Duke Study Finds Underground CO2 Could Contaminate Drinking Water

Leaks from carbon dioxide injected deep underground could bubble up into drinking water aquifers near the surface, driving up levels of contaminants in the water tenfold or more in some places, according to a study by Duke University scientists.

Based on a year-long analysis of core samples from four drinking water aquifers, “We found the potential for contamination is real, but there are ways to avoid or reduce the risk,” said Robert B. Jackson, Nicholas Professor of Global Environmental Change and professor of biology at Duke.

“Geologic criteria that we identified in the study can help identify locations around the country that should be monitored or avoided,” he said. “By no means would all sites be susceptible to problems of water quality.”

The study appears in the online edition of the journal Environmental Science & Technology,.

Storing carbon dioxide deep below Earth’s surface, a process known as geosequestration, is part of a suite of new carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies being developed by governments and industries worldwide to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions entering Earth’s atmosphere. The still-evolving technologies are designed to capture and compress CO2, emissions at their source ─ typically power plants and other industrial facilities ─ and transport the CO2 to locations where it can be injected far below the Earth’s surface for long-term storage. The U.S. Department of Energy, working with industry and academia, has begun the planning for at least seven regional CCS projects.

“The fear of drinking water contamination from CO2 leaks is one of several sticking points about CCS and has contributed to local opposition to it,” said Jackson, who directs Duke’s Center on Global Change. “We examined the idea that if CO2 leaked out slowly from deep formations, where might it negatively impact freshwater aquifers near the surface, and why.”

Jackson and postdoctoral fellow Mark G. Little collected core samples from four freshwater aquifers around the nation that overlie potential CCS sites and incubated the samples in their lab at Duke for a year, with CO2 bubbling through them.

After a year’s exposure to the CO2, analysis of the samples showed that “there are a number of potential sites where CO2 leaks drive contaminants up tenfold or more, in some cases to levels above the maximum contaminant loads set by the EPA for potable water,” Jackson said. Three key factors ─ solid-phase metal mobility, carbonate buffering capacity and electron exchanges in the overlying freshwater aquifer ─ were found to influence the risk of drinking water contamination from underground carbon leaks.

The study also identified four markers that scientists can use to test for early warnings of potential carbon dioxide leaks. “Along with changes in carbonate concentration and acidity of the water, concentrations of manganese, iron and calcium could all be used as geochemical markers of a leak, as their concentration increase within two weeks of exposure to CO2,” he said.

The study was funded by the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory and Duke’s Center on Global Change.

Comments

Thu, Nov 18, 2010 RANDALL MILLER PASO ROBLES CA

Seems to me that the CO2 could be compressed and used as an energy source, rather than dumped into a injection well. Deep well injection only removes the problem from sight. Leaving the issue for future scientist to figure it out. Hummmmm this sounds very familiar!

Thu, Nov 18, 2010 Ralphalso

The PR was a biologist doing geology/geochemistry. No wonder they were suprised. Microsm studies most often do not reflect what really happens in the subsurface. An aquifer is not a closed system like the tube they bubbled CO2 through for a year.

Wed, Nov 17, 2010 Alaska Paul

Sequestering CO2 is freshman logic. If you are that worried about CO2 then instead of burying it like a dog buries a bone, make the waste stream into a resource stream for something useful. Every action like this has unintended consequences for people later on, because somebody pushed the idea without beating it up first.

Wed, Nov 17, 2010 Dr.. Richard W. Goodwin, P.E West Palm Beach FL

From an engineering and cost-effective viewpoint, why bury the collected CO2; promote alternates approaches for its productive use. CO2 to enhance recovery of oil and perhaps the captured CO2 could be used in a similar fashion to enhance recovery of Natural Gas from shale formations. So USA, using its abundant coal and natural gas assets, could produce low cost energy in an environmentally acceptable manner - while minimizing reliance on foreign sources of energy.

Wed, Nov 17, 2010 Wulfenite Arizona

Sounds like a new source for Perrier water. There could be some money in this. Hmmmmm.....................

Wed, Nov 17, 2010 James http://www.idealgases.com

I've always been curious, how do these levels of CO2 compare to the levels found in soft drinks? There aren't any measurements here so I'm not sure and it's not really my field. If it's not calibration gas, I don't really know much about it. Are these levels higher in the ground than in my can of Coke? If so, it makes me worry a bit about my lunch beverage. James

Wed, Nov 17, 2010 Hardhead

Amazing! The “researchers” at Duke discovered that bubbling CO2 through water increases the water’s acidity (i.e., lowers the pH) and that metals are more soluble in water at lower pH!

Wow!

Next they’re going to discover that water is wet!

Your tax dollars at work.

Tue, Nov 16, 2010 Straightpath California

"Carbon Sequestration" or burying carbon, is likely the present day analog to the hazardous waste injection wells of the 1960's. We are still cleaning up that mess. In addition, for each carbon atom sequestered, two oxygen atoms go with it for every CO2 molecule. The fall in world oxygen levels is well documented but less noticed than the rise in carbon dioxide. The reason is likely because noone has found a way to make money on oxygen depletion as they have on carbon trading. Any scheme that takes oxygen out the potential CO2/O2 plant respiration system is a bad one.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above