'Carbon capture' too risky, earthquake prone: study

Jun 18, 2012 by Kerry Sheridan
The Frimmersdorf power station is seen in 2010 in Grevenbroich, western Germany. A proposed method of cutting harmful carbon emissions in the atmosphere by storing them underground risks causing earthquakes and is unlikely to succeed, a US study said.

A proposed method of cutting harmful carbon emissions in the atmosphere by storing them underground risks causing earthquakes and is unlikely to succeed, a US study said Monday.

The warning came in a Perspective article in the , just days after another independent US study warned that carbon capture and storage (CCS) risked causing earthquakes.

CCS is currently considered a "viable strategy" by the UN for pollution control from coal-based electrical power generation and other industrial sources of carbon dioxide, said the PNAS study.

But while no large-scale projects are yet under way, the huge volume of fluid that would need to be stored below ground for long periods of time make the notion unrealistic, argued the study by experts at Stanford University in California.

"There is a high probability that earthquakes will be triggered by injection of large volumes of CO2 into the brittle rocks commonly found in continental interiors," said the article by Mark Zobacka and Steven Gorelick, professors in the departments of Geophysics and Environmental .

"Because even small- to moderate-sized earthquakes threaten the seal integrity of CO2 repositories, in this context, large-scale CCS is a risky, and likely unsuccessful, strategy for significantly reducing ."

Graphic showing the main options for the capture and storage of carbon dioxide.

The technique aims to reduce to the atmosphere by capturing, liquefying and injecting them below ground at high volumes.

For CCS to work on a global scale, it would need to eliminate about 3.5 billion tons of C02 per year, or about the same volume as 28.6 billion barrels, said the study, noting that about 27 billion barrels of oil are produced yearly worldwide.

"Before embarking on projects to inject enormous volumes of CO2 at numerous sites around the world, it is important to note that over time periods of just a few decades, modern seismic networks have shown that earthquakes occur nearly everywhere in continental interiors," said the study.

CCS would also require an underground leak rate of less than one percent per thousand years "to achieve the same climate benefits as renewable energy sources," it said.

Underground injections of wastewater have already been linked to small to moderate earthquakes in the United States in recent years, it said, citing one apparent case as early as 1960 in Colorado and others last year in Arkansas and Ohio.

"The situation would be far more problematic if similar-sized earthquakes were triggered in formations intended to sequester CO2 for hundreds to thousands of years."

A separate study by the US National Research Council on Friday found that CCS "may have potential for inducing larger seismic events," while the potential from hydraulic fracturing was low.

CCS was singled out because proposed projects would involve injecting the largest volumes of fluids below the surface for long periods -- more than in fracking or traditional oil and gas operations -- and therefore may cause bigger earthquakes, it said.

However, there are no major CCS projects underway so the actual risk is difficult to assess and more research is needed, the NRC report said.

Explore further: Hurricane Edouard right environment for drone test (Update)

More information: “Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide,” by Mark D. Zoback and Steven M. Gorelick, PNAS, 2012.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

German cabinet approves CO2 storage bill

Apr 13, 2011

Germany's cabinet approved a draft law on storing carbon dioxide underground on Wednesday after months of debate as Europe's top economy wrangles over energy policy following Japan's nuclear disaster.

CO2 storage law falls through in Germany

Sep 23, 2011

Germany's parliament Friday blocked a law allowing the storage of carbon dioxide underground, as Europe's top economy wrangles over energy policy following Japan's nuclear disaster.

Japan aims to bury greenhouse gas emissions

Nov 01, 2009

Swathes of dirty clouds brood over a coal plant in rural Japan, but scientists are now hoping to send the pollutants the other way, deep into the bowels of Mother Earth.

Recommended for you

NASA catches a weaker Edouard, headed toward Azores

1 hour ago

NASA's Aqua satellite passed over the Atlantic Ocean and captured a picture of Tropical Storm Edouard as it continues to weaken. The National Hurricane Center expects Edouard to affect the western Azores ...

Tree rings and arroyos

23 hours ago

A new GSA Bulletin study uses tree rings to document arroyo evolution along the lower Rio Puerco and Chaco Wash in northern New Mexico, USA. By determining burial dates in tree rings from salt cedar and wi ...

User comments : 39

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (17) Jun 18, 2012
these idiot scientisties don't know nuhfink causen we needs co2 for beer bubblez and so no one can tellz me that them tharin bubbles is killing the earth's rock.

