The University of Nottingham Karon L Smith Michael D Steven Jeremy J Colls.

13
The University of Nottingham Karon L Smith Michael D Steven Jeremy J Colls

Transcript of The University of Nottingham Karon L Smith Michael D Steven Jeremy J Colls.

Page 1: The University of Nottingham Karon L Smith Michael D Steven Jeremy J Colls.

The University of Nottingham

Karon L SmithMichael D StevenJeremy J Colls

Page 2: The University of Nottingham Karon L Smith Michael D Steven Jeremy J Colls.

The University of Nottingham

ASGARD (Artificial soil gassing and response detection)

–background

• An understanding is required of the risk of leakage from the storage sites or from the infrastructure used to transport the CO2

• Detection of leaks and knowledge of the effect of leaking CO2 on surface ecosystems is important.

• Our approach is to inject controlled amounts of CO2 into soil – Test detection techniques using remote sensing or

isotope analysis– Monitor changes in plant and soil conditions– Test sensitivity to soil and plant types and gassing rate

Page 3: The University of Nottingham Karon L Smith Michael D Steven Jeremy J Colls.

The University of Nottingham

ASGARD –development of experimental site

•The site was set up at the University of Nottingham’s Sutton Bonington campus•34 plots each 2.5 x 2.5 m were marked out and prepared with 3 crops.

– 8 were left as pasture– 8 plots were planted with

barley– 8 plots were planted with

linseed– 6 plots were left for additional

experiments– 4 plots were marked out at a

distance from the main site to act as remote controls

Page 4: The University of Nottingham Karon L Smith Michael D Steven Jeremy J Colls.

The University of Nottingham

ASGARD –development of experimental site

•CO2 gas was delivered at a depth of 60 cm to 4 plots in each crop from 200 l cryotanks via MDPE pipes•Gas delivery was controlled with solenoid operated mass flow controllers•Gas was delivered at a rate of 3 l hr-1 between 16th May and 26th September 2006

Page 5: The University of Nottingham Karon L Smith Michael D Steven Jeremy J Colls.

The University of Nottingham

Gas concentration

Soil gas concentration was measured on a daily basis using permanently installed sampling tubes.

Correlation between O2 and CO2 concentrations in grass

y = -0.2147x + 20.078

R2 = 0.9662

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 20 40 60 80 100

CO2

O2

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

13/05/2006 07/06/2006 02/07/2006 27/07/2006 21/08/2006 15/09/2006Date

CO

2 co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

%)

Grass

Linseed

Barley

Control

Remote control

Page 6: The University of Nottingham Karon L Smith Michael D Steven Jeremy J Colls.

The University of Nottingham

Gas distribution within plots

Barholes, 30 cm deep, were made at 50 cm intervals over the plot. CO2 measurements were taken using the GA2000 gas detector

Page 7: The University of Nottingham Karon L Smith Michael D Steven Jeremy J Colls.

The University of Nottingham

Surface CO2 measurements

Draegar tubes were used to measure CO2 at the surface

0 50 100 150 200 2500

50

100

150

200

250

Page 8: The University of Nottingham Karon L Smith Michael D Steven Jeremy J Colls.

The University of Nottingham

CO2 flux measurements

CO2 flux was measured by BGS using a West systems fluxmeter

R2 = 0.8457

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

conc %fl

ux

pp

m/s

Correlation of CO2 flux with soil CO2 concentration

Page 9: The University of Nottingham Karon L Smith Michael D Steven Jeremy J Colls.

The University of Nottingham

Vegetation stress

Spectral measurements were taken at 50 cm intervals along a transect in each plot.

Temporal change in ratio Grass 725:702 nm

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

03/05/2006 23/05/2006 12/06/2006 02/07/2006 22/07/2006 11/08/2006 31/08/2006 20/09/2006 10/10/2006Date

Rat

io

Gassed

Control

Remote control

Page 10: The University of Nottingham Karon L Smith Michael D Steven Jeremy J Colls.

The University of Nottingham

Isotope measurements

Isotope ratios as a function of CO2 concentration

-35

-33

-31

-29

-27

-25

-23

-21

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%CO2--

d1

3

Grass 01 Aug 06

Linseed 27 Jul 06grass model

linseed modelremote grass 04 Aug 06

Page 11: The University of Nottingham Karon L Smith Michael D Steven Jeremy J Colls.

The University of Nottingham

Effect of CO2 flow-rate

Four flow-rates were tested.3, 2, 1 and 0.5 l min-1

In future experiments a flow rate of 2 l min-1 will be used to maximise spread of CO2 throughout the soil whilst minimising costs.

Affect of flow rate on gas concentration 15 cm from source point

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

G1 15 G2 15 G5 15 G7 15

CO

2 co

nc

% 3.0

2.0

1.0

0.5

Affect of flow rate on gas concentration 70 cm from source point

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

G1 70 G2 70 G5 70 G7 70

CO

2 co

nce

ntr

atio

n %

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.5

Page 12: The University of Nottingham Karon L Smith Michael D Steven Jeremy J Colls.

The University of Nottingham

Conclusions

We have successfully developed the ASGARD facility and demonstrated:

• Controlled release of CO2 into the soil• Demonstration of CO2 movement within, and flux out of the

plots • Detection of plant stress effects through spectral monitoring

and the ability to identify leaking CO2 at low soil concentrations

• Successful use of isotopes in discriminating between geological and biogenic carbon for identification of leaking CO2

• We believe that characterisation of leaking CO2 hazards in the environment and validation of detection techniques will help to provide the basis for public confidence in CCS.

Page 13: The University of Nottingham Karon L Smith Michael D Steven Jeremy J Colls.

The University of Nottingham

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank UKCCSC and SRIF3 for funding this project

We also thank Darren Hepworth, Maria Ortega and Marta Ortega for their help during the field season.