385
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
SW: →Carbon Capture and Sequestration: add 2 images of carbon pipeline
The idea for PurGen One evolved out of a 2006 paper titled [http://schraglab.unix.fas.harvard.edu/publications/CV78.pdf "Permanent carbon dioxide storage in deep-sea sediments,"] written by Harvard University graduate student Kurt Zenz House and professor [[Daniel Schrag]].<ref name="apfuebas"/> The paper argued that layers of rock deep beneath the ocean floor would be the best place to sequester carbon dioxide.<ref name="apfuebas"/> Following the paper's publication, SCS Energy hired Daniel Schrag as a consultant.<ref name="apfuebas"/>
[[Image:PurGen_One_CO2_pipeline_NY_Times.JPG|thumb|left|Planned carbon sequestration pipeline for PurGen One. Source: [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/business/energy-environment/18clean.html?_r=2 New York Times]]]SCS developed a [[carbon capture and sequestration]] (CCS) plan based around a underwater sandstone formation that stretches along the Atlantic coast from New Jersey to Georgia.<ref name="blbocat"/> Thirty years ago, this field was tested for gas wells. The company plans to build a injection well seventy miles of the coast from Atlantic City, NJ and pump pressurized, liquid CO2 one mile down into the Hudson Shelf Valley section of sandstone.<ref name="apfuebas"/><ref name="adegopp"/>
SCS plans to bury a one-inch-thick steel pipeline, measuring two feet in diameter and encased in concrete, three feet deep under the sea floor for a hundred miles to the injection site.<ref name="adegopp"/> In some places (particularly shipping lanes), the pipeline may be buried seventy to eighty feet into the ocean floor.<ref name="adegopp"/>
SCS promotes its CCS plan as safer than others because the company hopes that the weight and pressure from the ocean floor would help suppress the stored carbon.<ref name="apfuebas"/> Daniel Schrag believes that the carbon would remain there for millions of years because it would be buried below a thick layer of mud and that earthquakes or underwater landslides could cause its release.<ref name="apfuebas"/> Tim Bauer (project manager) has said that PurGen employees, along with federal authorities, would be monitoring the pipeline via an electric device placed inside the pipeline.<ref name="adegopp"/> Concerned residents have doubts about the effectiveness of the company's ability to monitor small-scale leaks, and Heather Saffert has expressed that existing technology used for monitoring large leaks is harmful to marine life.<ref name="adegopp"/> There are also worries that the pipeline may not stay buried, increasing the risk of leaks or other damage.<ref name="adegopp"/>
[[Image:PurGen_One_sequestration_area2.JPG|thumb|right|Planned carbon sequestration pipeline superimposed on USGS sea floor image. Source: [http://www.purgenone.com/images/siteLarge.jpg PurGen One website]]]PurGen One would produce 4.5 million tons of carbon dioxide per year and there are plans to capture ninety percent of that, leading SCS to claim the plant will have a "net zero CO2 carbon footprint."<ref name="blbocat"/><ref name="adegopp">Andrew Davison, [http://sub.gmnews.com/news/2010-06-03/Front_Page/Environmental_groups_oppose_power_plant.html "Environmental groups oppose power plant",] "Suburban", June 3, 2010."</ref> Schrag calculates that the sandstone area may have the capacity for several billion tons.<ref name="blbocat"/> This is seen as a selling point for SCS, who hopes to use the well to store CO2 from other industrial sources in New Jersey.<ref name="blbocat"/> As reported in Forbes, the well could potentially store CO2 from all existing power plants "within 155 miles of the coast from Maryland to Massachusetts for the next 100 years."<ref name="blbocat"/> SCS hopes that national carbon [[cap and trade]] legislation will be passed in the near future, causing the pipeline to generate income from other sources of industrial pollution (such as other power plants) that would have to dispose of their CO2 in order meet the cap and trade regulations.<ref name="blbocat"/> SCS could take in $240 million per year for disposing ten million tons of CO2 from other New Jersey sources.<ref name="blbocat"/> There could also be federal money for carbon sequestration projects. The [[Waxman-Markey Climate Bill]] has included a ninety-dollar-a-ton credit for such projects.<ref name="blbocat"/> Schrag has said these factors "would make the project wildly profitable, as this project is already profitable [on the books] without any subsidy."<ref name="blbocat"/>
SCS does not plan to create a test project.<ref name="pgofag">[http://www.purgenone.com/faq.php "Frequently asked questions",] PurGen One website, accessed September 7, 2010.</ref> The company often cites a carbon sequestration project, known as the [[Sleipner Carbon Capture and Storage project |Sleipner]] project, off the coast of [[Norway and coal |Norway]] in the North Sea as a comparable operation.<ref name="pgofag"/> The Sleipner project has been operating since 1996 and buries less than a quarter of the amount SCS plans to sequester.<ref name="apfuebas"/> SCS claims the PurGen One plans would be more fool-proof than Sleipner because its well would be deeper, causing there to be more pressure and a lower temperature, which would provide added safety.<ref name="pgofag"/>
