Dumbest idea in history
12 responses | 0 likes
Started by metmike - Feb. 12, 2022, 2:53 a.m.

In order to save the planet above the ground from beneficial CO2 that's causing the fake climate crisis that is greening up the planet because it feeds plants, and causes record crop yields and record food production for humans and animals.........the plan is to take that beneficial CO2 and inject it underground into reservoirs with high pressure and at high concentrations. Those reservoirs will have leaks at various times.

Some will be slow leaks, others could be complete collapses in one of the walls of the underground reservoir..........causing massive amounts of extremely high concentrations of CO2 to gush out.............somewhere.

Those leaks will spill into the water supply.....ground water for wells and aquifers and cause chemical reactions that severely damage the water supply.from wells and aquifers that are located close to places underground where the CO2 leaks from the reservoirs pumped up with CO2 that gets transported by pipelines with pressurized, concentrated CO2.

One major problem is that CO2 causes the PH to drop in water that it comes in contact with.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 300 parts per million to around 418 ppm in the last 100+ years.

This slight increase in CO2 from .03% to .04% has caused a slight increase in the PH of the oceans.

This is not really hurting the oceans that much because there's an enormous buffering affect because the oceans have 1,000 times more mass than the atmosphere. 


A graph showing rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over time.


However, a pipeline with nearly 100% CO2 that gets pumped into reservoirs underground at high pressures is certain to leak out into surrounding areas that have water which is used by humans.  

CO2 at those extremely high concentrations interacting with fresh water will greatly alter the geochemical composition of that water(especially in certain environments) and cause the ph level of the water to plunge and acidity to reach levels that make that water dangerous for drinking by humans.

Comments
By metmike - Feb. 12, 2022, 3:12 a.m.
Like Reply


Changes in Geochemical Composition of
Groundwater Due to CO2 Leakage in Various
Geological Media

file:///C:/Users/Basement/AppData/Local/Temp/water-12-02597-v2.pdf

One big problem with leaks of CO2 into ground water/aquifers/wells is that it lowers the ph to a level which is not acceptable for drinking, below 6.5.

Acidic water like this also increases corrosion of metal pipes, like what happened to the water in Flint MI several years ago.


The Flint Water Crisis: What's Really Going On?

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/resources/highschool/chemmatters/past-issues/2016-2017/december-2016/flint-water-crisis.html


The Science Behind It: Corrosion Caused Lead-Tainted Water in Flint, Michigan

https://www.materialsperformance.com/articles/material-selection-design/2016/06/the-science-behind-it-corrosion-caused-lead-tainted-water-in-flint-michigan

By metmike - Feb. 12, 2022, 3:13 a.m.
Like Reply

Secondary Drinking Water Standards: Guidance for Nuisance Chemicals

https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/secondary-drinking-water-standards-guidance-nuisance-chemicals

pH6.5 - 8.5low pH: bitter metallic taste; corrosion
high pH: slippery feel; soda taste; deposits
By metmike - Feb. 12, 2022, 3:18 a.m.
Like Reply

After reading several studies/research on this, it's become obvious that there is tremendous uncertainty about what affects a leak in the underground reservoir with CO2 will have on the surrounding environment that goes well beyond just causing a drop in ph that was mentioned earlier.

You can find studies that show there are severe/high risks to groundwater resources from this and other ones that show a low risk.

Most people don't realize how corrupted objective science has been for decades by politics, financial and other bad influences and this particular topic has more politics and money at stake than any other. So it's not surprising that we have studies that are at both ends of the spectrum on this topic.

This is not my area of super expertise but critical thinking/common sense and using basic principles of chemistry say that the studies that found severe risks should get the most weighting and it's about something that will potentially impact many millions of people and the water they drink which is a key element to having good health.

Common sense and basic science leads to my belief that using CO2 sequestration on this monumental scale WILL cause a high risk of contaminating ground water for millions.

For me, the question is not WILL it contaminate drinking water but HOW MANY MILLIONS of people will have at least some contamination and how severe will it be?

The most ludicrous/ironic part about it is that it's supposedly going to help save the planet above the ground............while severely damaging a key part(natural resource) of the planet that we use below the ground(for vital drinking water).



