Green Car Congress: New Atlas Details More Than 3.5 Trillion Tons of Possible CO2 Storage Capacity in US and Canada

« Swedish Researcher Forecasts Peak Oil Between 2008 and 2018 Based on Analysis of Giant Field Production | Main | Coalition Forms to Promote Coal-to-Liquids Fuels »

New Atlas Details More Than 3.5 Trillion Tons of Possible CO₂ Storage Capacity in US and Canada

31 March 2007

Primary sources of stationary CO2 emissions in the US and Canada. The color of the dots indicates the type of source, the diameter, the magnitude of emissions release. Click to enlarge.

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships have identified carbon storage capacity in the US and Canada of more than 3.5 trillion tons. That’s approximately 900 years of storage for stationary CO₂ emissions generated at today’s rate of 3.8 billion tons per year.

The results are detailed in the new Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada, which is available online.

US emissions of CO₂ from such stationary sources in 2004 were approximately 3.4 billion tons. Another 2.5 billion tons came from small sources not subject to capture, including transportation.

Different types of available sinks. Click to enlarge.

Created by the Office of Fossil Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, the Atlas was developed jointly with the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, and the National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographical Information System (NATCARB). Its main purposes are to:

Provide an overview of the lifecycle of CO2 through the capture and sequestration processes.
Summarize the DOE’s activities in sequestration research and development.
Present information about the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships' activities.

Emissions of CO₂ have increased from an insignificant level two centuries ago to more than 30 billion tons worldwide today. If no effort is made to reduce CO₂ emissions, yearly release from the United States could increase by one third from 2005 to 2030, according to DOE.

The Office of Fossil Energy supports a number of carbon sequestration initiatives including a vigorous research and technology development program. The atlas will aid these efforts by providing maps and information at both national and regional levels, including:

CO₂ stationary emission sites, such as powerplants, refineries, and other fossil-fuel-consuming industries.
Geologic formations suitable for permanent CO₂ sequestration.
Capacity estimates of CO2 storage in these various geologic formations.

DOE formed the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership program, which draws from seven distinct regions in the United States and Canada, in 2003 as a response to the geographic differences in fossil fuel use and sequestration potential. Funded through the National Energy technology Laboratory (NETL), the program consists of government agencies, universities, and private companies—more than 400 organizations, including 40 states, 4 Canadian provinces, and 3 Indian Nations.

The atlas is being published in both static and interactive versions. The interactive version, a frequently updated resource, is located at the NATCARB website. The NATCARB project is funded by NETL and maintained by the University of Kansas Geologic Survey; project data is maintained and enhanced locally at the Regional Partnership level.

The static version of the Atlas is available for viewing and is downloadable today at the NETL web site. The same information will be available in printed form in May 2007. Both versions will be updated every two years.

Resources:

March 31, 2007 in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) | Permalink | Comments (38) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/17364230

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Atlas Details More Than 3.5 Trillion Tons of Possible CO₂ Storage Capacity in US and Canada:

Comments

This could be as useful as Blackbeard the Pirate's Buried Treasure Map unless the process can be shown to be viable. There has to be suitable economic incentives (read carbon caps)in place plus evidence that the CO2 stays put. The main villain coal based emissions may be a long way from suitable storage sites. If this is as good as supporters claim we just want to see one demonstration plant that can work without unusual geology or special financial arrangements. Otherwise I see this is as a stalling tactic.

Posted by: Aussie | Mar 31, 2007 2:04:56 PM

I'm with Aussie on this. I've always been highly suspicious of CCS schemes for the reasons A mentions, particularly the business about whether the CO2 stays put.

Increasingly, we're dealing with the complexities of storing Nasty Stuff essentially forever, e.g. nuclear waste and CO2. Given the serial screwups we see in nuclear waste management, I have very little confidence that we can make CCS work in any meaningful sense of that word.

And no, I don't know what the right answer/mix of answers is. I do, however, get nervous when I see talk of betting so much on something that's so unlikely (in my opinion) to work on the scale needed.

Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Mar 31, 2007 3:03:19 PM

CO2 isn't all that nasty. If we were releasing it at about 10% of our current rate, things would be all right. If we stuff away CO2 for 50 years and it leaks out again over 500, it will probably be just a local problem.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Mar 31, 2007 3:25:30 PM

I wonder why Nuclear Waste must be stored with Zero Chance of accidental or malicious release for >10,000 years with billions of dollars in studies, for a volume of material probably .00001% of what CO2 is being considered. So a big bubble of CO2 gets released due to a earthquake in 200 years underneath a city of a million people which has been built there, and you have a million dead people.

Posted by: Warren Heath | Mar 31, 2007 3:38:16 PM

World CO2 emissions now exceed six billion tons annually, roughly 2500 cubic miles of gas at standard pressure and room temperature. In contrast all of the high-level nuclear power waste created to date would fit inside one large building. Future generations will think we were insane to be screwing around with CO2 sequestration.

Posted by: richard schumacher | Mar 31, 2007 6:23:16 PM

Hey Richard, look on the bright side, I'm told CO2 Asphyxiation is a pleasant death. Check out:

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2005/05_06_02.html

Posted by: Warren Heath | Mar 31, 2007 6:55:10 PM

Each molecule of CO2 is one carbon, two oxygen atoms. Does it really make sense to be taking large amounts of oxygen from the atmosphere and locking it away deep underground?

Posted by: Tony Belding | Mar 31, 2007 8:59:07 PM

Large amounts of tons, tiny fraction of the total. Converting 100 ppm of the atmosphere from O2 to CO2 and putting it underground would reduce the oxygen content by 0.01%.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Mar 31, 2007 11:21:20 PM

Aussie:

I strongly suspect that coal-fired power plants with CO2 sequestration will loose economically to corn-fermented hydrogen burned in internal combustion engines to generate electricity for electrolysis of water to produce fuel for fuel cell vehicles.

Posted by: Andrey | Apr 1, 2007 2:08:19 AM

Certainly society needs to be protected from nuclear waste but this is not that difficult. Yucca mountain, despite its political difficulties, is a spectacular example of engineering convservatism.
The natural reactors at Oklo in Gabon ran for hundreds of thousands of years. The fission fragments and transuranics have stayed put for over a billion years. Essentially, the only fission fragments that are missing are the gaseous ones.

Posted by: bill young | Apr 1, 2007 4:02:35 AM

Natural gas deposits have stayed put for millenia, why is it so hard to believe that co2 would do the same?If we are going to demand a solution I think rejecting every proposed solution in a nanosecond is counterproductive.
I think releasing this map is part of trying to find a way towards some type of cap and trade system.Many big power producers and others are now asking the gov to develop a system.They need predictability to be able to finance their operations.Lenders are reticent to fund new plants unless the regs for the next 20+ years are spelled out.
If the regs call for capture they can build the more expensive tech and pass the cost on to us.Capture can be done if you will pay for it.Pols are gauging whether or not constituents will scream bloody murder when the power bill shoots up.
Coal states are trying to get ctl going without being accused of giving the Earth a fever.they are looking to legislate capture so they can generate economic activity in depressed areas of their states.Look for them to enact a floor price for oil to gaurantee viability of ctl,ethanol etc.They want to sell the voters on capture,caps,floor pricing in a way that doesnt endanger their reelection.

Posted by: Earl | Apr 1, 2007 6:59:08 AM

CO2 is plant food in New England and we'll take all you have to offer.

The bio-mass in the Northern New England forest is growing at a rate of 2-3% over current rates of consumption.

Both Global Warming and the excess of CO2 have been major factors in giving us this huge energy 'reserve'.

I and others are planning to tap into it with gassifiers, and when the enzyme scene settles down and become less proprietary, perhaps brewing up Jet bio fuels for the new generation of low Emission Aircraft(LEA's).

