Carbon Sequestration has a downside

Leaking Underground CO2 Storage Could Contaminate Drinking Water, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2010) — Leaks from carbon dioxide injected deep underground to help fight climate change could bubble up into drinking water aquifers near the surface, driving up levels of contaminants in the water tenfold or more in some places, according to a study by Duke University scientists.

Carbon sequestration is a technology often praised in the media as a form of "greening up" high CO2 producing companies. It is a very expensive and potentially dangerous process. you're dealing with high pressures and other environmental issues, like groundwater contamination.

This technology is being widely studied and sparsely implemented by the coal industry. But it's effects on the environment are rarely discussed in public. Regardless, public policy makers are looking to this method of managing CO2 as a mandatory regulation on coal energy producers, leading to potentially widespread environmental damage. It is my opinion that this technology is a knee-jerk reaction to political pressures, and should not be implemented until it's impacts can be fully understood.

reply to post by projectvxn
So people who are now taking calcium and iron supplements will be able to get these for free in their drinking water?

The study also identified four markers that scientists can use to test for early warnings of potential carbon dioxide leaks. "Along with changes in carbonate concentration and acidity of the water, concentrations of manganese, iron and calcium could all be used as geochemical markers of a leak, as their concentration increase within two weeks of exposure to CO2," Jackson says.

And carbonated water to boot? I guess these chemicals in moderation are helpful but in too large a quantity can be harmful.

It seems like we need to either come up with better methods of storage, or else come up with more CO2 hungry plants or algae to use up the CO2.

reply to post by projectvxn

"By no means would all sites be susceptible to problems of water quality."

link

Location, location, location.


-----------------------------------------


Provided the sites are properly chosen and monitored, this technology has serious potential, but on the other hand with such enormous volumes of coal in the U.S and China in particular, this technology allows energy to continue to be produced from burning coal. Stifling alternatives ....... whatever they may be.

Well, I'm not going to claim to be fully knowledgeable on this issue. But it just seems a trend to me that we see this potentially dangerous technology being pushed by industry insiders and the media as solutions, and in a frenzy people rush to invest and implement in it without fully studying it's impact and usefulness over time. Let alone safety.

What would happen if a large cloud of CO2 got out and fogged over a city? Could that not potentially kill people? These are things I think should be thought off before stuffing any gas into the ground.

Originally posted by projectvxn
Well, I'm not going to claim to be fully knowledgeable on this issue. But it just seems a trend to me that we see this potentially dangerous technology being pushed by industry insiders and the media as solutions, and in a frenzy people rush to invest and implement in it without fully studying it's impact and usefulness over time. Let alone safety.

What would happen if a large cloud of CO2 got out and fogged over a city? Could that not potentially kill people? These are things I think should be thought off before stuffing any gas into the ground.

edit on 11-11-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

I would have to agree with you, the thought of some cataclysmic event causing the release of these gases is an unnerving thought. Could this be as potentially dangerous as the methane deposits on the ocean floor ? Are we hoisting a sword of Damocles over our collective heads .....