Peridotite, a volcanic rock composed mainly of iron and magnesium salts, naturally reacts at an extremely rapid rate with carbon dioxide (CO2) and produces solid minerals
Scientists claim that a certain type of rock could be used to absorb huge amounts of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Their research shows that the rock, called Peridotite (peridotite, a volcanic rock composed mainly of iron and magnesium salts) naturally reacts at an extremely fast rate with carbon dioxide (CO2) to obtain solid minerals - and that the process can be accelerated a million times through simple drilling and injection methods. This rock type contains most, if not all, of the rocks in the Earth's mantle. They begin to appear twenty kilometers or more in the depths of the earth, but sometimes pieces of them emerge above the surface when tectonic plates collide and push the rock up, as happened in the state of Oman. Geologists already knew that as soon as they are exposed to the air, the rocks quickly react with carbon dioxide to form solid carbons (carbonates) such as limestone or marble.
However, the plans for transporting them to power plants for grinding and using them to absorb the gases emitted from the factories' chimneys remain too expensive. The scientists claim that the discovery of the high rate of their reaction with the gas underground allows the gas itself to be transported there while cheapening the entire process. "This method offers a cheap, safe and permanent process for carbon dioxide capture and storage," said lead author, geologist Peter Kelemen.
The researcher and his colleague, both from Columbia University, came across this discovery during a field trip in the Omani desert, where they used to work for many years. The studied area, mostly arid, is decorated with terraces, cracks, fissures and other landforms of whitish carbonate minerals, which formed rapidly recently when minerals in the rock reacted with carbon dioxide-rich air or water. In the strips of the ore between the layers of underground rocks there is coal in an amount up to ten times greater; However, until recently, researchers believed that these hidden bands were created by processes unrelated to the atmosphere, and that their age is the same as the age of the rocks themselves, which is ninety-six million years.
However, using advanced carbon isotopic dating methods, the researchers showed that the underground layers are also relatively "young" - twenty-six thousand years old on average - and that they are still active with groundwater rich in carbon dioxide seeping down to them. The researchers estimate that the Omani mine absorbs, naturally, between ten thousand and one hundred thousand tons of the gas per year - far beyond any previous estimate. The exposure of the mine to gas in such large quantities is also known in the Pacific islands of Papua New Guinea and Caledonia, and along the coasts of Greece, Croatia and Slovenia; Smaller deposits are found in the western US and many other places.
The researchers note that the process for capturing the gas in rocks can be accelerated up to a hundred thousand times or more simply by drilling in the ground and injecting heated water containing carbon dioxide under pressure. From the moment the process begins, the reaction will naturally emit heat - and this heat, in response, will accelerate the reaction, break large volumes of the rock and thus expose them to reaction with an additional amount of the gas-saturated solution. The heat produced by the earth itself will also help, since the deeper you go the temperature rises inside the earth.
The scientists explain that a chain reaction of this type would require a small amount of energy once it started. Despite the engineering challenges and other flaws in the overall process, the researchers claimed that Oman alone would be able to absorb about four billion tons of the gas per year - a significant part of the global amount of 30 billion tons of this gas emitted mainly from burning fuels. Due to the underground formation of large amounts of new solids, the fission and expansion of the ground will indeed cause micro-earthquakes, but not at a level that will be felt by humans or endanger them in any way, says the researcher.
"Luckily for us, these rocks are located in the Persian Gulf region," said the researcher. A significant percentage of the world's oil and gas is produced there, and Oman is building new power stations that are powered by fuel, and these will be significant sources of carbon dioxide that can be released into the ground.
According to the scientists, the National Fuel Company of Oman is interested in a pilot program related to this research.
15 תגובות
Answer the matter. CO2 is created from burning fuels not from green energy. Reducing greenhouse gases will be done by using green renewable energy. And Obama is a big brat that I don't believe.
Life
Are you not up to date?
Obama invested 4 billion dollars in renewable energy (or will invest, I can't remember).
I just saw an article on FOX NEWS about large turbines on poles about 30 meters high that were funded by the US government (Obama administration).
Burying CO2 in rocks is a crime that has no equal in the history of the world. The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is small and it "evaporates" all the time from the earth. In earlier times, the percentage of oxygen was higher and there were periods of concentrations above 30%. And it is small not because of the human race, but for other reasons.
Today there is a crazy burning of the oxygen and if it weren't for the plants and the rain forests, as of today it would be over
Oxygen on Earth. You are allowed to calculate when the world will run out of oxygen. It's a simple calculation. The oxygen is the problem, not the carbon.
So the mad "scientists" quickly got off the subject. until renewable energy will be dominant soon.
Michael already has several such problems:
1. AIDS - currently science is very far from finding a solution.
2. Interstellar travel, the situation is even worse.
3. Asteroids that make their way to God.
And another hand is tilted.
The plankton at the bottom of the food chain die for carbon dioxide and like to absorb it.
In my opinion it is better to create breeding farms for plankton and pour them into the seas/oceans to solve the problem.