For the CO2 zealots; wood chip gasifiers are largely closed loop operations and it is easy to scrub out CO2 from emissions.

Since I don't believe in the CO2 theory of global warming--way to many contrary theories including increased solar radiation and the interference of the water vapour in Jet contrails with radiative forcing; I have mixed emotions about gettin into the carbon trading schemes like REGI.

In any case, my bio-refineries will be as green as it gets and utilize green 'waste' and low value feedstock to make a mid range BTU natural gas in a gassifier with well controlled output of gases and solids.

This is the easy part.

The hard part is getting a 'village' transportation system that is friendly to Alt. Fuel vehicles and runs in winter.

We a potential 'beta' site in Brunswick Naval Air Station, now in the process of closing.

If any of you have developed or planned alt. fuel vehicle systems, golf cart trails in Georgia, college campuses, please contact me since I'm involved in planning a workshop for this summer.

Posted by: Katahdin Energy Works | Apr 1, 2007 7:43:03 AM

CO2 is plant food in New England and we'll take all you have to offer.

The bio-mass in the Northern New England forest is growing at a rate of 2-3% over current rates of consumption.

Both Global Warming and the excess of CO2 have been major factors in giving us this huge energy 'reserve'.

For the CO2 zealots; wood chip gasifiers are largely closed loop operations and it is easy to scrub out CO2 from emissions.

This is the easy part.

The hard part is getting a 'village' transportation system that is friendly to Alt. Fuel vehicles and runs in winter.

We a potential 'beta' site in Brunswick Naval Air Station, now in the process of closing.

If any of you have developed or planned alt. fuel vehicle systems, golf cart trails in Georgia, college campuses, please contact me since I'm involved in planning a workshop for this summer.

Posted by: Katahdin Energy Works | Apr 1, 2007 7:43:39 AM

Everytime I see the stats on how much CO2 can be sequestered I am amazed all over again. The obvious problems are capturing CO2 relatively free of other gases, the cost of lines to move it, and the cost to compress it. And the first seems the worst.

I will also guarantee that environmental concerns will stop any scheme, however sensible, in the US. The chances of a CO2 release killing many people is zero. Maybe a worker near a failing well or pipe would die. It would be a safer job than the late shift at 7-11.

The sequestered C02 will be deep and the pressure relatively low. There will be no blast like a volcano or a sudden massive release.

There are many reasons to ease off fossil and carbon base fuels.. But they are here and will be here for quite some time. The choice is to improve or whine.

The second sentence (above) by Earl has it right - don't reject proposed decisions in a nanosecond just because some nonperfection may be argued.

Posted by: K | Apr 1, 2007 12:47:24 PM

There were 1700 people killed by a natural release of CO2 from Lake Nyos in Cameroon in 1986. CO2 is a sufficant and is heavier than air. It can be quite dangerous when concentrated. Any CO2 sequester system needs to be carefully engineered.

Posted by: Bill Young | Apr 1, 2007 1:08:38 PM

K and Earl, nobody is writing off CO2 sequestration in a nanosecond, certainly I agree it is feasible and needs to be considered, CAREFULLY. The point of the argument is the double standard when it comes to nuclear waste, by the criteria that natural gas has been there for millions of years, apply that to nuclear, drill a hole any old place in hard rock that has been there for millions of years, dump the nuclear waste in, seal it with concrete, problem solved.

Natural gas does occasionally get released in earth movements or venting and being lighter than air, dissipates harmlessly into the atmosphere. CO2 however being heavier than air, settles on the ground until dissipated by wind & diffusion.

Another option with CO2 is to combine it with water & surplus or remote power to produce liquid fuels, namely methanol & ethanol. Also possibly algae will produce a biodiesel using waste CO2. Liquefied CO2 could be shipped to Iceland, which has huge geothermal power resources, and shipped back in the same tanker as methanol.

Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 1, 2007 1:32:12 PM

Bill:

Yes CO2 natural releases sometimes occur. They occur from unknown gas pockets - empty spaces - near the surface. And occasionally industrial drilling hits a bubble and events become unfortunate for nearby workers.

