Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Disputes Earlier Theory on Carbon Capture and Storage

The arguments that encompass carbon capture and storing it underground has taken a new twist with the publication of a new study in the new journal of Greenhouse Gases: Science & Technology.

In their study, the scientists from the Earth Sciences Division at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have disputed some of the findings of an earlier study performed by Ehlig-Economides and Economides1 such as infeasibility of storing carbon dioxide underground. According to the Berkeley Lab researchers, the earlier research was confined to studying formation of the closed-system subsurface with restricted level of mechanisms for easing the pressure.

The idea of Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is being considered as a disputable subject by the common public. The increase of underground pressure by continuous injection of carbon dioxide from large scale industrial projects still remain as an important hurdle for the large scale storing of carbon dioxide in the subsurface securely. The Berkeley Lab Scientists in their presentation deliberated a complete usage set-up, in which adequate level of carbon dioxide is hived away to find out the part played by such storage in reducing the ecological impact. They also resorted to performing simulated studies to assess the level of pressure buildup for suppositional CCS projects in two chosen basins that are presently looked into for the development of carbon dioxide storage facilities in future in the US.

According to Dr. Quanlin Zhou, the lead researcher of the project, even though the increased level of pressure build-up in CCS may result in a few issues on storage capacity but it will not be as substantial as quoted in Ehlig-Economides and Economides. The new research tried all types of storage sources such as open, partially closed and closed. It indicated that the storage of carbon dioxide in deep subsurface happens mostly in open or partially closed type of structures and the accumulated pressure in such cases is eased in a natural process of native saline water movement into the area far-off from the places where carbon dioxide injection occurs. The research concludes that Carbon capture and storage can still be considered as a viable option to reduce the level of carbon dioxide discharges because underground storage facilities can store more amount of carbon dioxide than quoted in the report of Ehlig-Economides and Economides.

Citations

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

  • APA

    Chai, Cameron. (2019, March 01). Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Disputes Earlier Theory on Carbon Capture and Storage. AZoCleantech. Retrieved on November 23, 2024 from https://www.azocleantech.com/news.aspx?newsID=14728.

  • MLA

    Chai, Cameron. "Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Disputes Earlier Theory on Carbon Capture and Storage". AZoCleantech. 23 November 2024. <https://www.azocleantech.com/news.aspx?newsID=14728>.

  • Chicago

    Chai, Cameron. "Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Disputes Earlier Theory on Carbon Capture and Storage". AZoCleantech. https://www.azocleantech.com/news.aspx?newsID=14728. (accessed November 23, 2024).

  • Harvard

    Chai, Cameron. 2019. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Disputes Earlier Theory on Carbon Capture and Storage. AZoCleantech, viewed 23 November 2024, https://www.azocleantech.com/news.aspx?newsID=14728.

Tell Us What You Think

Do you have a review, update or anything you would like to add to this news story?

Leave your feedback
Your comment type
Submit

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.