backtop


Print 63 comment(s) - last by MisterChristop.. on Feb 19 at 9:49 AM


Drilling has begun on a massive $84M USD U.S. Department of Energy carbon sequestration project. The project and other sequestration efforts have many critics, including the IPCC and utilities, two rivals which typically disagree on climate issues but in this case are in agreement.  (Source: Wired)

The DoE project drills deeper than past U.S. sequestration projects, into sandstone of Mt. Simon, shown here. The reservoir along with similar ones in other parts of Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois could store up to 100 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide.  (Source: Wired)
Why worry about your problems, when you can bury them away?

As the U.S. Department of Energy's first-of-its-scale project in carbon burial launches, interest in carbon burial and sequestration is at an all time high.  Many nations wish that there was an alternative to traditional emissions cuts, which can hinder growth, and could reduce their net contribution to atmospheric carbon.

Carbon sequestration could provide just such a solution.  By burying the substance in underground cavities or in carbon rich soils in swamps or other sites, the net contribution of a country to emissions can be reduced.  And while many in the environmental community no longer like the idea, pointing out that such deposits could be easily released and don't solve the overall problem, the movement to adopt carbon sequestration still has powerful supporters.

Drilling began this week in Illinois on the DoE project, which will bury one million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the ground by 2012.  The project is the first of its scale in the U.S., and while still small compared to total U.S. emissions has the potential to grow much bigger.  Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky have enough underground space to store approximately 100 billion tons of CO2, enough to completely negate 25 years of emissions at the current rate, if fully filled.

Robert Finley, the manager of the current project states, "This is going to be a large-scale injection of 1 million metric tons, one of the largest injections to date in the U.S."

While Mr. Finley is enthusiastic about the project, others aren't.  The Bush administration last year canceled funding for an even bigger carbon sequestration project, FutureGen, citing concerns about the practice.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, typically a strong voice in support of emissions control, has sided with the utilities for once in vocally opposing carbon burial.  It has released studies indicating 30 percent of the energy from a coal burning plant would be wasted trying to capture the carbon dioxide from the flue gas.

One thing that could give supporters of burial a boost though is new carbon-specific filtering materials produced in labs like Omar Yaghi's at UCLA and at Georgia Tech under Chris Jones.  These materials may potentially make capture much cheaper and more efficient, making storage the only remaining challenge.

John Litynski, who works in the fossil-fuel-centered National Energy Technology Laboratory's Sequestration Division, believes storage should be easy as pie for the U.S.  He states, "What we found in the U.S. with the research that we've done over the last 10 years is that there is a significant potential to store CO2 ... in these very large reservoirs that are underground."

However, many of these reservoirs are deeper underground that existing sequestration projects have reached.  That's why the deep reaching Illinois project, which drills into the Mt. Simon sandstone, is such a critical test bed.  Scientists will, for the first time, be able to observe what happens when they pump compressed carbon dioxide 6,500 feet below the surface.  Describes Mr. Litynski, "We have numbers for what we think the capacity is in the U.S., but the only way to prove that is to actually drill a well."

The Illinois project will pump carbon dioxide produced by ethanol fermentation underground.  Archer Daniels Midland provided land for the site.  Even with these concessions, the project will cost over $84M USD, thanks to the high cost of drilling.

At a recent speech Mr. Litynski was challenged by an audience member who pointed out that 10,000 projects of the scale of the Illinois one would be needed to offset current emissions.  Mr. Litynski refused to back down from his support of the concept, though, dodging the question and stating, "From my point of view as someone working in this field ... the political rhetoric gets to the point where it's all supposed to be solar or wind or coal or natural gas (versus sequestration).  The reality for the situation is that we need all of these technologies."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 2/18/2009 8:36:07 AM , Rating: 2
> "The term 'nuclear battery' is also used for reactors with very long fuel cycles "

This must be some new use of the term. A nuclear battery is used to refer to generation by spontaneous decay, rather than forced fission.

> "The initial fuel charge will take years to build up to the 7% Pu240 "

No. It depends on the neutron flux within the reactor. Even in a normal LWR, you'll break 20% within a fuel rod's normal lifetime, and with some designs, you can achieve substantial 240Pu poisoning within weeks, long before significant quantities of 239Pu have been generated.


RE: Disagree
By randomly on 2/18/2009 12:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This must be some new use of the term. A nuclear battery is used to refer to generation by spontaneous decay, rather than forced fission.
No, it's not a new use of the term. It's been used for reactor designs that have essentially a single fuel load that runs for a long time. A single use 'Battery' if you will.

Both the Hyperion 25 Mw and the Toshiba 10 Mw with it's 30 year fuel cycle are essentially single use systems and are not designed to be refueled. They are designed for remote power supply and don't seem to be economically competitive with large reactors. The 4S is projected to have operating costs of 10 cents a Kwh, that does not even include the capital costs of the plant and installation.
They are also paper designs and I'm not aware that even prototypes of these designs have actually been built.

quote:
No. It depends on the neutron flux within the reactor. Even in a normal LWR, you'll break 20% within a fuel rod's normal lifetime, and with some designs, you can achieve substantial 240Pu poisoning within weeks, long before significant quantities of 239Pu have been generated.

Yes it does depend on the neutron flux. However you are making several mistakes. One is comparing the 30 year fuel cycle of a 4S to the 18 month fuel cycle of a LWR. Clearly the 4S experiences a much lower neutron flux and therefore takes much longer to build up Pu240 levels. The second mistake is comparing the LWR which is a thermal reactor to the 4S which is a fast reactor. The fast neutrons spectrum in the 4S greatly increases the neutron capture cross section of Pu240 which slows down the buildup of Pu240.

All that aside you can still make a bomb even with reactor grade plutonium (20% Pu240), although it's a bit more difficult, the physical size needs to be larger, and handling problems increase. The US has successfully tested a bomb made from reactor grade plutonium.


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki