Rachel's #932: Carbon Sequestration

November 10, 2007

At 01:47 PM 11/10/07, you wrote:

>The 'Good Germans' Among Us

> We at Rachel's Democracy & Health News cannot help noticing

> that both Republican and Democratic majorities in Congress, our new

> Attorney General, our Secretary of State, and our President are now

> firmly on record supporting torture, denial of the ancient right of

> habeas corpus, permanent imprisonment at secret locations without

> trial, and clandestine surveillance of routine communication amongst

> the citizenry. Throughout history, these have been the bedrock

> foundations of every police state. From now on, we will be extending

> our news coverage to include these fundamental repudiations of

> democratic principles in the U.S.

Peter Montague <peter

******

Kraig and Shirley Carroll ... in the woods of SE Kentucky

http://www.thehavens.com/

thehavens

606-376-3363

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release 2/14/05

November 10, 2007

Rachel's Democracy & Health

News #932, Nov. 8, 2007

[Printer-friendly

version]

CARBON SEQUESTRATION

By Peter Montague

In response to a relentless stream of bad news about global warming, a

cluster of major industries has formed a loose partnership with big

environmental groups, prestigious universities, philanthropic

foundations, and the U.S. federal government -- all promoting a

technical quick-fix for global warming called " carbon

sequestration. "

" Carbon sequestration " is a plan to capture and bury as much as

10

trillion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide deep in the ground, hoping it

will stay there forever. (A ton is 2000 pounds; a metric tonne is 2200

pounds; ten trillion is 10,000,000,000,000.) Though the plan has not

yet received any substantial publicity, it is very far along.

The purpose of the plan is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide

entering the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil

and natural gas). Carbon dioxide is the most important " greenhouse

gas, " which is thought to be contributing to global warming.[1] A

carbon sequestration program would capture the gas, turn it into a

liquid, transport it through a network of pipelines, and pump it into

the ground, intending for it to stay buried forever.

From an industrial perspective, carbon sequestration seems like a

winning strategy. If it succeeded in reducing carbon dioxide emissions

to the atmosphere, it would allow coal and oil firms to retain and

even expand their market share in the energy business throughout the

21st century, eliminating the need for substantial innovation. Carbon

sequestration would also greatly reduce the incentive for Congress to

invest in renewable energy, which competes with coal and oil.

Furthermore, carbon sequestration might deflect the accusation that

the coal and oil corporations bear responsibility (and perhaps even

legal liability) for the major consequences of global warming (more

and bigger hurricanes, droughts, floods, and fires, for example).

Finally, if the carbon sequestration plan were to fail, with grievous

consequences for human civilization, failure would occur decades or

centuries into the future when the current generation of decision-

makers, researchers, philanthropists, and environmental advocates

could no longer be held accountable.

For all these reasons, coal, oil, mining, and automobile corporations,

plus electric utilities, are eager to get carbon sequestration going.

To accomplish their goal, the coal and oil firms are being helped by

researchers at

Princeton

and

Stanford

universities, and by the

Joyce Foundation in Chicago, which is underwriting a campaign by

environmental advocates on behalf of industry's plan. Natural

Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Izaak Walton League, the Clean

Air Task Force, the Michigan Environmental Council, and others have

received substantial grants to advocate for carbon sequestration.

Finally, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Stephen

Johnson recently endorsed industry's plan. All the pieces are now in

place and an aggressive campaign is under way to persuade state and

federal legislators to endorse large-scale carbon sequestration.

What's at stake

After trillions of tons of carbon dioxide have been buried in the deep

earth, if even a tiny proportion of it leaks back out into the

atmosphere, the planet could heat rapidly and civilization as we know

it could be disrupted. Quite plausibly the surface of the Earth could

become uninhabitable for humans. Thus, one way or another, the future

of humanity is at stake in the decision whether to endorse carbon

sequestration or to develop the many renewable energy technologies

that are available to eliminate our dependence on carbon-based

fuels.

Major benefits for the coal industry

To one degree or another, carbon sequestration will benefit all of the

industries involved, allowing them to continue business as usual,

removing the need for substantial innovation, and reducing competition

from renewable fuels. However, it is the coal industry that will

benefit the most. One could argue that, without carbon sequestration,

the coal industry itself cannot survive. Once large-scale carbon

sequestration has begun, the coal industry will be free to unleash an

enormous new enterprise turning coal into liquid fuels. The technology

for coal-to-liquids, or CTL, was fully developed decades ago. CTL was

devised by German chemists in the 1920s, and the Nazis could not have

pursued World War II without it. Unfortunately, coal-to-liquids is an

exceptionally dirty technology that produces twice as much carbon

dioxide per gallon of fuel, compared to petroleum. Carbon

sequestration would bury that extra carbon dioxide in the ground, thus

solving the coal industry's biggest problem, making coal-to-liquids

feasible, and assuring a future for the coal industry itself.

