Think Green Live Clean

Cavin B

While scientists, policy makers, and engineers are working towards legal enforcement of global carbon emission reductions, the political complexity of this issue has prevented immediate and wide scale action from being taken. Consequently, innovative solutions for curbing atmospheric carbon content are being sought after. In order to combat the resulting climate change stemming from the influx of atmospheric carbon due to fossil fuel combustion, some new research results have suggested a novel idea: “sink the carbon!”Rather than releasing carbon into the atmosphere, the practice known as “Carbon Capture and Storage”- or CCS- is being developed. In a simple explanation, researchers publishing in the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) have recently announced the possibility of some new locations on the East Coast of the U.S. to serve as potential carbon sink sights. Essentially, polluting power plants can emit the released carbon into rocks rather than into the atmosphere.

The suggested sites, off the coast of Northern New Jersey, Long Island, and Massachusetts, have deep oceanic basalt rock beds. Above all other rocks types, such as sandstone, basalt is understood to be the most convenient for carbon storage. The basalt seems to be the ultimate repository because of its ability to react easily with the buried carbon. The gas is pumped into the basalt and fills the rock’s gaps by displacing sea water. Theoretically, these coastal locations are prime because of their proximity to urban power plants but distance from human inhabitants. As David S. Goldberg, a geophysicist at Columbia University, explains: “We would need to drill them to se where we’re at, but we could potentially do deep burial here.[...] And by going offshore, you can reduce risks.” According to the recent study, a seven cubic kilometer patch of basalt (like the one under New Jersey’s peninsula) can hold close to a billion tons of sequestered carbon. This amount is approximately equal to forty years of emissions from four 1-billion-watt coal plants….a little difficult to grasp, but it gives you an idea of the rock’s capacity to mitigate carbon levels.

As with every potential solution there are a series of objections and concerns that are important to mention. The primary concern is the potential leakage of CO2, but with the sites deep underwater, there is a buildup of sea floor sediment layers which could act as barriers to escaping carbon. However, critics of carbon capture and storage continue to argue that the technology required is still undeveloped. In addition, in order to undergo CCS, more energy is required. With this negative feedback loop, further use of fossil fuels may need to be required, and carbon emissions would be perpetuated. Rather than continuing to use power plants and energy based on fossil fuel consumption, the use of cleaner energy sources such as wind, solar, or geothermal energy is superior. Hopefully research into alternative and sustainable energy sources will be equally or even more strongly supported than projects aiming to lessen a continued use of fossil fuels. Realistically, a combination of both efforts is required to move a step in the right direction.

To learn more of the debate visit NPR