Contents Definitions Prolog
1. Index - - - 2. Overview - - - 3. The Scientific Basis - - - 4. The CO2 Harvesting System Technology - - - 5. CO2 Disposal Well Technology
_____________________________________________________ 5. CO2 Disposal Well Technology _____________________________________________________________________
The Class VI CO2
with CarbFix Additive to Convert Liquefied Captured CO2 to Limestone
About Captured Carbon's Underground CO2 Storage Vault Locations
U.S. and Global Deep Underground BECCS Negative CO2 Storage Zones.
Locating Direct Air CO2 Capture Farms Directly Over CO2 DISPOSAL WELLS Speeds Up Decarbonization and Drives Down Cost.
CCS Networks In The Circular Carbon Economy - Linking Emissions Sources To Geologic Storage Sinks (A September, 2021, Global CCS Institute pdf)
Class IV Shallow Hazardous and Radioactive Injection Wells
The world will need hundreds of Climate Change CO2 Capture Farms and Class VI CO2 Disposal Wells.
States' Carbon Capture and Storage Situation:
"The United States has the technological potential to offset roughly only a decade’s worth of its current CO2 emissions through biological sequestration (i.e., planting trees, etc.,) but a few hundred years’ worth of emissions through carbon dioxide capture and sequestration." - from Congressional Budget Office "The Potential for Carbon Sequestration in the United States, 2007" - Summary, page 2.
See CarbFix: CO2 Locked in the ground forever. Watch: https://www.carbfix.com/ (Skip the ad someone inserted in front of the video.)
If water is added to the liquid CO2 as it is pumped into the ground, the CO2 will turn into limestone [carbonate] after a few years. This locks the CO2 underground forever.
Most CO2 Disposal Wells should be co-located on the same site as their CO2 capturing equipment.
Climate change: Mechanical trees that suck CO2 out of the atmosphere set for major first trial
Professor Klaus Lackner says there could be one billion of the devices worldwide within two decades
An artist’s impression of how a mechanical tree forest would look (Image: Arizona State University)
By Tom Bawden
Science & Environment Correspondent
December 30, 2021 6:00 am(Updated 8:41 am)
Mechanical trees which suck CO2 out of the atmosphere 1,000 times faster than real ones could be as common as cars within two decades, their developer has said.
In 1999, Professor Klaus Lackner became the first scientist to say that cutting carbon emissions would not be enough to avert catastrophic climate change and CO2 would also need to be removed from the air.
Since then, he has been developing the mechanical tree with the prototype about to launch on the campus of Arizona State University, where he works.
The prototype tree is a "concertina" column that is 10 metres tall when fully extended and 1.5 metres wide, with a 2.5-metre wide drum attached to the bottom.
The column contains 150 horizontal, circular discs coated with chemicals which catch CO2 when the wind blows through them.
If all goes according to plan, the prototype trees will fill up with CO2 every 30 to 60 minutes, when they will concertina down into the drum and the CO2 will be collected and stored or sold for use in industrial applications, including making drinks fizzy, creating fuel and extracting oil.
"If you add up how much carbon we need to get back from the atmosphere we simply don’t have enough land to grow the trees," Professor Lackner told i.
"We are very close to having a prototype running on the campus and when we do our first job is to help us design a better, cheaper faster one for number two," he said.
Professor Lackner is confident – although by no means certain – that he can have the first mechanical trees ready to roll out within a year or two and that we could have one billion of them worldwide within two decades. This compares to 1.2 billion cars at the moment.
"Our goal is to make these mechanical trees in factories and make them in their hundreds of thousands. I can put at least tens of thousands on a square kilometre and ultimately I see these things on the scale of a car," he said.
"I think the transition to mechanical trees is near, unless we fall flat on our faces, which honestly is a possibility. People have accused me of making promises I can’t keep. And I pointed out that I never made a promise, I only said, ‘You’ve got to invest in order to find out.’
"But I think the odds of succeeding are pretty darn good, but there is no guarantee. And the chances are we can get the price well below $100 a tonne" – the price at which is becomes a commercially viable technology.
While the evidence so far suggests the technology will work at scale and could be affordable, the bigger question is how effectively the huge amounts of CO2 that are captured can be disposed of.
Sir David King, the former chief scientific adviser to the UK Government, who is not involved in the project, said: "I have a great deal of respect for Klaus but the problem is that with mechanical trees you capture carbon dioxide and then you have to do something with it. That’s the challenge."
Professor Lackner responds: "Sir David is of course correct, mechanical trees are the first step in a chain of events. They collect carbon from the air, they can operate at the scale necessary to pull back enough CO2 to make a difference. But these machines only collect CO2. Now you will need to do something with it.
"There are several options that likely can operate at the necessary scale. One option is to store the carbon in geological formations. Another outlet is to consider the collected carbon as a resource to produce the things we use fossil carbon for today. If we can substitute CO2 for oil, coal or gas, we don’t need fossil carbon anymore," he added.
Professor Lackner is working with Carbon Collect in Dublin to commercialise and roll out his mechanical trees.
Improve Class VI permitting on private lands
The development of any carbon removal project incorporating the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (without the production of oil or gas) in the United States requires the issuance of a Class VI UIC (Underground Injection Control) permit from EPA. The authority to regulate UIC wells on private lands is granted to EPA through the Safe Drinking Water Act; however, the current review process for obtaining a permit is lengthy, cumbersome, and poorly understood by project developers. In many cases, obtaining a Class VI UIC permit has been and will continue to be a primary bottleneck and uncertainty for near-term DAC and BECCS projects. Currently, EPA has only issued two Class VI permits.41 Notably, the permitting process for Class II UIC wells, which cover the injection of fluids associated with oil and gas production, including carbon dioxide, has effectively issued nearly 200,000 wells and could serve as an excellent reference for improvements to the Class VI permitting process.
Due to the lengthy process of obtaining a Class VI permit at the federal level,several state governments have begun the process of applying for Class VI primacy in order to permit geologic storage wells within their jurisdictions through state review. This application and review process is also lengthy and complex, and only North Dakota and Wyoming have currently received approval from EPA to issue Class VI permits. Presently, EPA is insufficiently staffed, funded, and resourced to meet the demand for Class VI UIC permits.42 Prioritize the review of Class VI UIC well applications to allow potential carbon storage projects to move forward. Because of the additional requirements associated with Class VI UIC permits (as opposed to Class II UIC permits), EPA should allocate additional staff and funding to support the accelerated review of Class VI UIC applications to avoid inhibiting the development of carbon removal projects. The administration should work with Congress to ensure that EPA funding is sufficient to meet these goals.
41. Congressional Research Service.(2020). Injection and Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide: Federal Role and Issues for Congress (CRS Report No. R46192). https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46192
42. Geraci, M., Ali, S. J., Romolt, C. &Rossman, R. (2017). The Environmental Risks and Oversight of Enhanced Oil Recovery in the United States. Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund. https://www.cleanwater.org/
- - - from Carbon180 Transition Book'Priorities for Administrative Action on Carbon Removal in 2021+' https://carbon180.org/reports