:
Discussion - September 2010
If adoption of Carbon Capture and Storage is urgent, then why isn't it happening faster?
36 Comments from our contributors
36 Comments from our contributors
Leave a Reply
Registered users must log in to post a comment. New users can register with Comment:Visions, and begin to leave comments once approved.
Loading ...
Twitter
RSS
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
RSS
Consultant
Octeres Group
said: On 01/09/2010
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is urgent. However, the existing power structure has not accepted the need for CCS. It does not have a major political block backing its adoption while it has many of the old political power structures in opposition.
The political structures which spurred the Industrial age – manufacturing and oil/coal grew in strength and influence. They remain dominant today. The Oil lobby in the United States dwarfs its rival lobbies in political tribute and the resulting exercise in power. An example, under the Bush administration, the Bureau of Land Management essentially placed a freeze on over 100 solar power plants. The agencies which oversee these industries have frequently been referred to as captured agencies. A captured agency is a government entity which has lost its ability to effectly oversees its assigned industry and instead acquiesces to the interests of its assigned industry at in ordinate levels.
The recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico uncovered several issues which resulted in President Obama accusing the Mineral Management Service of being a captive agency – captive to the Oil Industry which it oversees. Another example is comparing Great Britain (or the US) against Pakistan. While Pakistan has significant economic issues – its automobiles are powered by Compressed Natural Gas. Great Britain, which has extensive oil holdings in the North Sea, powers its vehicles with gasoline. Pakistan’s oil output is significantly less than its Natural Gas production
CCS needs a major political force supporting it. if a group with extensive political backing such as the auto industry could find a profit motive behind its adoption, it would be hastened. In Japan, Mitsubishi, Honda and several other companies have discovered that certain aspects of green energy can be profitable. They support the green movement with the production of not only hybrid vehicles but also solar panels.
Links:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-07-02-solar-applications_N.htm
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/17/barack-obama/obama-blames-mms-being-captive-oil-industry/
Director
Mechanical Systems Division, Institute of Electrical Research (IIE), Mexico
said: On 01/09/2010
This is a good question that can also be applied to just about any other climate change mitigation option. It seems that the decision making levels in countries all over the world have not gotten the point of the urgency of reducing and limiting climate change, even if there is a lot of activity going on around the world with few results.
Reducing CO2 emissions is a global effort. If a given country makes heavy investments and cuts down on emissions, that country will not see the benefits of its investment, unless everyone else does the same thing. On the other hand a country that does not invest in the reduction of emissions will benefit anyway if the rest of the countries take mitigating actions. This creates a perverse incentive to persuade everyone else to take action while delaying one’s own responsibility.
This was not the case with other environmental problems such as sulfur or particle emissions. These were local problems and, if a country invested in environmental protection, it got results in the form of a better atmosphere. The actions to protect the environment had direct results for the country taking them.
Carbon Capture and Storage is being used on a commercial level in very few facilities around the world and those places happen to be gas production facilities. There are no power plants currently in operation with a full scale CO2 capture systems. Why?
In the gas producing facilities the separation of CO2 from the natural gas coming out of the wells is a necessity, since there are specifications on natural gas purity for commercial purposes. These facilities then separate the CO2 because of product requirements and are faced with the options of either sequestering it or discharging it into the atmosphere.
The first commercial project for CO2 sequestration was Sleipner in the North Sea, owned by Stat Oil, and this came about because the Government of Norway imposed a tax on CO2 emissions, and it was cheaper to inject the gas into deep saline aquifers than to pay the tax.
Another commercial scale project is in Sallah in Algiers, also in a gas producing field, in this case owned by BP. In this case again the CO2 was separated because of product specifications and the reinjection was probably decided by BP because it was a low cost good environmental image promotion. In both cases the attitude of the Government of Norway and Stat Oil and the attitude of BP are commendable and they have become the examples of what to do around the world.
It also important to mention is the Weyburn-Middale project where CO2 produced in a gasification facility in North Dakota is sent by pipeline to Canada to be used in enhanced oil recovery. This is one of the projects that provides more information on its operation to anyone interested.