Nothing faintly like those natural formations is being proposed. To say that something needs to be carefully engineered is a straw man. Who says otherwise?

Warren: The article is about sequestering. If you insist the point is the double standard re: nuclear then do so. That isn't the point to me.

By the way, I support the Yucca Mountain approach and am disgusted by the waste of tens for billions to store nothing.

Posted by: K | Apr 1, 2007 2:25:03 PM

Global warming, nuclear power, or any technology goes against the Greens (Marxist) belief systems. In their view, everyone would be better off if we all just went back the Amish way of life. How come the greens don’t care about the poor people of Asia and Africa because they don’t have any money to give to the Greens to fight for their cause?

Nuclear power can be a clean and safe way to provide cheap power to the nation, but we could continue to use coal based power with CO2 sequestration if that’s the still the lowest cost power to produce. GW has started funding for nuclear waste recycling (as already done in the France) here in the USA. The end result wound is more fuel available for future n-plants and nuclear waste reduction as well. If natural gas can stay under ground without any problems then CO2 sequestration should have the same results.

Posted by: OttoV | Apr 1, 2007 2:32:26 PM

K, the point is about sequestration, and the degree of safety that will be required. I'm not saying that the method will not be engineered, what I am saying is logic dictates a similar level of safety of storage be built into each site as has been demanded of nuclear storage. It may be easy to select an individual site with .01% chance of significant release in 100 years, and this is a trivial problem for nuclear waste. How about .00001% chance of significant release at any of the thousands of sites for the next 10,000 years, which is more like is required for nuclear waste (only one site required).

Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 1, 2007 4:14:46 PM

Richard - "World CO2 emissions now exceed six billion tons annually, roughly 2500 cubic miles of gas at standard pressure and room temperature. In contrast all of the high-level nuclear power waste created to date would fit inside one large building. Future generations will think we were insane to be screwing around with CO2 sequestration."

I think future generations will think we are insane for doing either of these things when we have the solution for energy generation without nuclear or CO2 waste to bury somewhere to become EP's 500 year 'local' problem. It may be OK now to write it off as such however, the 'locals' of the time might not regard it so benignly.

To embrace zero emission technology we need to change and this is what is unpalatable to us Western people that want to keep all our wasteful luxuries. The problem is not really energy, as there is plenty of zero emission energy, but our attitude that our lifestyles are not negotiable or the attitude that we cannot have our present lifestyles without coal or nuclear.

Posted by: Ender | Apr 1, 2007 6:01:20 PM

As someone who thinks we can do it all without either coal or nuclear (though nuclear sure would help), you know where I stand.

I also think that we're going to have to do some things during the transition that we wouldn't do if we were starting from scratch. C'est la guerre.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 1, 2007 7:54:53 PM

EP - that article is extremely interesting. Makes a bit of a mockery of the argument that we have to have coal and nuclear. I would just like to add that energy efficiency gains could make the whole job a lot easier by lowering the target that you have to replace.

Posted by: Ender | Apr 1, 2007 8:59:28 PM

Warren:

CO2 and nuclear sequestration are totally different subjects. It may seem plausible to try and link them but it is not. One involves massive volume, nontoxic with low danger, the other has highly dangerous material, trivial volume, and should be kept from mischevious hands.

By linking CO2 discussions to nuclear you merely help those who try to impede a solution to either problem.

Doctors do not insist on discussing TB while inserting heart valves? To do so is simply meaningless and confusing.

Do you really advocate treating CO2 like nuclear material?

Nuclear sequestration has been stopped in the US by setting impossible technical standards and kowtowing to political interference and voodoo science. I don't like it, but it is fact and may not change.

What you will do by insisting on equal consideration will be to stop CO2 sequestration. It will not change nuclear standards. Then we have two non-solutions instead of one.

Maybe ".00001% chance of significant release at any of the thousands of sites for the next 10,000 years" is what you want for CO2. I don't. It will mean that nothing is done.

