IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presents what I believe is the most straightforward and best scientific treatment of CO2 Sequestration sources I have discovered. IPCC draws no hard conclusions but does offer great (but cautious) hope for the reliability of CO2 Sequestration.
One has to remember that even though this panel is "independent" the overwhelming majority of scientists studying CO2 Sequestration are funded by the world's largest fossil fuel corporations. IPCC members, by virtue of subject matter, must become rather intimate with petroleum industry principals. Not to necessarily judge the motives of the IPCC one must understand the context of their work, their world.
Although clearly straining to present a rosy outlook for CO2 Sequestration (consider their audience), this IPPC report manages to include a multitude of known problematic issues and is forthright enough to admit the likelihood that unknown issues exist.
Most troubling to me, is the IPPC's rather typical resistance to discuss the most basic (and most certain) physical laws and gas behaviors. These basic and inescapable predispositions of gases cannot be ignored. These are the laws of nature I so often speak of. Gas laws and Thermodynamics should cause scientists to naturally lean toward caution when considering CO2 Sequestration. Yet one rarely reads, hears, sees, or feels an air of caution. When scientists cheer instead of doubt, one must, like it or not, heighten one's own skepticism.
In response to one claiming CO2 underground storage is the best possible solution to ever-increasing anthropogenic CO2 production.
Analysis of the Obvious
CO2 is a gas, as in... not a liquid. How long can even the least porous stone contain a given volume gas? If pressurized? How long can a tightly sealed soda bottle contain CO2? What happens if the seal or bottle breaks or cracks?
CO2 gas can alternate from gas to liquid states. The IPPC seems to assume this a good thing, at least the gas to liquid transition. As far as CO2 gas sequestration goes it may be a good thing. but... is that the end of the story? Of course not. So far little, if any, research has been conducted on the effects of unnatural accumulations of carbonates, acids, and other reactionary responses on subterranean physiography and chemistry.
All other skepticism aside, what mere mortal can guarantee any given spot on earth will not crack or break tomorrow or anytime? Even if earthquakes would cease to occur (and they won't, of course) CO2 gas will not be contained by earth's highly fragmented crust or the oceans' depths.
Concerning CO2 sequestration, this overwhelmingly industry owned and therefore industry biased scientific community is silent on the basic matter of gas laws and gas physics. Entropy and enthalpy cannot be denied yet these ever-present forces are essentially never even mentioned to unsuspecting audiences. Gases will eventually leak from the best manmade containers. This is why gases are considered a "volatile" state of matter relative to liquids and solids. To further confound the empty promise of CO2 sequestration is the fact that CO2 is made about 20 times more soluble in the presence of water. This is realted to CO2's "solubility coefficient." Wet or dry, rocks and minerals cannot reliably contain CO2 gas. Rocks and minerals may break down and absorb an undeterminable proportion of CO2 but under natural conditions this process can take millennia and in the meantime the CO2 gas leaks (undetectably, absent an earthquake) from countless unidentifiable "micro-source points."
If there is a conspiratorial scheme, this is the industry/political scheme behind the CO2 sequestration dream. Remove a single source point (such as a smoke stack) from which CO2 can be accurately measured and the industry is off the hook! CO2 will leak into the atmosphere in minute amounts at any given locus but, collectively, in huge yet undetectable amounts over vast areas of land and/or water. The insidious leakage will be spread so far, wide, and thin it will be virtually impossible to measure.
To make this broad dispersal notion a bit more pedestrian I offer this analogy. Removing the single source point i.e., smoke stack, from which CO2 gas is analyzed and allowing, in effect, an undefinable expanse of landscape and/or water surface area to become CO2's exhaust is the difference between having one's fart collected in a tube and evaluated (sniffed) and trying to evaluate that same fart released randomly in a cave under a 40 acre field across which blows a stiff breeze.
In both cases, essentially the same amount of gas is eventually released to the atmosphere. In the first case the gas is detectable, the latter undetectable.
--
It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious.
Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) English philosopher and mathematician.
I discuss CO2 Sequestration in more detail at my REALITICS blog:
~~~
In response to a guy claiming trees thrive in a CO2 rich environment.