In power plants the situation is different. In this case CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere without previous separation so, in order to apply CCS, one would have to first separate the CO2 from the combustion gases and then sequester it in deep geological formations. The separation process represents 70 to 80% of the total cost, which in turn represents an increase in the costs of the electricity produced from 40 to 75 % as shown in a report of 2009 by the GCCSI (Global CCS Institute). In other words, CCS in the power industry is very expensive, and no company will implement it unless forced to do so either by taxation of CO2 emissions or by incentives to avoid CO2 emissions.
Today the costs of capturing and sequestering CO2 run in the range of 50 to 100 dollars per ton, whereas the price of CO2 in the markets is of the order of 30 to 40 dollars per ton. The prices do not go up in the hope that, with more experience in the technologies, the costs of CCS will come down, as is very likely to happen. This, however, creates a kind of limbo where CCS is waiting while climate change continues.
Several organizations around the world such as the CSLF (Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum) the GCCSI (Global CCS Institute) the IEA (International Energy Agency) and more recently the CCUS (Carbon Capture Utilization and Sequestration) have as a main purpose the acceleration of the implementation and deployment of CCS technologies, and they have induced the G-8 commitment to have 20 projects of commercial size in operation by 2020.
The task is huge and progress is slower than everyone hoped.
An additional issue that slows down the progress of CCS is that of intellectual property rights. Companies involved in the development of CCS technologies, most of them in the developed countries, are reluctant to have all the information out in the open since they expect to do business by commercializing these technologies. In the developing countries the thought prevails that, if climate change is being caused by the accumulated emissions of the developed countries, it is not fair that the developing countries pay these companies to solve the problem created by the developed countries.
In conclusion CCS is not deployed as fast as we need because it is expensive; nobody has stepped up to provide incentives or taxes large enough to force the application; countries are reluctant to make large investments when the results will depend on whatever the rest of the world does; and the commercial interests of intellectual property slow down the technology transfer to the developing countries.
It is time that governments which have resources be convinced that it is better for everyone concerned to make sacrifices now and spend the resources needed on climate change mitigation, than spend much more money later on in adapting to the consequences of climate change.
Facilitator
Eco Design Center, Sri Lanka
said: On 01/09/2010
The only sustainable way to store carbon is in wood (and in algues, biochar and other photosyntheses based solutions). Not only is underground storage too energy consuming, too expensive and difficult, it might be simple madness, considering that while storing CO2 valuable O2 will be locked up also, potentially lowering O2 concentration. Growing trees is not only much, much cheaper, it improves the local climate, economy and provides a valuable construction material (wood based cars and bamboo based planes!), if the forestry is community based and administrated by micro finance, up to 90% of the investment could go to poor communities and potentially eradicate rural poverty worldwide. To add to my treecredit plan (use microfinance structures to solve CO2 excess problem while fighting rural poverty) one remark from this campaigner: Although the tree solution is obvious and put number one by all great scientists, it will take a total change in power structures to get such a scheme realized at large scale, simple because there is very little to earn in it for the multinationals, the consultants, the INGOs and many others who are out there to make as much money as possible or only to hold on to their jobs, whatever the consequences might be for the planet.
Executive Vice President
Geogreen
said: On 01/09/2010
Despite recent progress in actions for effective commercial deployment of CCS, important gaps remain such as:
• Lack of financial incentives worldwide: Only Europe has a nation-wide carbon price on industrial emissions. The current carbon price alone is insufficient to drive large-scale development and deployment of CCS to meet the required levels of CO2 mitigation. Moreover, carbon price visibility over next decade and CCS lifetime (30 years) is not sufficient to drive investments.
• CCS still under discussions for inclusion in climate arrangements. It is a critical point to ensure funding for CCS project in developing countries through a CDM (clean development Mechanism) like mechanism. Following IEA, CCS has a huge development potential in these regions.
