 | DrumBeat: January 18, 2008 | The Oil Drum | President Bush Questions Saudi Ability to Raise Oil Supply: The ISEOF/TOD Press Release |  |
| The Bullroarer - Wednesday 17 January 2008 | TOD: Australia/New Zealand | The Bullroarer - Saturday 19 January 2008 | |
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
GAIA Host Collective
Sounds pretty much like a win-win. We could turn it into a win-win-win if we use carbon offset funds from the richer countries to sequester the CO2. Counting this CO2 as sequestered (if we dispose of it properly) should be allowed. The CO2 in the lake will reach the atmosphere whenever the feared eruption event occurs. Additionaly the experience of trying to geologically sequester CO2 on this scale would provide important scientific data on sequestration.
If the CO2 and CH4 bubble up in the same proportion as they are present ie 5:1, cost of sequestration may be prohibitive. Much of the CH4 might be used up collecting, compressing and transporting the CO2.
This assumes sequestration can be made to work and that there is a suitable CO2 repository within economic distance. Around two million tonnes of CO2 would be produced each year. Anyone offering their back yard?
With 5:1 ratio this should be the most polluting NG power station in the world, GHG-wise.
Rough calculation - typically NG power stations release 600g CO2/kWh, plus 5 times that (from the associated CO2 released) brings the total to 3,600 g/kWH. This is 4 times more if they burnt coal!
Given that, calling this energy sources "renewable" is a bit ironical, isn't it? And, no it is not serious to expect carbon capture for this project - they don't do that in the West, how could anyone expect Rwanda to do it?! It's ridiculous.
Unfortunately the point is that every now and then the lake spews out a lot of the gas anyway.
So while this isn't "renewable", the CO2 in the lake waters isn't sequestered the way carbon is in coal either.
Burning the methane (or convertin it into fertiliser) and sequestering the CO2 somewhere (or as EP suggests, using it) is the best case scenario, but no the only one...
And that CO2 would wind up where, in the natural scheme of things?
It occurs to me that this CO2 is produced nearly pure, and would be a perfect feedstock for e.g. algal ethanol/biodiesel systems. The source will be emitting for thousands of years — it's as renewable as anything else on the timescale of human history. If it is turned into fuel and burned, it would emit no more CO2 than the natural emissions of the volcanic processes.
Sure, taking that CO2 and injecting it into deep wells would be best for GW abatement. Sometimes the best is the enemy of the good.