Trees need nature's balanced percentage of CO2... not a bunch of hot air.
Trees thrive best in a balanced environment, including a balanced atmosphere... a relatively undisturbed balance they have enjoyed for millions of years... until, that is, the invention of the internal combustion engine. Just one century into the industrial age, the balance is being tilted to produce known and certainly unknown harmful environmental effects.
Rationalization of problems doesn't mean they go away nor does sweeping them under the rug or in this case, hiding them (temporarily) underground.
"Adults who continue to live with a childlike "out of sight - out of mind" mentality are generally considered the latter."
Duane Short - August 12, 2006
Given the thoughtfulness of our society I am not surprised that the public (and even scientists) are accepting the fossil fuel industry's CO2 Sequestration claims at face value.
For reference:
Source:
Age old processes acting sequentially and simultaneously appear to have produced the delicate balance of 78% nitrogen (N2) and 21% oxygen (O2) we observe today.
PRESENT COMPOSITION OF THE ATMOSPHERE:
The atmosphere is comprised of gases which are considered to be permanent (gases which remain essentially constant by percent) and gases considered to be variable (gases which have changing concentrations over a finite period of time).
PERMANENT gases in the atmosphere by percent are:
Nitrogen 78.1%
Oxygen 20.9%
(Note that these two permanent gases together comprise 99% of the atmosphere)
Other permanent gases:
Argon 0.9%
Neon 0.002%
Helium 0.0005%
Krypton 0.0001%
Hydrogen 0.00005%
VARIABLE gases in the atmosphere and typical percentage values are:
Water vapor 0 to 4%
Carbon Dioxide 0.035%
Methane 0.0002%
Ozone 0.000004%
So you see, there is little margin for error in the amount of CO2 we anthropogenically produce and release into the atmosphere.
One has to remember that even though this panel is "independent" the overwhelming majority of scientists studying CO2 Sequestration are funded by the world's largest fossil fuel corporations. IPCC members, by virtue of subject matter, must become rather intimate with petroleum industry principals. Not to necessarily judge the motives of the IPCC one must understand the context of their work, their world.
Although clearly straining to present a rosy outlook for CO2 Sequestration (consider their audience), this IPPC report manages to include a multitude of known problematic issues and is forthright enough to admit the likelihood that unknown issues exist.
Most troubling to me, is the IPPC's rather typical resistance to discuss the most basic (and most certain) physical laws and gas behaviors. These basic and inescapable predispositions of gases cannot be ignored. These are the laws of nature I so often speak of. Gas laws and Thermodynamics should cause scientists to naturally lean toward caution when considering CO2 Sequestration. Yet one rarely reads, hears, sees, or feels an air of caution. When scientists cheer instead of doubt, one must, like it or not, heighten one's own skepticism.
Mandate and Membership of the IPCCBelow are two comments I posted on a C/NET News.com blogRecognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the UN and WMO.
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work"
IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage
Table of contents
Summary for Policymakers
Technical Summary
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Sources of CO2
Chapter 3 Capture of CO2
Chapter 4 Transport of CO2
Chapter 5 Underground geological storage
Chapter 6 Ocean Storage
Chapter 7 Mineral carbonation and industrial uses of CO2
Chapter 8 Cost and economic potential
Chapter 9 Implications of CO2 capture and storage for greenhouse gas inventories and accounting
Annexes to the Special Report
Annex I Properties of CO2 and carbon-based fuels
Annex II Glossary, acronyms and abbreviations
Annex III Units
Annex IV Authors and reviewers
Annex V List of major IPCC reports
Graphics
Graphics of the special report
END
In response to one claiming CO2 underground storage is the best possible solution to ever-increasing anthropogenic CO2 production.
Analysis of the Obvious
CO2 is a gas, as in... not a liquid. How long can even the least porous stone contain a given volume gas? If pressurized? How long can a tightly sealed soda bottle contain CO2? What happens if the seal or bottle breaks or cracks?
CO2 gas can alternate from gas to liquid states. The IPPC seems to assume this a good thing, at least the gas to liquid transition. As far as CO2 gas sequestration goes it may be a good thing. but... is that the end of the story? Of course not. So far little, if any, research has been conducted on the effects of unnatural accumulations of carbonates, acids, and other reactionary responses on subterranean physiography and chemistry.
