Sequestering Carbon Dioxide in Rock

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential use of peridotite for carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration, exploring the feasibility and efficiency of various methods for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Participants examine both theoretical and practical aspects of artificial CO2 sequestering, including challenges related to energy requirements and the efficiency of the proposed methods.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the efficiency of pumping CO2-saturated water into peridotite, citing limited surface area and diffusion challenges as potential bottlenecks.
  • One participant provides a calculation regarding the volume of water needed to sequester 1 G tonne of CO2, suggesting that the infrastructure required may be impractical.
  • Another participant shares their experience with acid gas injection wells, noting that these wells can effectively sequester CO2 and H2S, but they are small-scale compared to fossil-fuel power plants.
  • Concerns are raised about whether focusing on CO2 sequestration diverts attention from reducing fossil fuel combustion, with some arguing that mitigation technologies are essential for meeting climate targets.
  • One participant references the relationship between reservoir pressure, porosity, and the chemical reactions occurring in carbonate reservoirs, suggesting that these factors complicate the understanding of gas injection dynamics.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of various technologies, including bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), in achieving climate goals, while also questioning the impact of smaller projects on larger mitigation efforts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement, particularly regarding the effectiveness of CO2 sequestration methods and the prioritization of mitigation strategies. Some participants are skeptical of the proposed methods, while others advocate for the necessity of such technologies in addressing climate change.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include assumptions about the efficiency of CO2 absorption processes, the dependence on specific geological conditions for gas injection, and the varying definitions of success in mitigation efforts.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to researchers and practitioners in environmental science, geology, climate policy, and engineering, particularly those focused on carbon capture technologies and climate change mitigation strategies.

BillTre
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
12,020
About possibly using peridotite to capture large amounts of CO2 out of the air.
Nice pictures, very little chemistry.
NY Times story here.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dRic2
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
Artificial CO2 sequestering is all well and good but generally seems slow and difficult and usually requires energy to perform the processes. The article is not very detailed and is questionable e.g. it says the 40 GTonnes of CO2 are generated (supposedly;by by humans ?) each year while other sources put it at about 10 to 20 Gtonnes. From a physicist point of view the proposed method of pumping and circulating CO2 saturated water at high pressure into the substrate to interact with the peridotite does't seem very efficient. Even if the elevated temperature accelerate the reaction the surface area available to accesses the mineral is limited and once the surface of the bore hole is saturated then you have to depend on the diffusion of the CO2 to deeper levels which decreases the absorption rate.

(disclaimer: The following calculation is subject to spurious arithmetic errors and I welcome others to verify it.)
Moving the water through the bore is an issue to. CO2 is absorbed in water at a concentration of 2g/kg or 1mole/44L @ 15 deg C. to sequester 1 G tonne of CO2 one would need to 1012/ m3 of water. On a yearly basis that is moving 31,700 m3/sec. to handle that flow volume one would need about 1000 pipes 2m in diameter. Since this is only the first pass in the recirculation process it does not seem like a promising concept.

IMH these techniques only sidetracks efforts to find the true solution which is the reduction of the combustion of fuels as a source of energy.
 
For the last dozen years or so I have been designing, permitting, drilling, operating and monitoring acid gas injection wells for oil&gas facilities.

These wells safely and efficiently sequester waste CO2 and H2S from natural gas processing plants. The wells inject from 1 to over 15 million cubic feet per day of these gasses, at depths from 5,000 to over 15,000 feet, in saline deep aquifers

Although these projects are small relative to fossil-fuel power plans, they do make these sites much safer, cleaner and easier to operate.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre
Tom.G:

Thanks for the link.

As production gas wells age, pressure declines over time as good old P=nRT/V. V is the gas reservoir (finite), R and T don't change, hence P~n where n is the available moles of gasses. One expects the inverse to occur in injection wells as a finite volume accepts more and more gas (n). In many carbonate (limestone, dolomite) reservoirs, the surface injection pressure of acid gas injection wells has been observed to decrease over time against reasonably stable injection rates.

How can this happen? The V in any reservoir is limited by the porosity (% pore space) in the reservoir rock. Acid gases CO2 and H2S react with the existing reservoir fluids (saline waters) to form various C and S acids that then can attack the limestone and dolomites, increasing the reservoir porosity and hence the available reservoir volume. Acid treatment in wells (about 10,000 gallons of 5-15% HCL) is a very common completion/stimulation procedure for improving carbonate reservoir porosity.

Not every well is lucky. Original formation fluid chemistry, especially the ionic concentrations of Ca and Mg as well as overall TDS, can decrease the formation of C/S acids in the fluids. Reservoir pressure and temperature,easily up to 6000 psi and 180-200 F in the Permian Basin where I work, also works in mysterious ways in affecting porosity. Did I mention that the injected acid gases are in the supercritical phase when they encounter the formation fluids?

No more AGI wells for me this month. Off to a long week of rafting the Grand Canyon.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre
gleem said:
IMH these techniques only sidetracks efforts to find the true solution which is the reduction of the combustion of fuels as a source of energy.
I am yet to hear of a project for mitigation being "sidetracked" as someone had went off to work on sequestration. Some of the mitigation efforts like wind, solar pv, electric vehicles and storage are massive industries that are disrupting major markets. One little lab is hardly going to rock Tesla or Vesta.
We have virtually no chance of meeting a target of 1.5C without these technologies and most RCP pathways to 2C rely on technologies like BECCs.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf

Finally if equilibrium sensitivity does turn out to be higher than 3C per doubling preindustrial CO2 this and geoengineering will be a matter of survival for millions to perhaps billions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
9K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
11K