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Evaluating impacts of CO2 and CH4 gas intrusion into an unconsolidated aquifer: fate of As and Cd

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2015.00049/full


Such leakage can happen as a quick, large release of CO2, such as a well failure, or a slow, gradual leak through an undetected fault (Harvey et al., 2013). Previous studies have been conducted with various conclusions over the past few years. Results range from indication that potential CO2 leakage poses a serious risk to overlying groundwater resources (Wang and Jaffe, 2004; Zheng et al., 2009; Kharaka et al., 2010; Little and Jackson, 2010; Vong et al., 2011; Wei et al., 2011; Cahill et al., 2013), to a low level of risk (Smyth et al., 2009; Keating et al., 2010; Frye et al., 2012; Mickler et al., 2013; Kirsch et al., 2014).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Quality of the Nation’s Groundwater | U.S. Geological Survey

https://www.usgs.gov/news/featured-story/quality-nations-groundwater

Groundwater -- The Invisible and Vital Resource. Details: 115 million people rely on groundwater for drinking water. 43 million

By metmike - Feb. 12, 2022, 3:25 a.m.
Like Reply

This study was published originally in 2005 and I've posted it here numerous times and sent it out elsewhere dozens of times. It's true in many scientific fields.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124


Summary

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

By metmike - Feb. 14, 2022, 8:01 p.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Feb. 14, 2022, 10:26 p.m.
Like Reply


Researchers say Earthquakes Would Let Stored CO2 Escape

A study by Stanford researchers says seismic risks could undermine large-scale carbon capture.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2012/06/18/185601/researchers-say-earthquakes-would-let-stored-co2-escape/


Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of
carbon dioxide


https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/26/10164.full.pdf


By metmike - Feb. 14, 2022, 10:30 p.m.
Like Reply

Fracking and Earthquakes

Fracking is shaking things up — literally. Fracking, along with the disposal of toxic fracking waste through underground injection control wells, has been linked to human-caused earthquake activity.

https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2015/05/04/fracking-and-earthquakes/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAmKiQBhClARIsAKtSj-nqGB7WE7RvEqSqka6qjZry6wONWDzQrflNOydT5SjjEZweRaQOZT8aAovGEALw_wcB


More typically when talking about fracking-related earthquakes, the conversation is referring the seismic events triggered by injection wells, a common method of disposal for fracking waste. In the eastern and central United States, earthquake activity has increased about fivefold, from an annual average of 21 earthquakes above a 3.0 magnitude between 1967 and 2000, to more than 300 earthquakes over three years from 2010 to 2012. According to scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), this increased seismic activity is associated with wastewater disposal wells in states such as Oklahoma, Colorado, Arkansas, Ohio and Texas. The threat of increased earthquake activity is also of concern for the seismically active state of California, where the Monterey Shale overlaps the San Andreas Fault.

Induced seismicity occurs when human activity triggers a dormant fault by adding or reducing stress and/or increasing pore pressure. When fluid is injected underground — as is done to fracture shale rock and for the disposal of fracking wastewater — it can lubricate fault zones. As fluid moves into a fault zone, pore pressure increases, which can cause the fault to slip and result in an earthquake.


By metmike - Feb. 19, 2022, 12:05 a.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Feb. 19, 2022, 12:07 a.m.
Like Reply

Bearing the Cost of Stored Carbon Leakage

http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/15325/

http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/15325/1/fenrg-06-00040.pdf


                                    

Carbon capture and storage: A lot of eggs in a potentially leaky basket

https://theicct.org/carbon-capture-and-storage-a-lot-of-eggs-in-a-potentially-leaky-basket/

By metmike - Feb. 19, 2022, 12:09 a.m.
Like Reply

Farmland degradation caused by radial diffusion of CO2 leakage from carbon capture and storage

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652620301062

By metmike - Feb. 19, 2022, 12:11 a.m.
Like Reply

Before going on, I think an extraordinarily important point needs to be made.

When the US/Canada aggressively  work to lower emissions, it's imperative to minimize costs and minimize damage(to the subsurface) so they can be justified for the amount of benefits.

This especially includes our drinking water and health of soils.

However, CO2 is well mixed in the global atmosphere. The US/Canada can continue to drop our carbon footprint but with China/India continuing to increase CO2 emissions faster than the rate of our cuts recently (China now emits double the emissions as the US) it means that our efforts to lower global CO2 will be offset/sabotaged by their increases.

Why is this so important?

With anything like this, there's a risk/reward consideration that should determine important decisions. The greater the cost............the greater the benefits need to be.

The financial cost of carbon sequestration is massive. But there's also an environmental cost taking place below the ground. There appears to be a high risk of degradation in the drinking water supplies and soils for millions of people because of the expected leakage from reservoirs packed with extremely concentrated CO2 underground. Liquid CO2 is 390 times more dense, so even small leaks can release huge amounts of CO2 by mass, which will become gaseous again when the pressure drops.

That factor and the high cost of CO2 sequestration are the expensive risks.

If the reward was to see an equally impressive drop in global CO2 emissions, then it would be worth it. However, the US/Canadian contribution to global CO2 is much less than that of India/China, which continues to increase emissions.

So we damage only the soils/water supplies below our feet, where we live...taking on 100% of the risk/damage to OUR below ground environment but only reap 20% of the benefits(US-18%, Canada-2% of global CO2 emissions) for the planet.

