CO₂ to Methanol    

Why is Carbon Sequestration (CS) a bad idea and is Natural Gas really "green" or clean?

COORGA’s criticism of CS does not dwell on issues of liability, property rights, costs of technology, or any of the standard objections lobbed at CS, our concern is more fundamental.

We are concerned about the implications for atmospheric Oxygen Depletion and Ocean Acidification.

Oxygen Depletion
Back when our planet was very young, a group of bacteria and algae got together and oxidized water releasing oxygen to the atmosphere through a process called photosynthesis.   After a few years of this (2.5 billion years to be precise) the level of oxygen in the atmosphere was sufficient to support oxygen breathing life forms; there are those that argue that an 18% oxygen concentration is the minimal value necessary to support this kind of life, currently oxygen makes up 20.95% of the atmosphere.

Carbon found in fossil fuel such as coal, bitumen and petroleum has been locked away in the earth’s crust for eons; when combusted to produce energy, the ancient carbons from these fossil fuels combine with oxygen from the atmosphere to form CO₂.

Carbon Sequestration that seeks to store Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) or Carbonate (CO₃) not only locks away ancient carbon, but it removes atmospheric oxygen as well.

The question then becomes one of order of magnitude.

Coal is a mixture of compounds and its chemical formula has been approximated at C135H96O9NS. This means that by mass, carbon accounts for almost 85% of coal while oxygen only accounts for 7.5%. In Contrast CO₂ by mass is made up of 27% carbon and 73% oxygen. Using these proportions as a guide, we can hypothesize that for every metric tonne of CO₂ sequestered ~270kg of ancient carbon is being re-stored while ~730kg of oxygen is removed thereby depleting global availability of this vital compound.

Consider the sequestration of all the ancient carbons contain in a molecule of coal such as the anthracite molecule in the image below having a carbon/oxygen ratio of approximately 5:1. If we were to sequester the ancient carbons so contained, we would require 9 units of atmospheric oxygen for every unit of coal sequestered as CO₂ and even scarier still, 14 units of atmospheric oxygen would be required for the ancient carbons contained in each unit of coal sequestered as carbonate (this analysis takes into account the single ancient unit of oxygen already present).

Now ask yourself, how sustainable is that?  Frankly speaking, oxygen depletion using CS technology would proceed at a much faster pace than global warming from GHG ever did.

Ocean Acidification
Scientists are already sounding the alarm about ocean acidification due to excess atmospheric CO₂ dissolving into the world's ocean and forming carbonic acid. The carbonic acid then interferes with the oceanic ecosystem leading to the death of coral reefs and crustaceans that are an important food source for commercial fish species such as pink salmon, mackerel, and cod (click to read article ).

Where carbon sequestration poses an even greater threat to the oceanic ecosystem is where we have undersea sequestration.  Imagine millions and millions of tonnes each day of CO₂  being transported either by tankers or pipeline to be sequester beneath the ocean floor.  Then image the catastrophic effect of long term leakage of this CO₂ or simply image the devastation that can be wroth if there are a spills during sequestration (which invariably there will be). Can we really afford to take the chance that we could literally kill-off our oceans?

Enhance Oil Recover (EOR)
While not a truly pure CCS strategy, it’s mentioned enough in the literature that deals with CCS that some attention is given to it here. EOR seeks to pump CO₂ plus water into depleted oil wells, thereby raising previously inaccessible crude.  Of course this gambit also leads to oxygen depletion as discussed above.

However, even more insidious is that this strategy will most likely lead to higher CO₂ emission when account is taking of the CO₂ from transportation when this crude is refined and consumed. Put simply, on a volume basis the concentration of carbon will be higher on a per gallon basis in the crude (87% by weight) than the mixture of water and CO₂ (far less than 27% by weight since water has no carbon) being pumped underground to raise the that crude. Clearly EOR as a business strategy for petroleum companies is a profitable approach, but from the stand point of GHG mitigation it’s worse than no strategy at all.

Geologic carbon sequestration whether on land, oil wells or in the ocean represents a threat to life as we know it. It represents an assault on our oceans and our atmosphere and is a solution that may be worse than the problem it's trying to mitigate. 

The question is, is geological sequestration the best that we can do?

COORGA says no it's not!

With our technology ancient carbons are recycled into synthetic sustainable fuels, displacing newly mined fossil fuels, an approach that is infinitely more sustainable and cheaper than either the status quo (doing nothing) or Carbon Sequestration.

fig. 1 Chemical Structure of Antracite Coal

Natural Gas the "Green Fuel"?

 In what Bizarro World are we living in, such that natural gas, a fossil fuel that has 21 times the heat trapping capacity of CO₂, that is toxic and adds to the world's inventory of GHG get rebranded as "green"?  Does the idea that it emits 30% less CO₂ compared to diesel makes it clean?

Ok, I guess the argument is that burning natural gas leads to slower climate change (assuming no spill leading to 21 times the impact); but seriously, 'in the end, would we not all still be dead'?

What about the idea that natural gas is the only available fuel that can run heavy rigs, deliver energy independence and save western society from the vagaries of the petroleum cartels?  Well at COORGA we have a 3 letter response - D. M. E.

DME is the simpliest ether (Dimethyl Ether) that can be produced from the gasification of organic mass such as corn stover and black liquor, both of which are renewable and do not add to the GHG inventory of the planet. These feedstocks are also available in great abundance in North America.  As to being able to handle heavy duty diesel fleets, well look at what the experts atVOLVO are saying.  As to energy independence, well if you can make the fuel next to the point of consumption how much more independent can you get?

These are serious times and we need serious answers to global warming.  Ancient carbon fossil fuels are not the answer, no matter how much slower they destroy the planet.