By Green Guest | February 6, 2010
The practical storage options for carbon capture are suspending the carbon matter in mineral blocks and injection deep into oceanic masses or geological sites. This is reminiscent of burial of nuclear waste material and trash dumping sites, but with more technological add-in and greater cost. But critics of carbon capture and geological mineral carbonate deposits raise questions of ultimate environmental viability.
The additional cost and demand for fuels to process the capture carbons into mineral or deposit eligible from can cripple any savings or benefit scenario. To capture the carbon from air or particulate matter is one process, sequestering or storing the carbon storage volumes is another. Even if an originating commercial enterprise or entity is willing to pay the cost, the process is burdensome, experimental, and not without critics.
Carbon capture technology is not leakproof, nor does it establish ethical considerations per continent. One geological land mass and its commercial industries like North America might viably shoulder their share of carbon storage, while areas such as (e.g.) India and Russia might elect to irresponsibly displace or bury carbon material without full compliance of voluntary scientific standards.
The innovation in carbon capture processes and capture and storage methodology is still growing. While European and North American industrial development has spurred bioprocessing and carbon recovery, ecological movements and environmental awareness make any decision regarding carbon capture fraught with an expensive downside. Research into carbon-based industrial and oil recovery processes show that recovery of carbon utility in some uses may ameliorate expensive mineral and ocean storage programs.
Instability of geologic properties and incidence of natural disaster, as well as uncertain scientific needs of the future limit responsible injection or dumping of carbon dioxide implanted in minerals or injection into undersea oceanic land masses. Capture of carbon material from many air, water, mineral, and by-product loads may continue the cost cycle of a hydrocarbon based industrial commerce model.
Geosequestration, marine storage, carbon cycle reclamation and rebalancing, as well promotion of low carbon economies and carbon sinks for organic transfer may hold new hope for an intensively resource-intensive and progressively costly carbon capture industry. Countries around the world have begin to address post industrial carbon capture in the manner that suits their energy production scenario best. ironically, low carbon generation electricity may not be cost effective in every instance to generate with full carbon beneficial methods.
Carbon dioxide abatement and low energy living can contribute the the reduction of the hydrocarbon threat. Oxidation, chemical looping, mass absorption of carbon minerals and direct application of carbon capture product volumes into organically sound sites presents complex scientific and ethical environmental questions whose answers may not emerge for some time.