Must be a contraspercy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (24) Jun 18, 2012
these idiot scientisties don't know nuhfink causen we needs co2 for beer bubblez
Yuz cud assk deez guys
http://www.youtub...amp;NR=1

eh?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (22) Jun 18, 2012
Wut kind o traps wood canucks use ta capture carbon - eh?
http://www.youtub...f7ks7l7I
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (20) Jun 18, 2012
Wut, bear_dressed_as_a_monkey - not into bear traps?
http://www.youtub...U6wZ_ZUg
dogbert
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 18, 2012
The catastrophic release of stored CO2 could result in many deaths.
NotParker
2.2 / 5 (21) Jun 18, 2012
CCS is a massive multi-billion dollar con game built on the massive multi-trillion con game known as AGW.
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (17) Jun 18, 2012
NotParker,

Yes. And it is a world wide con game.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (14) Jun 18, 2012
Yes, especially for those wiki jockeys like the NAZI-LOVER TheGhostofOtto1923 aka TheGhostofOtto1932, idolater of the WW2 NAZI SS Officer, Otto Skorzeny, who became secretary and hatchet man of Adolph Schnikelgruber Hitler. HIS con game is to pretend to be more knowledgeable than anyone else in this website, while rushing to Wikipedia to find out that information, then voting everyone down with his sock puppet names.
eachus
1 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2012
CCS is a massive multi-billion dollar con game built on the massive multi-trillion con game known as AGW.

Actually it is a con game to get the coal miner's unions to support AGW through what they call "Clean Coal" initiatives. The "concept" is to not just capture the CO2, capture everything, sort out the nitrogen and water (which outweigh the CO2) and stuff the rest back in the ground that the coal came from. Obviously, (if you are not in the business of political fantasies) the CO2 is triple the weight and volume of the carbon burned to produce it.

Add in the idea of pressurizing the CO2 to shrink its volume, and you have a recipe for disasters. The politicians just hope those will happen on someone else's watch.
TkClick
2 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2012
IMO the storage of CO2 in underwater tanks would be more safer way, but it's economical nonsense anyway. The storage of carbon may get useful later, when the carbon cycle will get reversed and we will produce the hydrocarbons from CO2 and H2O with using of cold fusion energy. It will solve the problem of carbon emissions for ever.
Peteri
4.7 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2012
If you recall, we used to have massive natural systems for carbon sequestration which were called forests. Unfortunately, in the quest for short-term gains, humankind has laid waste to these natural systems and they are still busy cutting down the last remaining vestiges.

The great thing about forests is that, given the chance, they are self-maintaining and self-propagating. I find it ironic that humankind is blundering around seeking expensive technological fixes to a problem for which a simple and cheap natural solution already exists - regrow the forests!
TkClick
not rated yet Jun 19, 2012
regrow the forests

It's not so simple, if the releasing of aerosol caused the spreading of deserts already - so we cannot grow the forests there. And the speed of fossil carbon production is way faster, than the speed in which the forests can store the carbon into soil.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 19, 2012
If you recall, we used to have massive natural systems for carbon sequestration which were called forests. Unfortunately, in the quest for short-term gains, humankind has laid waste to these natural systems and they are still busy cutting down the last remaining vestiges.


Really? Many you can quantify "last remaining vestiges". There is plenty of forests where I live.

davhaywood
5 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2012
NotParker, it is the TYPE of forest that is important. It must be of such a density and diversity to be able to sequester carbon. In other words, it must have enough dead organic matter constantly piling on top of other dead organic matter to effectively sequester it before it can decompose and release its stored carbon into the atmosphere.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2012
NotParker, it is the TYPE of forest that is important. It must be of such a density and diversity to be able to sequester carbon. In other words, it must have enough dead organic matter constantly piling on top of other dead organic matter to effectively sequester it before it can decompose and release its stored carbon into the atmosphere.


There are many contradictory papers on CO2 / methane and forests.

http://www.co2sci.../COM.php
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2012
You live on a fantasy planet called Conservadopia.

"There is plenty of forests where I live." -Parkertard

The real world is rather different than your fantasy land.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2012
ParkerTard provides a like to a blog written by Sherwood B Idzo - who along with the rest of his family have been paid propagandists for the coal and oil industry for the last 40 years.

Idzo - a former ozone depletion denialist, and former acid rain denialist, and former biospher destruction denialist, is now a global warming denialist.

Idzo is the former scientist you go to if you want to hear an industry sponsored lie.

"There are many contradictory papers on CO2 / methane and forests." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard would love to be as successful sucking on the teat of big oil and big coal as the Idzo family, but his take is just a fraction of theirs.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2012
Individual property rights are preventing that. No one wants to be an owner of land that they can not capitalize on.

One solution would be for society to pay land owners to revert their land to forest for x number of years.

"regrow the forests!" -Peteri
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2012
PusycatLies seems to be very upset that it was kicked off of this science site for posting it's non stop stream of nonsense concerning the transparent, sexually active aliens that it PussyCat was constantly finding on Mars.

