In Europe and the in North America a variety of big carbon sequestration projects are taking shape. Futuregen, the huge next generation coal-fired power plant in Illinois (pictured here), would involve a massive sequestration effort with injection of CO2 deep into rock formations beneath the surface. A recently issued report by the consulting firm Datamonitor posits that the carbon capture and sequestration industry is on the cusp of huge growth. In the UK, the British Government is selecting from 14 energy projects to submit for EU funding and nine of those projects involve carbon capture and storage (CCS). At Picarro, we are hearing more from researchers seeking to better understand how carbon-based Greenhouse Gases behave once they have been injected below the surface. A team at Stanford University, lead by Sally Benson, have mounted field trips with one of our analyzers (on a mule, no less - another blog post coming on that topic shortly) trying to understand natural carbon dioxide seeps in hot springs areas of Utah as part of an effort to better model and understand sequestration dynamics.

As CCS moves forward in projects around the world, efforts to set up a rigorous method to verify that sequestered carbon actually remains in the rock formations below the surface are critically important. Futuregen is instructive in this regard. GHGs will be captured from the smokestack and injected into porous sandstone formations many meters below the surface.  Trapped in the rock for centuries by pressure and other environmental factors, scientists hope, the CO₂ will remain there long enough for the Earth’s atmosphere to rebalance itself and for the atmospheric chemistry to return to lower levels of CO₂ and methane. This is extremely novel and innovative science. 

The plan’s supporters are confident that this mechanism will work.  But how can we verify the CO₂ remains trapped underground? The only way to verify this is to monitor the near-surface atmosphere in a wide area around the proposed injection zone for both rapid and tiny increases in ambient carbon dioxide. This monitoring step is absolutely critical. Leaks from sequestration sites can, over time, significantly reduce the efficacy of these types of projects. And leaks of carbon dioxide, particularly if they are not catastrophic, can be difficult to spot and even harder to stop.

Clearly, this is a complex issue. Beneath the Earth’s surface lie myriad fissures, layers of rock, and other geological formations. Geologists can map the sub-surface better than ever before thanks to extremely advanced mapping technologies. But pushing large quantities of a high-pressured gas into even a well-mapped sub-surface can have unforeseen long-term consequences. Fissures can shift.  Seismic activity can open up cracks in formations. Gases can migrate over significant distances for unknown reasons. And rocks once thought to be receptive to carbon dioxide may prove unwelcoming over the long haul.

Without proper monitoring, carbon capture and sequestration projects could provide a false sense of security. For that reason, monitoring these projects makes tremendous sense. Building a leak-prone sequestration infrastructure could result in huge costs to society and taxpayers while delivering less than anticipated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The cost of monitoring is extremely modest compared to the cost of constructing CCS projects - probably well under $5 million for a project like Futuregen. Not only would project developers gain better insights into the efficacy of their work but scientists would also gain tremendous insights into how CCS projects impact the GHG levels in ambient air. We welcome more research in this area and are eager to participate in an open discussion of how to set up mechanisms to ensure that CCS is working exactly as intended.