This imbalance requires that we DECREASE the costs, financial and environmental for our reducing CO2 emissions so that it makes sense from a risk/reward standpoint.

If the rest of the world, especially China/India was doing the same thing......taking the same risks to their subsurface environment, it would make more sense.

A good business person would never invest in something that requires 100% of the risk but only 20% of the rewards!

Granted, other countries, especially in Europe will be on board from the get go but that still doesn't completely correct the imbalanced risk/reward equation.

Fortunately, we offer exactly what is needed to make the costs of reducing CO2 justifiable from this risk/reward perspective!

https://www.eeia.org/aboutus/about-one.cfm?Getone=yes&category=Current&ID=529


A Tale of Two Countries - CO2 Emissions - eeia.org
A Tale of Two Countries - CO2 Emissions Tweet Most people believe that our climate is changing, and that greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide (CO 2) emitted from burning fossil fuels are contributing to the change.Within hours, greenhouse gasses emitted from anywhere on the planet become part of our global atmosphere.
www.eeia.org


and 

By metmike - Feb. 19, 2022, 12:24 a.m.
Like Reply

Clearly, as somebody that knows that CO2 is a beneficial gas,  I have bias with regards to the viability of sequestering it underground at the cost of many billions of dollars.


In order to be more objective, I also looked at numerous studies from entities (many that have skin in the game and are greatly biased) that describe carbon sequestration as being proven for safety and effectiveness.

This makes me realize that my area of expertise is as an atmospheric scientist and I'm not qualified enough to be an expert that can sort thru all the weeds when they are based on unique geological formations and chemical reactions/dynamics well below the surface.  I really can't  definitively debunk or confirm what either side states on risks.

I also remembered my familiarity with the massive storage of natural gas supplies in the US. Over 9 TCF(Trillion Cubic Feet) in storage capacity and almost 5 TCF in working capacity. All this natural gas is stored in salt caverns, aquifers and depleted ng fields(reservoirs).

Storing CO2 is similar but also different for several reasons but the fact that we've been storing massive amounts of natural gas(that is constantly being injected and withdrawn) for multiple decades using many of  the same principles that apply with CO2 injections........is solid evidence that this can work.

Some CO2 sequestration projects will attempt to mineralize the CO2 in the reservoir by combining it with rocks high in minerals like calcium and magnesium as well as industrial waste products like fly ash, cement kiln dust and steel slag.

Predicting the viability or rate for this mineralization is way above my pay grade (-:

I defer to the previous studies in the prior posts from experts much smarter than me, when it comes to specific concerns/risks, which seem valid.

Can the temperatures and pressures be maintained to keep CO2 as a semi liquid in these storage reservoirs?

The pressure MUST be greater than 5 times the pressure at the surface and temperature much stay below 88 Deg. F. 

Liquid CO2 is 390 times more dense and takes up that much less space than gaseous CO2. If it escapes and/or expands from a liquid to a vapor, that's A LOT of CO2 gas!

How will they minimize the amount of earthquakes caused by these injections.

How will they manage the leaks, which are especially likely after earthquakes? They WILL happen but how significant(or not) will this be?

There will be unwanted, negative changes to the geochemisty that is greatest at locations closest to leaks and diminish with distance. This includes ground water, some that's used for drinking. How extensive will this be? How will that be managed?

No doubt they can select locations that have the lowest risk/which meet tough standards.  


Extremely expensive and challenging as hell for sure but risks to the environment are uncertain.

The sources below, paint an optimistic, low risk picture.

Mike


https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2019.00009/full



An Overview of the Status and Challenges of CO2 Storage in Minerals and Geological Formations | Climate - Frontiers
Since the Industrial Revolution, anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have grown exponentially, accumulating in the atmosphere and leading to global warming. According to the IPCC (IPCC Special Report, 2018), atmospheric warming should be <2°C to avoid the most serious consequences associated with climate change. This goal may be achieved in part by reducing CO2 emissions, together ...
www.frontiersin.org


https://netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage/faqs/carbon-storage-faqs



Carbon Storage FAQs | netl.doe.gov
HOW IS CO 2 TRAPPED IN THE SUBSURFACE?. Trapping refers to the way in which the carbon dioxide (CO 2) remains underground in the location where it is injected.There are four main mechanisms that trap the injected CO 2 in the subsurface. Each of these mechanisms plays a role in how the CO 2 remains trapped in the subsurface. The following provides a description of each type of trapping mechanism.
netl.doe.gov




https://opportune.com/insights/article/comparing-underground-natural-gas-storage-with-deep-saline-injection-of-carbon-dioxide/



Comparing Underground Natural Gas Storage With Deep Saline Injection Of Carbon Dioxide | Opportune
Find out why underground natural gas storage can serve as a useful analog when developing large-scale carbon capture and sequestration projects.
opportune.com