• Lack of regulatory certainty in many countries to ensure sufficient stable framework for investment decisions. The post closure liability issue is a critical piece of regulation that has yet to be implemented in order to limit uncertainty about CCS final costs for both investors and society
• Time to develop a large-scale storage in a deep saline aquifer. Indeed, between 5 and 10 years are needed to develop a storage project. Investments are starting now for demo projects (NER 300 fund in the EU; DOE funding in the US and demos in Australia…). These projects will come online between 2015 and 2018. They should confirm CCS potential and foster commercial deployment.
Member
Environmental Commission, Land Use Board
said: On 01/09/2010
For better or worse, we have to start with the premise that economic calculations are a significant and often decisive factor in how decisions are made.
When examining the question of carbon capture and storage, this economic reality could mean that incentives, such as tax benefits and grants, aren’t present in sufficient amounts to motivate development and deployment of the technology.
It could also be that the technology itself isn’t efficient enough to make it cost-effective. Historically, many technologies have become more efficient over time and with greater investment, and this could happen with CCS. Future developments could make it much more workable and cost-effective as new techniques are developed. Availability of grants and tax incentives for investment could help this along.
Once the incentives are there and once it’s economically beneficial, businesses and governments will rush to embrace CCS technology. But economic calculations do influence decisions, and until the economics are right, it won’t happen to any meaningful extent.
Like many other things, adoption of CCS (and other environmental programs) will take time. With our historical distance, we may forget that the Industrial Revolution, electrification, and countless other societal changes have taken decades to unfold and have often happened in ways that weren’t imagined at their beginning.
Head of Business Analytics
News International
said: On 01/09/2010
The cost of capturing and storing the average amount of CO2 produced by UK citizens is estimated at £200 p.a. which doesn’t sound a lot. However, to capture and store the volumes produced by an entire nation requires huge initial investment. Most investment in the UK energy sector was made by the state many years ago with subsequent private investment adding and improving infrastructure that was already in place.
As other contributers have pointed out, while there is strong industry confidence in CCS technology, there are many unknowns and unknowables which means anyone participating in large scale tampering with the environment is potentially open to huge liabilities if things subsequently go wrong.
We could argue that oil and nuclear energy companies are already taking such risks but, in these cases, the initial risks were taken in times of optimism and have developed over time. Once in a hole, it is very hard to stop digging.
So, I suspect that a combination of initial investment costs, high long-term risks and lack of government impetus (beyond linking CCS to a small number of ‘dirty energy’ projects) means no-one is inclined to start digging this particular hole.
In my view, the slow take up of CCS benefits us in that we are forced to reduce our CO2 production rather than hide the effects.
Senior Researcher
Centre for Research & Technology Hellas/ Institute for Solid Fuels Technology & Applications
said: On 01/09/2010
The reasons for the delay in the implementation of CCS technologies are: a) high cost, b) political priorities to promote Renewable Energy Sources (RES), and c) difficulties in CCS adoption by third countries.
Superintendant of Utilities
University of Cincinnati
said: On 01/09/2010
The reasons for little progress for CCS are legion. Exceedingly expensive, unverified technology, massive energy consumption for the process, no value added to the process without severe carbon tax penalties, etc.
A recent study here in the midwest for a first installation on an existing 600 MW coal plant would require 200 MW of the plant’s power to liquify and pump the CO2 over 8000 feet under a rock layer. With all of the recent revelations about natural gas fracturing for gas recovery, the implications of pumping liquified CO2 can be equally as dangerous triggering earthquake, and other detrimental effects, which in the end might likely cause escape of the CO2, then what’s gained?
It’s kind of the like the horse manure collection devices on the Hansom cabs in Central Park. Your are moving the waste from one place to another not resolving a thing.
The most viable, existing, large scale power generation approach to reduce carbon emissions is nuclear power. Reprocessing spent fuel is about 96% efficient. New smaller scale reactors are inherently safer and with 96% or better re-enrichment nearly renewable. Cheaper to build per KW than wind without all the subsidies and back up power requirements for when the wind’s not blowing.