Volcanoes emit a lot of CO2.
Dawn:
I agree with you - at least in principle.
I am convinced that searching for the solution is the right thing to do and that the current discovery is also important.
Unfortunately I am less sure that we are able to find a solution to every problem.
This should not relax anyone's hands because we must continue to look for solutions to the problems, but I am quite afraid that at some point in the future some problem will arise that the entire human race - with all the effort - will not be able to solve.
F. Carbon coal tin
What is important in my opinion is the process in which solutions are sought, possibilities are raised and tried.
Only in this way will they find solutions. Some of them are businessmen like Shay Agassi and some
Dealing with rocks in Oman.
When such a large mass of talent and knowledge is concentrated in the search for a solution, I am convinced that he will also touch.
It's pretty nice to see isn't it?
The cool commenter:
And how will I forget what I didn't know?
How do you think the rock breaks down and releases the carbon?
It is not written in the article and it is really unlikely because if the process of coalescing with the carbon is very exothermic then the separation of the carbon from the compound requires the investment of a lot of energy.
Therefore I find no reason to trust your promise.
Don't worry Michael, carbon will always be available to us. Don't forget that in the soil condensation this rock breaks down, and there is actually a cycle. Besides, don't forget that we and all other animals (that are still left) continue to produce carbon dioxide from carbon that exists organically in plants that produce it from the soil.
So I can assure you that we will not have a lack of CO2
Geological:
And I disagree with you.
The fact that they were on Earth at different times does not change anything about my claims.
In the current situation, we consume oil at a rate greater than the rate of its formation and we are on the way to sending all the carbon in the soil's condensate into the atmosphere.
The method in question returns it to the soil, but it does so in a way that is not energetically efficient, so carbon buried in the soil in this way will no longer return to the cycle of life.
This means that the more we use this method, the more available carbon will run out and eventually there will be a shortage.
When the heat is generated in a specific place, it is possible to use it and humanity does this almost everywhere.
Man consumes energy for his needs. Sometimes he creates the energy available for his use through chemical reactions. This is a private case of the phenomenon only that here, unlike many other reactions, the carbon dioxide is actually consumed instead of being formed.
What could be simpler, then, than using the carbon dioxide emitted from a power plant and combining it with peridotite to gain more energy?
This is how you get a power plant that on the one hand produces more energy, and on the other hand does not pollute the atmosphere with carbon dioxide.
The thorn in her side is, as mentioned, that this process depletes the available carbon stock.
I have to disagree with you, Michael, about greenhouse gases. The history of KDWA shows that in the past there were periods when the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were higher than today (in Perm, I think?) and even the average temperatures were higher, to the point of losing the ice caps. They will not remain forever in the atmosphere, but will be absorbed back into the system in different forms (for example - plants that will rot, be buried and turn into... oil). It will take some time, of course...
Beyond that, the heat emitted from the carbonization process, just like the heat emitted from an inefficient internal combustion engine, will be effectively captured by greenhouse gases. I don't think the Omani ophiolite is large enough to serve as a carbon sink for all the carbon dioxide we've added to the air. And there are other greenhouse gases, Like methane, which will not be affected by the process.
In short, although the idea is nice, I think it is better to invest efforts in clean energies such as geothermal, solar, etc.
Orr's response is the answer to the geological question: since the heat generated in this process is generated in a focused area (as opposed to global warming which is...global) it can be utilized and saved in other exothermic processes that actually produce carbon dioxide.
This is, of course, in addition to the fact that greenhouse gases that remain in the atmosphere and are not absorbed anywhere will continue to heat it forever while heat emitted from a one-time process is ultimately radiated out of the atmosphere.
The inherent disadvantage of this approach is, of course, that it is one-way, so it can only be used for a limited time - not necessarily because of the limitation of the amount of carbon that can be absorbed in the rock, but because of the limitation of the amount of carbon that is allowed to be drawn from the atmosphere without causing the plants to "suffocate" and the entire food chain to be harmed.
It seems, therefore, that this method can calm our conscience (and slow down our warming) only as long as we use fossil fuels but not much beyond that.
This is no small thing, but you have to remember that it can only be an interim solution.
If you're already drilling to the depths of the earth, wouldn't it be better to use the underground heat energy along the way? It is possible to earn "two for the price of one" - both to smooth out the carbon dioxide and to use the emitted heat to generate electricity.
It looks like a promising idea, but I have a question - the goal of the researchers is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thereby reducing the greenhouse effect and preventing "excess" warming of the Earth (excess is a relative matter - it was already warmer here in the past...) Is the sum of the heat released during the chemical reaction (the most exothermic) needed to get rid of the carbon dioxide less than the expected warming if the same amount is not removed from the atmosphere? A heat balance calculation must be done to check whether the investment is worthwhile. I am guessing that the calculation is not simple at all, And maybe even impossible today. I addressed this question to one of the researchers (Kelman) during a lecture on the subject, but I did not receive a clear answer.