Posted by: K | Apr 1, 2007 9:34:41 PM

Can we do it without coal and nuclear? It doesnt matter because we wont.Political reality must interfere with wishes.Tell the coal states you are going to eliminate tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars and then show me how You will sell the idea to them.
Assuming Ender is correct that there is plenty of zero emission energy availlable,it is negated in his next point in that our "lifestyles are not negotiable".At least not to the point where the no coal, no nuclear,stricly green answers can be sold to the general public.Including many of those who say they want to save the planet.If it cant be sold to the public and their lobbyists{congress} then you must pursue an efficacious policy that can be sold.

Posted by: Earl | Apr 2, 2007 6:40:38 AM

OttoV: There are lots of shades of green. Green has nothing to do with Red (Marxist) or any other color for that matter. Green is an issue, not a political direction. Personally I'm in the center (for a Canadian) but I still understand that I must live on this planet. There are right wing greens too. People that believe that God gave us a planet to look after and that we aren't doing a very good job of it.

Posted by: Neil | Apr 2, 2007 7:31:20 AM

P.S. advocating cleaner use of the planet does not necessarily mean advocating that we all live like the Amish. It means using a toilet instead of crapping on the living room floor.

Posted by: Neil | Apr 2, 2007 7:34:06 AM

What we should be looking for is a use for the co2.

I.E.

Terra preta is not a use for co2 but for the carbon left behind from a non-co2 producing burn. If it proves to valuable enough it could help to reduce net co2 entering the atmosphere.

Posted by: jwogdn | Apr 2, 2007 7:49:37 AM

Another use for CO2 might be where CO2 is the limiting factor to plant growth.

Posted by: jwogdn | Apr 2, 2007 7:55:35 AM

Use the CO2 to fuel Algea ponds that produce Biodiesel.

Posted by: Joseph | Apr 2, 2007 9:12:19 AM

My only problem with CCS is that it sounds like the sort of thing that the US government can invest billions in, while avoiding spending money on R&D to improve the efficiency of energy systems we already have. My reason for thinking this, is that if we go on making big inefficient cars that burn lots of energy (crude oil until the last drop then ethanol from corn) the lobbying groups and big business interests will be happy.

Posted by: Kevin | Apr 2, 2007 9:14:31 AM

The point is, it is enormously easier and cheaper to dispose of all nuclear power plant waste than it would be to dispose of meaningful amounts of CO2 for the forseeable future, simply because of the enormous difference in the volume and mass of material involved. Re-processing, breeders, and burning of short half-life material in accelerators will reduce the amount of nuclear waste by another factor of ten.

The day that the West Antarctic ice sheet starts to slide off into the sea will be too late. We need to start replacing coal-fired power plants with nuclear plants, worldwide, now.

Posted by: richard schumacher | Apr 2, 2007 9:53:26 AM

Richard - "The day that the West Antarctic ice sheet starts to slide off into the sea will be too late. We need to start replacing coal-fired power plants with nuclear plants, worldwide, now."

In my opinion doing this is just setting us up for the next problem - nuclear waste and nuclear weapons. Why not take the time now to fix the structural problems that lead us to need so much energy that we need to build all these plants.

Why not make it again fashionable to do more with less instead of just enabling us to increase consumption. Why not start with energy efficiency so we can have most of what we have now while using vastly less energy.

While the Amish and the like are extremists they do have some virtues that we seem to have forgotton. While not wanting to emulate their lifestyle, living within your means is not such a crazy idea. Really, living on the edge consuming as much as we do is pretty crazy - its just that everybody does it that it seems sane.

Posted by: Ender | Apr 2, 2007 5:48:15 PM

CO2 does not have to be buried deep underground. Converting CO2 to cellulose (plant lîfe) and then into charcoal it can be added to the soils to enhance more plant growth. jwogdn touched on this when he mentioned terra preta soils found in the Amazon. Scientists have found that the charcoal has been in the soil for thousands of years.