"Yes, especially for those wiki jockeys like...' - PussycatLies

Almost as mentally diseased as ParkerTard
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2012
ParkerTard provides a like to a blog written by Sherwood B Idzo - who along with the rest of his family have been paid propagandists for the coal and oil industry for the last 40 years.

Idzo - a former ozone depletion denialist, and former acid rain denialist, and former biospher destruction denialist, is now a global warming denialist.

Idzo is the former scientist you go to if you want to hear an industry sponsored lie.

"There are many contradictory papers on CO2 / methane and forests." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard would love to be as successful sucking on the teat of big oil and big coal as the Idzo family, but his take is just a fraction of theirs.


I think you are off your meds (more than usual).
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2012
PusycatLies seems to be very upset that it was kicked off of this science site for posting it's non stop stream of nonsense concerning the transparent, sexually active aliens that it PussyCat was constantly finding on Mars.

"Yes, especially for those wiki jockeys like...' - PussycatLies

Almost as mentally diseased as ParkerTard
- Vendicar_De Moron

LOL...looks like Vendicar_De Idiot and his tiny Schwanzchen is showing signs of massive Spirochete infection of his brain....imagining that I have been kicked off Phys.org just because he wishes it to be so. LOL...what a Tard

Vendicar Decarian - 15 Feb 2004 04:47 GMT
> The fact is that there are better ways of cleaning up the
> environment than shutting down critical resources.  Dark is not
> good.

Yup.  Hanging Republican traitors like Bush is one of them.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2012
There should be an International law that says, if you pull CO2 out of the ground, you are required to put it back in.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (8) Jun 21, 2012
The problem is that it is a GAS...and gas tends to find cracks in which to escape back to the atmosphere. As in the one thread that gives some good uses for CO2, scientists will find other ways to sequester it as much as possible. But holding it in underground tanks might not be the best possible solution.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2012
You know, the best way to store CO2 is as a long chain hydrocarbon like oil or coal. So the best way to sequester is to not dig or drill it in the first place. But it's too late for that; so there needs to be someway to make those that profit from enabling the energy addicted to pay for the crime. A sequestration equivalence tax sounds good.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (17) Jun 21, 2012
The problem is that it is a GAS...and gas tends to find cracks in which to escape back to the atmosphere. As in the one thread that gives some good uses for CO2, scientists will find other ways to sequester it as much as possible. But holding it in underground tanks might not be the best possible solution.
Tanks?
For CCS to work on a global scale, it would need to eliminate about 3.5 billion tons of C02 per year, or about the same volume as 28.6 billion barrels, said the study, noting that about 27 billion barrels of oil are produced yearly worldwide.
You want to store this in tanks? Where in the article did it say anything about tanks you carking dimwit?

Perhaps 1) you should read the article and 2) think about it for a little while before you drop a load like this. But I don't expect this from you because it has been suggested many times before, and yet you continue to post whatever hops into your brain. Because you think it is more important to post than not I guess.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 21, 2012
You know, the best way to store CO2 is as a long chain hydrocarbon like oil or coal. So the best way to sequester is to not dig or drill it in the first place. But it's too late for that; so there needs to be someway to make those that profit from enabling the energy addicted to pay for the crime. A sequestration equivalence tax sounds good.



I suggest people have to register themselves as greenies. They can wear a green dunce cap in public. And they will be fired from their carbon producing jobs and they will not be allowed to rent or purchase any goods or services that used carbon.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2012
"The problem is that it is a GAS...and gas tends to find cracks in which to escape back to the atmosphere. As in the one thread that gives some good uses for CO2, scientists will find other ways to sequester it as much as possible. But holding it in underground tanks might not be the best possible solution.
Tanks?
For CCS to work on a global scale, it would need to eliminate about 3.5 billion tons of C02 per year, or about the same volume as 28.6 billion barrels, said the study, noting that about 27 billion barrels of oil are produced yearly worldwide.
You want to store this in tanks? Where in the article did it say anything about tanks you carking dimwit?" - Blotto

Well, as Tkclick says:
quote
TkClick
Jun 19, 2012

Rank: 2.5/5 after 4 votes
IMO the storage of CO2 in underwater tanks would be more safer way, but it's economical nonsense anyway. (contd)
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2012
(contd)
again....here is the comment about "tanks"

quote
TkClick
Jun 19, 2012

Rank: 2.5 / 5 (4)
IMO the storage of CO2 in underwater tanks would be more safer way, but it's economical nonsense anyway. The storage of carbon may get useful later, when the carbon cycle will get reversed and we will produce the hydrocarbons from CO2 and H2O with using of cold fusion energy. It will solve the problem of carbon emissions for ever.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2012
(contd
)Which makes a hell of a lot more sense than these retarded comments:

reportquote
TheGhostofOtto1923
Jun 18, 2012

Rank: 2.5 / 5 (11)
these idiot scientisties don't know nuhfink causen we needs co2 for beer bubblez
Yuz cud assk deez guys
http://www.youtub...amp;NR=1

eh?
reportquote
TheGhostofOtto1923
Jun 18, 2012

Rank: 3 / 5 (8)
Wut kind o traps wood canucks use ta capture carbon - eh?
http://www.youtub...f7ks7l7I
reportquote
TheGhostofOtto1923
Jun 18, 2012

