Corn-processing giant Archer Daniels Midland creates excess carbon dioxide while brewing ethanol and other alcohols from corn. The company is donating carbon dioxide from a plant in Decatur, Illinois. Scientists will bury the CO2 deep underground and test whether the local rock can hold it there indefinitely. If it can, the government may encourage coal-fired power plants and other carbon sources to sequester their carbon underground. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
One of the cheapest, easiest ways to make
electricity in America is to burn coal, but there’s
this little problem of global warming. The coal power
industry is a major offender because burning coal
gives off carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.
It’s enough to make you think – should we burn coal at all?
Shawn Allee reports some scientists hope to prove
we can put coal emissions out of sight, out of mind:
Transcript
One of the cheapest, easiest ways to make electricity in America is to burn coal. But there’s this little problem of global warming. The coal power industry is a major offender… because burning coal gives off carbon dioxide – the main greenhouse gas. It’s enough to make you think – should we burn coal at all? Shawn Allee reports some scientists hope to prove we can put coal emissions out of sight, out of mind:
A big part of our global warming problem starts right in coal country. Recently, I recorded this coal train leaving a coal mine, destined for some power plants.
(sound of coal train)
It was a long train … and across the country, hundreds like it run constantly. The coal power industry generates half our electricity. And that’s responsible for nearly forty percent of the carbon dioxide, or CO2, we chuck into the atmosphere.
Well, wouldn’t it be great if we could reverse some of this? So, when we pull coal out of the Earth and then burn it … we could just send some of the carbon dioxide gas underground?
That’s getting tested by scientists.
I found one.
ALLEE: “What’s your name, sir?”
FINLEY: “Robert Finley. I’m the director for the center for energy and earth resources at Illinois State Geologic Survey.”
Finley wants to take carbon dioxide and bury it deep under the town of Decatur, Illinois.
He says the rock has to be just right.
One layer needs to absorb the carbon dioxide, while other rock has to keep it put.
“In order for the CO2 to remain in the subsurface, to not leak back in the atmosphere, we have to have an excellent seal.”
Finley calls this geological carbon sequestration, and he says it’s worked … in small tests. His experiment and six others across the country are much larger. Finley says the technology is promising, but needs testing.
“Decatur involves two years of characterizing the site and drilling wells before we even inject CO2. Three years of CO2 injection, then two more years of study of the site. So, that in total is a seven year effort.”
Again, he’s gotta make sure the carbon dioxide stays underground … and that it won’t hurt water or other underground resources. But while Finley experiments, coal plants continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere. That’s got some environmental groups a little impatient.
“The best way to avoid emissions from burning coal is to not burn it in the first place.”
This is Ron Burke, the Midwest Director for The Union of Concerned Scientists.
“We can meet most of our energy needs by substantially increasing the use of energy efficiency and renewable energy.”
Allee: “But when you listen to Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, it seems that both of these candidates seem to want to make it work, when Mr. Finley and others doing work on the ground say I won’t even have my data until 2014.”
Burke: “It’s clear that a lot of elected officials share this aspirational goal to commercially develop so-called clean-coal technology. But right now we can’t depend on it. We shouldn’t be developing plans to mitigate greenhouse gases assuming that technology’s going to be available.”
Geologist Robert Finley says we cannot rely on carbon sequestration exclusively.
Even if CO2 can stay underground forever, there’s no guarantee we can afford to send it there.
“One could argue we should have been doing this five years ago or earlier, but we can’t go forward and simply drill a well next year and move forward without these kinds of studies, because that would be reckless in my view.”
Finley doesn’t apologize for the pace of science.
He says he’s confident it can answer questions about carbon sequestration…. he just hopes it’s in time to make a difference for the global warming problem.
For the Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.