You have perhaps heard the phrase " clean coal. " This contradictory

term was coined by carbon sequestration advocates as a public

relations ploy. In " clean coal, " the word " clean " is narrowly defined

to mean " coal that contributes less carbon to the atmosphere in the

short term, compared to typical coal combustion. "

In actual fact there is nothing clean about " clean coal. " Even if

large-scale carbon sequestration begins, the mining and burning of

" clean coal " will continue to destroy hundreds of mountains in

Appalachia, and will continue to pollute the Midwestern and Eastern

states with millions of tons of deadly fine and ultrafine particles of

soot ( " fly ash " ), plus nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx),

mercury, dioxins, radioactive particles, polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons, and so on. Large tonnages of coal bottom ash will still

be buried each year in shallow pits overlying aquifers, creating a

perpetual and growing threat to drinking water supplies. In the

Midwest and West, large tracts of land, and large amounts of scarce

water, would still be contaminated or otherwise made unavailable for

alternative uses. In sum, " clean coal " is an advertising slogan

without substance. Furthermore, if even a small proportion of the

sequestered carbon from " clean coal " ever leaks out of the ground, the

planet could experience runaway global warming.

The danger of tiny leaks

It is important to distinguish between carbon dioxide and carbon

itself. Carbon is an element, one of the 92 naturally-occurring

building blocks of the universe. Carbon dioxide is a chemical compound

made up of one carbon atom attached to two oxygen atoms (CO2). By

weight, carbon dioxide is 27% carbon; in other words, one ton of

elemental carbon will create 3.7 tons of carbon dioxide. Carbon

dioxide is the main " greenhouse gas " thought to be contributing to

global warming.[1]

Before the industrial revolution, there were 580 billion tonnes of

carbon in Earth's atmosphere; today there are 750 billion tonnes (an

increase of 170 billion tonnes, or 29%, since about 1750). Because

humans burn roughly 2% more coal, oil and natural gas each year

(thus doubling total use every 35 years), the carbon buildup in the

atmosphere is accelerating. Presently humans are emitting about eight

billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year, not all of

which is retained there.

Unfortunately, emissions of eight billion tonnes per year are

sufficient to worsen a global warming problem.[1]

The amount of carbon held in underground supplies of coal, oil and

natural gas is very large. By a conservative estimate, worldwide there

are 3510 billion tonnes of carbon remaining underground in coal; 230

billion tonnes of carbon in oil; and another 140 billion tonnes of

carbon in natural gas (plus 250 billion tonnes in peat), for a total

of 4130 billion tonnes of carbon held in fossil fuels globally. If

25% of this were burned and the carbon sequestered, leakage of only

0.8% of the total per year would exceed the current annual human

contribution to atmospheric carbon (eight billion tonnes). And of

course the oil and coal companies plan to burn far more than 25% of

what remains in the ground. Their goal is to burn 100% of it. If they

managed to burn 75% of remaining fuels, then annual leakage of 0.26%

of the total would exceed the current eight billion tonne annual human

contribution to atmospheric carbon. This could eventually lead to

runaway global warming, plausibly rendering the Earth uninhabitable

for humans.

It is now widely believed that humans must cut their carbon emissions

80% by the year 2050 to avert runaway global warming. (Actually,

some now calculate that more than an 80% cut is needed -- but for the

sake of argument, let's accept the lower 80% estimate at face value.)

An 80% reduction from eight billion tonnes would allow humans to emit

only 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon annually to avert runaway global

warming.

If we accept this estimate of the carbon reduction needed -- cutting

80% from current levels -- then the allowable leakage must be reduced

accordingly:

** if 25% of remaining fossil carbon is sequestered, any leakage above

0.16% (about one-sixth of one percent) of the total per year could

eventually result in runaway global warming;

** if 75% of remaining fossil carbon is sequestered, then leakage

greater than 0.05% (one-twentieth of one percent) of the total per

year could eventually produce runaway global warming.

Can humans bury several trillion tons of carbon dioxide in the ground

with complete confidence that 0.05% of it will not leak out each year?

Never leak out? The leakage could begin at any time in the far

distant future because the danger would lie buried forever, waiting to

escape, a perpetual threat.

The short-term secondary effects of a carbon sequestration program are

also worth considering.

Once large-scale carbon sequestration begins, it will be exceedingly

difficult to stop. As soon as sequestration begins, the coal and oil

corporations, and the environmental groups and universities advocating

on their behalf, will assert that " carbon sequestration has been

successfully demonstrated. " Indeed, the environmental advocates are

making such claims already, based on a very short history of pumping

small amounts of carbon dioxide into oil wells to force more oil to

the surface.[2] But how can anyone " demonstrate " that leakage will

never occur in the future? Such a demonstration cannot be made.

Furthermore, once the U.S. government begins to repeat the

environmentalists' false claim that carbon sequestration has been

" successfully demonstrated, " why would China not adopt it? And India,

countries in Africa, the Middle East and the former Soviet Union --

why wouldn't they adopt it? If we claim a right to threaten the future

of humanity, don't others have an equal right to assert such a claim?