Senior Project Manager
Objective Corporation
said: On 01/09/2010
Simple.
It costs. A lot.
No-one can agree who should bear this cost. And at the moment no-one has much money to invest in this.
And the climate change deniers are winning the public opinion battle through their lies and the public’s reticence to accept responsibility, so the groundswell for such action is faltering, and no government is going to take on the very painful task of championing this against public opinion.
Founder
Green Creation
said: On 01/09/2010
It is not happening faster because it would highlight how much of it we produce, how addicted we are to fossil fuels and in a world where of 100 biggest economic entities on the planet more than half are companies not countries; and of 10 largest companies, 7 sell oil/ gas or cars (biggest company having turnover size of GDP of Switzerland!), odds are stacked against it… unless WE (collectively) do something… live more sustainable. Living sustainable is NOT about ’sacrificing’, but living better instead of faster.
Associate Professor
Ryerson University, Canada
said: On 03/09/2010
Many points noted above are, IMHO, accurate. Additionally, the question is a bit vague. CCS, as a concept, is certainly reasonable. The problems start to emerge when one looks at specific forms of CCS. And when looking at specifics, there really hasn’t been enough work done to demonstrate the environmental feasibility of these technologies. Much of the tech I’ve seen for CCS is massive and has a rather huge footprint attached to it.
I think a real issue is that CCS is, in some ways, permission to keep using carbon-producing technology at too high a rate. Sustainability, from the POV of developed nations, can only be addressed by a combination of new technology *and* a decrease in consumption. Any time anyone proposes either a new mitigation technology – like CCS – or a new “green” energy technology, they’re only addressing half the problem.
Another aspect is that it’s tech that got us into this mess – or, rather, our fetish with tech. I’m an engineer and a geek, and even I see the West’s fascination of tech as unhealthy. Should we really expect tech to get us out of the mess that tech got us into? We need to think more about what we really want, for which all this tech is supposed to be the solution.
Founding Member | Energy Analyst
Market-Melange.com
said: On 05/09/2010
Lack of real governmental actions, dreamy green tech processes without the financial dimension and non-discussed market conditions all strongly contribute to a big picture that looks good, that feels good but that doesn’t take off yet from its design stage, despite apparent first step support.
- Words vs Effective market potential
Gut lacking governmental speeches and well organized corporate launches have been convincing the world since some time that CCS will become a new safe heaven. Usually, they have – contrary to the new shale gas movement – left the financial rationale aside. The only real positive influx in the supporting economies is the guarantee that carbon plants and circumventing industries will be able to continue to function.
Two data sets support the above need of an open view on finance and market potential
Firstly, last year’s report of the Global CCS institute showed that 275 projects exist worldwide. Only 62 really capture and store emissions and only 7 of them were under construction. Taking into account the economical struggle of the fittest, only 11 to 26 of those were expected to really make it.
Secondly, this year, SINTEF’s new research lab for CO2-capture was officially opened in Norway. Whereas the size and set up of this plant would finally offer representative results that could be used without too much ‘creative extrapolation’ it is still faced with practical and financial hurdles.
All together, CCS has indeed the potential to cut global CO2 emissions by 30% (by 2050), but that this would still require around 3400 full scale CCS projects. Today, less than 1% of this need is operating.
Admittedly, with a healthy dose of positive attitude, one could imagine that sound results would boost international interest, to a certain extend. Nevertheless, the financial side of the story, remains a big problem that will be much harder to compensate, even with a growing market. The numbers remain extremely challenging and, no matter what, the carbon price has to be very high. In essence, it requires thus an important – continued- financial input from governments.
- Support packages
As with every good resolution, one needs a lot of confidence to reach the long term goal. So let’s imagine for a second that it is simply a matter of time (and green support not focusing on shale gas). Even then, a couple of recent events push CCS fans to be really patient. Firstly, the European support package will/should oblige most European countries to stay reasonable for a while. Secondly, the carbon price, although, increasing, is still in the low zone. CCS, however, needs, as said, a very high carbon price to be viable…
In other words, recent news and fundamental problems show that sound evolutions/projects are becoming reality, but that, for now, the reality is evolving in the wrong direction for CCS.
