The Hole Truth

The EPA released a proposal for a new rule on Tuesday that lays some of the groundwork needed to get carbon capture and storage technology up and running.

If formally adopted, the new rule would create a new class of injection wells under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act's Underground Injection Control program. There are currently five different types of wells; this would add a sixth for those created to store carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. The rules would guide the siting, constructing, testing, monitoring, and funding of these underground chambers. They would apply to owners and operators of any wells that will be used to inject carbon dioxide into the ground for the purpose of long-term storage.

"Today's proposal paves the way for technologies that would protect public health and help reduce the effects of climate change," said EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson in a statement. "With proper site selection and management, geologic sequestration could play a major role in reducing emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."

In a press call today, EPA assistant administrator for water Benjamin Grumbles explained that the proposed rules serve as an effort to make sure carbon dioxide does not migrate into underground sources of drinking water. While some states have established their own regulations on underground storage, the EPA's regulations "would provide minimum level of safeguards that state programs would need to adopt," said Grumbles.

Another concern with CCS is making sure it sequesters carbon for the long-term -- possibly up to thousands of years -- in the interest of keeping it out of the atmosphere. Grumbles said the regulations would include surface monitoring to make sure the CO2 stays in the ground.

According to Kurt Waltzer, Carbon Storage Development Coordinator of the Coal Transition Project at the Clean Air Task Force, the drinking water protection rules are an important first step for moving CCS forward, though others must still be taken. The question of who will be responsible for the wells in the future is an outstanding concern, as it's not likely that the companies operating the technology now will be around hundreds of years down the line. He also pointed to the need for more individuals all over the country who are knowledgeable about a region's geographic needs in order to be able to issue permits for drilling.

Waltzer also said that there needs to be more funding for testing and assessment to see if this technology can be brought to scale, and said that a good deal of the funding authorized in last year's energy bill for CCS has not yet been appropriated.

"This is not something you can really just address by adopting a new rule," said Waltzer. "We're going to need more in place to move CCS forward -- a broader regulatory framework, as well as other pieces like incentives to move projects forward and a national climate program."

The proposal is explained on the EPA's site along with some of the other nitty-gritty details of CCS. It's available for public comment for 120 days.

Comments

[Thermodynamics]

Let's Play Pretend

The whole carbon dioxide injection idea is as silly as, oh, Bush economics. When you burn carbon it combines with oxygen and you get a lot more mass than you started with. One atom of carbon combines with 2 atoms of oxygen to make one molecule of carbon dioxide.

When you burn carbon it makes 3.66 pounds of carbon dioxide for each pound of carbon. CO2 is normally a gas. With cooling and under pressure it can be turned into a solid, dry ice, used as a refrigerant. As a solid it is slightly more dense than coal.

Even if you turn the CO2 into dry ice it will take up 3 times as much space as the coal it came from. You could not put it back in the same mine because you have added so much extra mass.

Does anyone really think it is feasible to drill down and excavate all that space? At least 3x as much as the coal mine? And this assumes the CO2 can be held in solid form. It is usually a gas.

[joebhed]

Thanks, Kate, for putting out this post and its well-balanced comments.

Too many people say CCS is impossible because of all the hurdles that must be overcome in order to make it a reality.

And another too many say it is already available, or some such stretching of the truth.

It will be a very difficult slog through a lot of unknown territory to actually get CCS on line in the 2020-2025 time frame. But the most important thing about achieving that time line is the continual evolution of science, technology and political pragmatism toward such an end.

I am yet to read these rules, but it is important to have each step of progress fall into place in as timely a manner as possible, if we are ever to get the world on a cleaner path to the carbon balance needed to sustain the planet.

Thanks, again.

[bgregs]

We need to just gather it all up and then throw it into the sun!!! Like Superman did with all the nukes!

[BADEN]

Carbon Dioxide leaches out minerals and contaminants in the surrounding soil and blends them right into that ground water your kids will be drinking.

I learned that in public school.

We will be literally "poisoning the well" to get your Hummers back on the road.

"Got Poison?"

[BeeOplentee]

Some CO2 leaking into water would make-- cabonated water aka seltzer! All we'd need is a little scotch or gin and some ice!

[KillTheMessenger]

Not to mention the mercury, SO2 etc. they will be pumping down there with the CO2.

[bgregs]

Yeah, good luck getting ice with Global Warming going faster!