All other skepticism aside, what mere mortal can guarantee any given spot on earth will not crack or break tomorrow or anytime? Even if earthquakes would cease to occur (and they won't, of course) CO2 gas will not be contained by earth's highly fragmented crust or the oceans' depths.
Concerning CO2 sequestration, this overwhelmingly industry owned and therefore industry biased scientific community is silent on the basic matter of gas laws and gas physics. Entropy and enthalpy cannot be denied yet these ever-present forces are essentially never even mentioned to unsuspecting audiences. Gases will eventually leak from the best manmade containers. This is why gases are considered a "volatile" state of matter relative to liquids and solids. To further confound the empty promise of CO2 sequestration is the fact that CO2 is made about 20 times more soluble in the presence of water. This is realted to CO2's "solubility coefficient." Wet or dry, rocks and minerals cannot reliably contain CO2 gas. Rocks and minerals may break down and absorb an undeterminable proportion of CO2 but under natural conditions this process can take millennia and in the meantime the CO2 gas leaks (undetectably, absent an earthquake) from countless unidentifiable "micro-source points."
If there is a conspiratorial scheme, this is the industry/political scheme behind the CO2 sequestration dream. Remove a single source point (such as a smoke stack) from which CO2 can be accurately measured and the industry is off the hook! CO2 will leak into the atmosphere in minute amounts at any given locus but, collectively, in huge yet undetectable amounts over vast areas of land and/or water. The insidious leakage will be spread so far, wide, and thin it will be virtually impossible to measure.
To make this broad dispersal notion a bit more pedestrian I offer this analogy. Removing the single source point i.e., smoke stack, from which CO2 gas is analyzed and allowing, in effect, an undefinable expanse of landscape and/or water surface area to become CO2's exhaust is the difference between having one's fart collected in a tube and evaluated (sniffed) and trying to evaluate that same fart released randomly in a cave under a 40 acre field across which blows a stiff breeze.
In both cases, essentially the same amount of gas is eventually released to the atmosphere. In the first case the gas is detectable, the latter undetectable.
--
It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious.
Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) English philosopher and mathematician.
I discuss CO2 Sequestration in more detail at my REALITICS blog:
~~~
In response to a guy claiming trees thrive in a CO2 rich environment.
Trees need nature's balanced percentage of CO2... not a bunch of hot air.
Trees thrive best in a balanced environment, including a balanced atmosphere... a relatively undisturbed balance they have enjoyed for millions of years... until, that is, the invention of the internal combustion engine. Just one century into the industrial age, the balance is being tilted to produce known and certainly unknown harmful environmental effects.
Rationalization of problems doesn't mean they go away nor does sweeping them under the rug or in this case, hiding them (temporarily) underground.
"Adults who continue to live with a childlike "out of sight - out of mind" mentality are generally considered the latter."
Duane Short - August 12, 2006
Given the thoughtfulness of our society I am not surprised that the public (and even scientists) are accepting the fossil fuel industry's CO2 Sequestration claims at face value.
For reference:
Source:
Age old processes acting sequentially and simultaneously appear to have produced the delicate balance of 78% nitrogen (N2) and 21% oxygen (O2) we observe today.
PRESENT COMPOSITION OF THE ATMOSPHERE:
The atmosphere is comprised of gases which are considered to be permanent (gases which remain essentially constant by percent) and gases considered to be variable (gases which have changing concentrations over a finite period of time).
PERMANENT gases in the atmosphere by percent are:
Nitrogen 78.1%
Oxygen 20.9%
(Note that these two permanent gases together comprise 99% of the atmosphere)
Other permanent gases:
Argon 0.9%
Neon 0.002%
Helium 0.0005%
Krypton 0.0001%
Hydrogen 0.00005%
VARIABLE gases in the atmosphere and typical percentage values are:
Water vapor 0 to 4%
Carbon Dioxide 0.035%
Methane 0.0002%
Ozone 0.000004%
So you see, there is little margin for error in the amount of CO2 we anthropogenically produce and release into the atmosphere.
posted by Duane Short | 8/12/2006 11:29:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home