- Critics
Another aspect that hinders the breakthrough of CCS, is the safety image. It is supposed to be totally safe. But countries like the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark have killed already many projects out of fear for leaks and/or explosions.
Admittedly, fears from the general public (and the reaction of their representatives) must be taken with a grain of salt. CCS leaks will probably not have the same impacts as gas flares. But it is a clear indication that countries with proportionally declining coal use will remain increasingly less inclined to follow this path. The public sentiment is used as a justification, to back the clear indications given by the financial numbers and related multidecade ROI period.
- Reality
Summarised: Market variables are extremely challenging. Numbers are not in favour. And public acceptability about what is known is tricky. The big economies will continue to put big money in it, even if it will take decades before being fully operational. For many, it is regarded as the most acceptable way of pretending to work on green, while actually supporting existing industry.
Assistant Professor
Department of Chemistry, Acadia University
said: On 13/09/2010
The technology, carbon capture and storage (CCS), should be correctly called carbon dioxide capture and storage. Carbon dioxide has a chemical formula of CO2 and it is a gas under room temperature and an atmospheric pressure. Carbon is a chemical element and normally has three allotropes: graphite, diamond, and amorphous carbon. The CCS technology is designed to store carbon dioxide rather than the element carbon.
Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas. Since the industrial revolution in the 18th century, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased significantly due to combustion of coal and petroleum based fossil fuels. The increase in CO2 concentration has been linked to global warming. With strong scientific evidences, more and more people believe climate change is happening.
CCS has been developed to mitigate CO2 emission in the last decade. In this technology, CO2 is first separated from other gases resulting from burning of fossil fuels, then piped to a suitable geological location, and injected underground or beneath the ocean. The depth of CO2 injection is usually below several hundred meters. At this depth, the pressure is so high that CO2 transfers to a new phase, supercritical fluid, which occupies a much smaller volume than its gas phase. This geological storage is similar as natural gas and oil reservoirs. CCS does have the potential to reduce CO2 emission and similar techniques have been used by petroleum industry for many years.
To stop any catastrophe caused by climate change, it is urgent to reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But the premise of the question, “adoption of CCS is urgent”, is questionable. CCS can help to reduce CO2 emission, however this reduction is indirect. The amount of emission is still there; we just keep it out of the atmosphere. If we have lots of garbage, is it wise to bag them and store in our basement? What will happen if these garbage bags wear out or explode? We can ask similar questions for CCS.
Beside the fundamental conceptual flaw of CCS, the current CCS technology is too expensive to practical applications. There are some CCS pilot facilities in North American and Europe. Most of these tests are built to reduce emission from power plants, none for pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere. But massive industrial scale application of CCS is still far to reach due to the cost and some technical limitations. Further, to make CCS feasible and sustainable, the industry has to find a way to make enough profits rather than depends on government funding. Such a financial system is currently not in place. Maybe carbon tax or something similar can be considered to support industrial growth in the future.
I believe that the best way to fight climate change is to reduce or even better eliminate CO2 emission from its sources. Many countries now develop zero emission energy sources, such as wind power, tidal power, solar energy, etc. We should encourage electrical cars, hybrid cars, or simply taking public transportation. Many simple energy-conscious actions can help to reduce our carbon footprint like turning off unused lights and computers. It is more important to reduce emission in the first place instead of finding a way to bury the emission underground.
For CO2 is already in the atmosphere, biological remediation methods are efficient and inexpensive. CO2 is not a monster created by human activities, rather a critical natural chemical and has many beneficial uses in our scientific research and industry. Plants, especially trees, can effectively remove CO2 in the atmosphere by photosynthesis and convert it to organic carbons such as hydrocarbons, carbohydrates, proteins, etc. To maintain a healthy balance of the natural carbon cycle, we need work together to save our forests and plant more trees.
