fuels are burned, the concentration of greenhouse gases increases; the basis for this abnormal increase is humans. The past 50 years has seen double the rise in overall temperature of the Earth (6.5oC) than ever witnessed in the past century or so. This is where carbon sequestration steps in; this technique is surprisingly new, only formulated in the past decade. This novel technique is a huge concern for nearly everyone and for obvious reasons, this is rightly so. Although, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2005, p.3) clearly states that no single technology option will be able to achieve the emission reductions needed to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere according to the Third Assessment Report (TAR). Table 2 Carbon sequestration and ozone removal Source: http://www.ufore.org/using/images/atlantaT_BIG.jpg Pros The benefits of utilizing geosequestration are that it offers an inexpensive way of converting carbon dioxide into a solid form by transferring it into rocks containing magnesium. The technique here is that magnesium will turn the liquefied carbon dioxide into a stable and safe compound known as magnesium carbonate (Philander, 2008). This way there will be no danger of leakage and sites such as old coal mines and depleted oil and natural gas reservoirs are best (Wang and others 2005). Moreover, solubility trapping draw in the suspension of carbon dioxide into the saline water in the reservoir. Fig. 3 Geological storage options for CO2. 1. Depleted oil and gas reservoirs 2. Use of CO2 in enhanced oil recovery 3. Deep unused saline water-saturated reservoir rocks 4. Deep unmineable coal seams 5. Use of CO2 in enhanced coal bed methane recovery 6. Other suggested options (basalts, oil shales, cavities) Source: http://www.co2crc.com.au/images/geopics/storageoptions.jpg “The net reduction of emissions to the atmosphere through CCS depends on the fraction of CO2 captured, the increased CO2 production resulting from loss in overall efficiency of power plants or industrial processes due to the additional energy required for capture, transport and storage, any leakage from transport and the fraction of CO2 retained in storage over the long term.” (IPCC, 2005, p.4) On land, addition of bio-char in soil presents the greatest ability for carbon storage. While, adding phosphorus to the ocean seemingly offers the next largest durable store of carbon and moreover, it is probably inadvertent (Durie and others, 2003). Combining these two options may have the probability to store nearly all of the carbon discharge from a convincing alleviation situation. Cons IPCC (2005, p.321) states that “when accounting for the 10-40% energy penalty in the capture plant as well, a full CCS system with mineral carbonation would need 60-180% more energy than a power plant with equivalent output without CCS.” In other words, carbon sequestration, the very technology conceived to reduce the amount of carbon will eventually result in higher amounts in its production of carbon dioxide. Not only that, it has also been stated that sequestration is estimated to truly start contributing in about 25 years and 50 more years for its actual use and to say that we will be facing the worst in 2050! This not only means that it will take a long time but also that carbon dioxide will only be captured in small proportions to that of its overall presence. Such low levels of success fails to justify large scale investments in investigations and advancement of the technology and also cannot achieve the levels of emission stabilizations necessary within the next two decades to avoid the most serious consequences in climate changes (Energy and transportation, 2003, 62 p). Fig. 4 Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide over the past 10,000 years (large panel) and since 1750 (inset panel). Measurements are shown from ice cores (symbols with different colors for different studies) and atmospheric samples (red lines). The corresponding radiative forcings are shown on the right hand axis of the large panels. From Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis – Summary for Policymakers, February 2007, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  Source: http://www.co2crc.com.au/images/geopics/icecore.jpg Environmentally, no leakage is acceptable when it comes to geosequestration; the reason being that greater than 7% carbon in the atmosphere is hazardous to health. Natural air has only 0.033% of carbon in it (Vanek and Albright, 2008). Analysis All the evidence suggests that dumping the sequestered carbon underground basically for the next generations to handle is not acceptable on many bases. Under the circumstances that sequestration proves to have no adverse effects in the long run, this technology is not a viable option. I personally think this is just putting off the matter for later which is similar to procrastinating instead of solving. The fact that carbon sequestration uses fossil fuels to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide which actually initially came from burning fossil fuels may not be as appealing a technique anyway. This is due to the reason that in the long run, we definitely have to deal with huger than ever amounts of carbon than ever estimated. Moreover, another problem associated with this is that geosequestration for coal-based power plants are that it is notably pricier than the present coal-fired power plant. Fig. 5 Global Sequestration Capacity Source: http://carbonsequestration.us/Websites/htm/DOE-Fossil-Energy-Carbon-Sequestration_files/carbon_capacity.gif According to the Bureau of Land and Water Quality, the underground reservoirs that can be used for depositing carbon dioxide currently contain brine which may have lethal metals and radioactive substances. That means that we actually have to pump out these toxic substances for the carbon dioxide to have room to be stored in then it doesn’t qualify as an uncontaminated process. The progress made today will be able to stall the intense storms, floods, and droughts for the time being threatening to strike soon. Global warming not only affects the earth but it also has some impact on the spread of infectious diseases. Up-to-the-minute evidence suggests that we might have wrongly estimated the change in climate and that it may come earlier and in worse severity than expected. While at one hand, we are vulnerable to such climate changes on the other, we may not be fully prepared to deal with such a disaster; even the developed countries such as Australia. In the end, all that counts is whether it is a friend or a foe and to me, it is more a foe in disguise than a friend. References Durie RA, Williams DJ, Mcmullan P. 2001. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Illustrated ed. Australia: CSIRO Publishing. 1045 p. Energy and transportation: challenges for the chemical sciences in the 21st century. 2003. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 62 p. Metz B, Davidson O, Coninck H, Loos M, Meyer L, editors. 2005. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).UK: Cambridge University Press. p 3, 4, 321. Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf NAS. 1992. Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base. Illustrated ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 918 p. Philander SG. 2008. Encyclopedia of Global Warming and Climate Change. Illustrated ed. California: SAGE. 170 p. UNFCCC. The greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle. 2006. Bonn. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available from: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/2903.php Vanek FM, Albright LD. 2008. Energy Systems Engineering: Evaluation and Implementation. Illustrated ed. Iowa: McGraw-Hill Professional. 166 p. Wang LK, Pereira NC, Hung YT. 2005. Advanced air and noise pollution control. Illustrated ed. New Jersey: Humana Press. 99 p. Read More