Posted by: James White | Apr 2, 2007 10:29:24 PM

Posted by: James White | Apr 3, 2007 10:30:43 PM

I support the Yucca Mountain approach and am disgusted by the waste of tens for billions to store nothing.

Your position is internally inconsistent. It would actually be cheaper and easier -- and no less safe -- to indefinitely store spent nuclear fuel on the surface, in armored sealed casks, rather than burying it. So why do you support the more expensive approach even as the project admittedly disgusts you?

Posted by: Paul Dietz | Apr 4, 2007 1:08:12 PM

Change 'support' to 'supported' to explain my disgust. Billions were spent and nothing stored. But that was before I realized the federal government had evolved and no longer intends to achieve, only to spend.

My support was for a single site storage solution. The federal government would select a site, select a good method, and execute it. I didn't care if that good method was burial, surface encapsulation, or farting.

I welcome technical programs that actually solve problems.

I think we still spend a billion or so a year at YM. Just because there is no prospect of doing anything, heaven forbid that a government project should close and lay off people.

My understanding was that Yucca Mountain would encapsulate, then store in tunnels. Not bury.

Posted by: K | Apr 4, 2007 8:58:24 PM

My understanding was that Yucca Mountain would encapsulate, then store in tunnels. Not bury.

The tunnels would be backfilled at some point, which counts as burial in my book.

Posted by: Paul Dietz | Apr 5, 2007 8:16:08 AM

The NatCarb Atlas is a great resource, but not for the reasons given:

1. The list of CO2 fixed-site sources will turn out to be a list of places to retrofit "algae-photobioreactors" to convert CO2 into biofuels (see Greencarcongress listings for algae, biodiesel);

2. The list of sequestration sites is a beginning list of regions where Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) sites could be either retrofitted to existing thermal-electric power-stations, or new power plants could be built to take advantage of the formations below. CAES could be the final piece of the jigsaw puzzle needed to turn wind and other intermittent renewable electric sources into dispatchable sources.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/38270.pdf

The link above is to "Improving the technical, environmental and social performance of wind energy systems using biomass-based energy storage" by Paul Denholm. It outlines a strategy of building CAES plants up and down a transmission line to take power from high-wind regions to large cities, using farm-grown biomass along the transmission route to fire the CAES plants (they do require some heat, but only one-third that of traditional thermal-electric plants -- the other two-thirds of the generating power is provided by the compressed air). The point is to both guarantee a stable local source of carbon-neutral fuel, and to give the local landowners a stable market for a crop directly tied to the existence of the long-distance transmission line -- so the project is more stable both logistically AND politically, not a minor consideration.

The best solutions to energy independence, peak oil/ resource depletion, greenhouse gases, and ending our over-use of natural biomass (AKA the "Sixth Extinction") will involve making wind, wave and PV power storable, plus intensive use of the most productive forms of biomass (so far, that looks like algae) -- and ideally, we could look for ways to grow that algae (or whatever turns out to be even more space-productive than algae) in areas that aren't currently very active biologically. As far as I can tell, there are three types of areas available that aren't biologically very active: deserts, icecaps/mountain ranges... and the middle of the oceans. The middle of the oceans are biological deserts. Figure out how to grow algae intensively in aquaculture-installations in the middle of the oceans -- possibly in barges that simply float with the currents in a big circle -- and we could open up millions of square miles of the high seas to really productive use. The most-cited estimate is that the US could probably replace all the diesel it currently consumes with 15,000 square miles of algae-ponds, etc. Algae aquaculture at sea could probably give us a carbon-neutral channel for biofuels in volumes great enough to supply the whole planet at first-world consumption levels.

The resources detailed in the CO2 storage atlas should be seen as a necessary first step toward this ideal goal of storable electric reserve on land, and CO2-fertilized algae on both land and sea.

A good starting point on algae-aquaculture for oil/biodiesel is www.oilgae.com .

Posted by: rickthurman | Apr 7, 2007 7:23:53 AM