Research Fellow in Power Plant Engineering with CO2 capture
The University of Edinburgh
said: On 13/09/2010
The status of the current economy has certainly slowed down the deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage. When economies recover and corporate profits return to their pre-recession level the future may look more favourable for investing or subsidising emerging low-carbon technologies. Yet CCS is already happening, as has been already pointed out by other contributors to this discussion. Several CCS projects are in operation where a CO2 source from a natural gas treating plant is injected locally. Projects in power generation are fundamentally different since CO2 separation from flue gases has solely an environmental value and no intrinsic economic value. These projects are still in their infancy despite the fact that in 2050 55% of the CO2 being geologically stored worldwide could come from the power sector, according to the International Energy Agency BLUE Map scenario [1]. This represents 9.4 Gt of CO2 per year captured from electricity production using fossil fuels. For comparison, the Sleipner project in Norway, one of the largest storage demonstration sites worldwide, currently stores around 1 Mt of CO2 per year. An accelerated demonstration and deployment programme is thus urgently required to make CCS a credible political option as soon as possible, but more realistically for the next round of climate change negotiations around 2020. Two learning cycles, as opposed to a single one, are realistically still possible within the next ten years to reduce costs further and increase confidence in the technology. The real question is thus: Why isn’t it this programme happening faster?
First, developed economies have adopted a no new-coal without CCS policy. While this has been successful in preventing the construction of unabated coal plants it has also given electricity utilities an implicit way-out close since a preferential regulatory treatment now applies to other fossil fuels. Gas plants notably do not have to cut down their emissions. The new dash for gas in the UK, where around 10 GW of gas-fired power plant projects are currently awaiting for a planning permission, is clearly a result of this preferential treatment. Why would utilities carry out CCS on coal projects when they can carry on business-as-usual by building unabated gas plants? This focus on prevention of new coal without CCS is therefore not acting as an effective incentive for CCS development in itself.Although fuel switching it can reduce electricity generation emission level if coal plants are replaced, it is only a short-term answer to climate change and will not be sufficient to achieve the large scale decarbonisation required. Unabated emissions for gas plants are indeed around 350‐500 g CO2 per kWh at full load (vs 750‐1000 gCO2 per kWh for coal plants). The UK Committee on Climate Change suggests that the level of average specific emissions from electricity generation must fall rapidly below 3 times that level, at 100g CO2 per kWh by 2030, and further down to 50 g CO2 per kWh by 2050 [2] – these numbers can equally be applied to most developed economies. It is therefore important that CCS policies are updated to send a signal to gas plant developers clarifying the need for CCS on gas as well as coal, and put CCS back on the table as a serious option for investment in power generation.
Second, subsidies towards renewable electricity generation are currently causing “collateral damages” in electricity systems. They have hindered the deployment of CCS by creating large uncertainties with regards to future load factors of fossil fuels (and also nuclear) plants. Variable load factors have strong implications for their cost of electricity generation and the financing of power projects. The cost of electricity generation of a CCS plant running at 20% load factor is, for example, four times the cost of a CCS plant running at 80% load factor. Because wind power always gets dispatched first (and, when inappropriately subsidised sometimes create market failures resulting in negative prices of electricity), low load-factor fossil plants could be a reality under a high wind power generation scenario, despite similar costs of generation to CCS once capital cost repayment are included [3]. An electricity system without at least some fossil fuel is not currently viable, and is unlikely to be for several decades and possibly beyond. If current subsidy mechanisms were updated to remove the potential low-carbon on low-carbon competition that they create CCS may not look as expensive as is currently thought under a subsidy regime less favourable to a single type of generation.