Rank: 3.3 / 5 (7)
Wut, bear_dressed_as_a_monkey - not into bear traps?
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2012
A better suggestion would be to register the mentally ill, so tht they can be monitored for signs of danger to the public.

"I suggest people have to register themselves as greenies." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard might finally start taking his medication at the risk of being locked up as a danger to society.

PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2012
From: http://phys.org/n...rth.html

Where TheGhostofBlotto again thinks he knows everything.

Then he says that I sent him this: "I just got a PM from ritchie/pussy:
"So what is the REAL reason why you keep coming after me? Is it that you would like to make love to me. If I gave you my picture, you would probably cum all over yourself."

Yeah right!! Very doubtful indeed.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2012
LOL....my boyfriend sent that to Blotto as a joke.

@Vendicar_De Idiot.....your "tard" proof of mental instability is getting old. Don't you think you need to grow up and talk like a man? Or do you want to spend the rest of your life acting like Blotto and his sock puppets?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2012
You mean a man like your boyfriend who sees giant invisible aliens on mars having sex?

"Don't you think you need to grow up and talk like a man?" - PussyCatLies

Sadly, some women don't actually know what a man is like. They come from dysfunctional homes, and select dysfunctional boyfriends that remind them of their dysfunctional fathers.

PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2012
You mean a man like your boyfriend who sees giant invisible aliens on mars having sex?

"Don't you think you need to grow up and talk like a man?" - PussyCatLies

Sadly, some women don't actually know what a man is like. They come from dysfunctional homes, and select dysfunctional boyfriends that remind them of their dysfunctional fathers.

- Vendicar_Degenerate

That's funny....my boyfriend never mentioned giant invisible aliens on Mars having sex. Exactly how have you come by this information? Have you gone to Mars and back and seen all these amazing things that you always talk about, that I've been hearing for the first time from you and your fickfreund, TheGhostofBlotto1923 and 1932 and dick_wolf? Wait, I just asked my boyfriend if he ever heard of your crap, and he says it's news to him. Guess who I'm going to believe.
PussyCat_Eyes
1 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2012
Vendicar_DeG...do you know why Blotto hangs onto my every word while talking about lost wax and boomerangs and glassy headed one eyed one horned flying purple people eaters on Mars? What is your opinion of his mental condition?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (15) Jun 23, 2012
"eliminate about 3.5 billion tons of C02 per year, or about the same volume as 28.6 billion barrels"

Consider dweeb the difference between tanks underwater for this amount of material, which is unreasonable, and the installation of underground tanks to hold an equivalent amount, which you suggest, and which is ABSURD. Especially when the article refers to reasonable methods.
But holding it in underground tanks might not be the best possible solution.
-is what you said. It shows that you did not read the article, and further did not consider what you posted about it.

Pointing out the absurdity of underground tanks should have made you realize it, but you tried to defend it instead. Ergo you are an imbecile.
xen_uno
1 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2012
These mentioned (and other) storage systems are an engineers wet dream, but hardly practical or cost effective. Best approach is to:

1) Control human population (likely never happen til too late)
2) Preserve and protect the oceans (phytoplankton numbers 40% less than level in 1950). More phyto's mean's more ocean sequestering of CO2 without driving pH to unhealthy levels.
http://www.scient...pulation
3) Protect forests & expand them as much as possible (in other words, strict land use policies)
4) Continue to dev alternative energy sources such as solar and hot fusion (wind blows, cold fusion fantasy, coal and fission dirty and highly destructive to land as in mining). Nat gas not a bad stop gap measure but fracking is bad news (dirty, toxic, and destructive).
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2012
It is astonishing that he is keeping it from you. It is clearly mentioned on his website.

"That's funny....my boyfriend never mentioned giant invisible aliens on Mars having sex" - PussyCatLies
Job001
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2012
Eliminate most of the issues by using supercritical CO2/solvent mining and separation of hydrocarbons and redeposit carbon and ash as a slurry in spent fields. The net effect would be mining of hydrogen and more valued hydrocarbons. Nonvolatile carbon takes less than 1/3 of the volume of CO2. The result should be a stable fill.