But can other countries devote the same resources we can devote to

siting, engineering and geologic studies? Will they all be able to

monitor for leaks far into the future, essentially forever? (For that

matter, will the U.S. have that capability? Humans have no experience

creating institutions with a duty of perpetual vigilance.)

If the carbon-sequestration advocates can get their program started,

it seems likely that Congress will declare the global warming problem

" solved " and carbon sequestration will be employed until all the

recoverable fossil fuels in the ground have been used up.

If carbon sequestration advocates can get their program going, the

U.S. will have little further incentive to invest in renewable sources

of energy -- and so we stand to lose a unique opportunity to rebuild

the U.S. economy on a sustainable basis and revive America's standing

as an industrial leader in the world. Carbon sequestration, once it

gets started, will allow 19th century energy technologies to dominate

the U.S. throughout most of the 21st century.

In sum, to evade liability, to relieve pressure for innovation, to

stifle competition, and to make a great deal of money, the proponents

of carbon sequestration are betting the future of humans on an

untestable technology -- permanent underground storage -- an

act of hubris unparalleled in the annals of our species.[3]

Minds already made up

But, you may ask, " Doesn't the U.S. have the strongest environmental

protection laws in the world? Surely a vigilant Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) will ask hard questions, and protect us from

the bias of industry's hired experts? "

Last month U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Stephen

Johnson announced that EPA will issue regulations covering

carbon sequestration. However, as he was announcing EPA's intention,

Mr. Johnson issued a ringing endorsement of carbon sequestration as

the silver bullet to fix the nation's environmental and economic

problems: " By harnessing the power of geological sequestration

technology, we are entering a new age of clean energy where we can be

both good stewards of the Earth, and good stewards of the American

economy, " Mr. Johnson said. Clearly, Mr. Johnson's mind is already

made up.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) -- which earned its

reputation as a " shadow government " by watchdogging EPA -- now shares

EPA's giddy optimism toward carbon sequestration. In a letter to a

California legislator, NRDC's George Peridas asserts that carbon

sequestration can be " perfectly safe. " And NRDC scientist David

Hawkins was quoted recently saying carbon sequestration can be

carried out with " very very small risks. " NRDC has a $437,500 grant

from the Joyce Foundation to promote carbon sequestration on

industry's behalf.

Clearly, these " experts " have their minds made up. But many common-

sense questions remain:

** Given that there are many good alternatives, why would humans

accept even a " very very small " risk of making their only home

uninhabitable?

** And, given that the stakes are exceptionally high, shouldn't we

approach this with a little humility and ask, " What if the experts are

wrong? What if they are fallible and haven't thought of everything?

What if their understanding is imperfect? " After all, geology has

never been a predictive science, and humans have no experience burying

lethal hazards in the ground expecting them to remain there in

perpetuity.

** Since everyone alive today -- and all their children and their

children's children far into the future -- could be affected,

shouldn't we have a vigorous international debate on the wisdom of

carbon sequestration versus alternative ways of powering human

economies? Don't we have an obligation to develop a very broad

international consensus before proceeding -- especially among the

nations most likely to be harmed if carbon sequestration fails?

[4,5,6,7,8].

** And finally, give the exceedingly high stakes, the irreversible

nature of carbon sequestration, and the substantial and irreducible

uncertainties involved, isn't this a decision that cries out for

application of the precautionary principle?

==============

[1] Carbon dioxide is the main " greenhouse gas " causing global

warming. As humans burn carbon-containing fuels (coal, oil and natural

gas), carbon in the fuel combines with oxygen in the air to create

carbon dioxide, or CO2. In the air, CO2 acts like the glass roof on a

greenhouse -- it lets in sunlight, which is converted into heat energy

as it strikes the earth. When the heat energy radiates back into the

sky, CO2 in the atmosphere acts like a mirror, reflecting heat back

down to earth, warming the planet just as a glass roof warms a

greenhouse. Global warming from this " greenhouse effect " was first

described by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

[2] Thirty-five million tons of CO2 are being pumped into depleted oil

wells in Texas each year, to force oil to the surface. Thirty-five

million is 0.00035 percent of ten trillion. Scaling up a 35 megaton

operation by a factor of 285,000 is not a trivial problem but this is

not mentioned by industry's advocates who are trying to persuade

legislators to endorse large-scale carbon sequestration.

[3] Another human act that demonstrated similar hubris by a small

technical elite was the explosion of the first A-bomb at the Trinity

Site in southern New Mexico July 16, 1945. That morning, the Los

Alamos scientists involved were not sure that the Bomb would work, but

they also had a side-bet going among themselves because they were

unsure whether the Bomb, if it did work, wouldn't ignite the Earth's

atmosphere.

ureAt 01:47 PM 11/10/07, you wrote:

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #932, Nov. 8, 2007

[Printer-friendly version]