Third, unlike CCS for gas treating projects power stations are typically located remotely from their storage site. An integrated CCS chain is unlikely to happen without the implementation of a large scale CO2 capture, transport and storage network where the risks and liability associated with storage are taken away from electricity generation and transferred to a competent authority. CO2 is generated for electricity production by utilities unfamiliar with the development of a transport and storage infrastructure. These utilities are used to a business model where reliability is key, demand can be forecasted and large investments with long pay-back period and low discount rate are the norm. In opposition, the full characterisation of a CO2 injection site requires a large investment and several years of injection before the capacity of a geological site can be fully characterised and the risk of not being able to inject the required amount of CO2 is removed. Unless this risk can be mutualised between projects under the authority of a body with a mandate taking liability for the fate of CO2 reservoirs this will remain a major hurdle to CCS deployment. In these circumstances it is very unlikely that CO2 storage from power generation, and the overall CCS chain, will move forward.
In conclusion, the experience and the know-how to deploy CCS are out there, mostly in the oil and gas industry, and carbon dioxide is currently being injected in deep underground reservoirs as opposed to being emitted to be the atmosphere. CCS in power generation has yet to happen at large scale. Until the last regulatory and policy barriers are removed, the electricity industry is unlikely to commit to low-carbon electricity from fossil fuels.
[1] International Energy Agency (2010) Energy Technology Perspectives, Scenarios and Strategies to 2050, OECD/IEA, Paris.
[2] Committee on Climate Change (2009) Meeting Carbon Budgets – the need for a step change,
Progress report to Parliament Committee on Climate Change, October 2009, London, UK, The Stationery Office
[3] GCCSI (2010) Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, Submission Energy strategy approach paper, available at http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/downloads/general/2010/Global-CCS-Institute-response-to-WBG-Energy-Strategy-Approach-Paper.pdf
Senior Advisor
Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Water Management General Directorate, Romania
said: On 13/09/2010
For sure Carbon Capture and Storage is urgent, but it is not happening faster because of multiple reasons, such as:
-Lack of commitments and agreements at international level (G8, G20, Doha, Summits, etc);
-Lack of important common research funding (at international level) dedicated to this process to better understand it and provide some urgent conclusions worldwide;
-Lack of communication including mass-media, awareness and explanations on this aspect;
-Interests of private companies in keeping a brake without any incentives and profitable actions to compensate them.
-Without a dedicated program of measures with very concrete steps, deadlines and adequate funding commitments (attracting all economic sectors, private and governmental) and including the process in the priorities of mankind (as for example Millennium Development Goals), no further steps will be done.
Director
Center for Environmental Research and Education, Hanoi National University of Education
said: On 13/09/2010
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) may contribute to mitigate fossil fuel emissions to global warming by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) and store either in deep geological formations, in deep ocean masses, or in the form of mineral carbonates. However, there is a risk of greatly increasing the problem of ocean acidification and storage security. Geoengineering may also contribute to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere directly but there will be issues of radiation management with at least some side effects. Biological capture and subsequent storage of atmospheric CO2, such as the burial of “biochar” should be considered to fasten the CCS. For developing world, the green initiatives should be promoted, such as shifting the supply of energy needs from fuelwood to other renewable and biodiversity-friendly (e.g. solar, small-scale hydro-power etc) energy resources; greening city and tourism infrastructure development; reducing pressure on land by making agriculture and other land use more efficient as well as carbon-friendly; there are technology to produce green charcoal like ProNatura International – has patents for the production of the machine!) etc etc.
Consultant
Ecofys Netherlands B.V.
said: On 13/09/2010
First of all, I would like to put things into perspective. Currently, there are over 200 CCS projects worldwide that are characterized as ‘Active’ or ‘Planned’ by the Global CCS institute (GCCSI). About eighty of these projects are so called large scale CCS projects that integrate CO2 capture, transport and storage. Nine CCS projects are operating and another 2 are under construction. In my opinion, CCS is thus not developing at a slow pace. But that still leaves us with the question why it isn’t happening faster. To answer that question we have to look at the barriers facing CCS on its implementation path.
First, there is the incentive, or better, its absence. The current CO2 price under the European trading scheme is not high enough to make CCS an economic viable option. The upfront investment cost for the capture, transport and storage of CO2 are high and represent thus a high risk for project developers. During the demonstration phase and early commercial phase of the technology, the project developers thus have to rely on governmental support in the absence of an adequate and stable CO2 price. Another incentive would be the obligation of CCS on (new) power plants. Such a policy is being pursued in the UK.
The second barrier: suitable storage potential. One of the difficult and time/money consuming parts is the search for suitable storage reservoirs. The geological reservoir in which the CO2 is to be stored must meet stringent criteria concerning the suitability for injection and the safe storage of the CO2 for geological time. Not all possible storage reservoirs meet these criteria and thus a vast screening of reservoirs is needed before one kg of CO2 can be injected. This also links directly to another barrier, the perception of the public. The NIMBY (Not in/under my backyard) effect seems to be a pivot in the delay of several CO2 storage projects worldwide. In the Netherlands for instance, the Barendrecht CO2 storage project is currently on hold which is the result of strong local resistance. The main concerns of opposing parties there relate to the safety of CO2 transport and storage.
Finally, current legislation is in many countries not ‘equipped’ to accommodate CO2 storage, although significant efforts have been undertaken to remove this barrier. A good example is the EU directive on the geological storage of carbon dioxide. A fast pace roll out of CCS would require strong political will and long term strategic planning where reservoirs or clusters of reservoirs are being pre-selected and reserved for CO2 storage. This allows the strategic planning of a large scale transport infrastructure to make sure that large CO2 sources or clusters of (large) sources are being matched with CO2 storage capacity.
Removing these barriers would certainly speed up implementation; although I believe that due diligence is of utmost importance in the field of CCS. Speeding up the deployment of CCS should not lead to bad judgment and actions that will be regretted later.
Scientific Researcher
ECN Policy studies
said: On 13/09/2010
Because hardly anybody realizes how urgent it is. To understand the urgency of implementing CCS technology, one needs to at least be aware of CCS as an option to solve the problem of human-induced climate change. However, many people are either not aware or not convinced that there is such a problem to be solved. Research in many countries shows that the general public is not as convinced or even as aware of man-made climate change and its possible consequences as often assumed. The newspapers might be full of articles about climate change, but still a substantial part of the general public lacks some basic knowledge about this topic. If you ask people if they have heard of climate change, almost all will say yes. Many will probably even say that they are worried about it, when asked. However, when confronted with multiple choice questions about the topic, it turns out that a substantial percentage of people does not understand how our current energy use leads to climate change. Mostly, people do not understand the role of CO2, or even know about its existence. But even if they do understand, most people are not aware of CCS technology as a way to reduce CO2 emissions. Usually, not until they are confronted with a demonstration project in their neighborhood. Without public understanding of the benefits of CCS, any public support for the technology is unlikely to develop. Public understanding is not easy to achieve though. The general publics’ lack of knowledge might be hard to understand if you are a professional working on this topic. But in modern daily life there are endless possibilities for information on a variety of topics, and not getting informed about all of these topics is a matter of efficiency for people, not ignorance. A CCS policy should acknowledge that significant efforts will be needed to involve the general public in the debate on energy transition and its necessity and urgency. Without the publics’ involvement in this debate, large energy related projects such as CCS demonstration projects are bound to cause unrest and anxiety in society, a result that is neither conducive for pleasant living near CCS projects, nor for the development of such projects.
Principal Research Engineer
MIT
said: On 13/09/2010
The answer to this question can be found in the answer to the following: “If reducing greenhouse gas emissions is urgent, then why isn’t it happening faster?” The sole reason Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is important is to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. Based on results from many energy/economic models, if one wants to make significant cuts (>50%) in greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century, then CCS will need to play a significant role. However, the signals being sent from policy makers in the US and worldwide are that reducing greenhouse gases are not that urgent. This is the message sent by the US Senate in their failed efforts to enact climate legislation. It is the message sent from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2009 annual meeting in Copenhagen and I fear the message will be reinforced at the UNFCCC’s upcoming meeting in Cancun.
It is a fact that it will be significantly more expensive to capture and store CO2 emissions compared to simply venting them to the atmosphere. Absence climate policy, CCS is a losing proposition. Today, carbon-based fuels supply over 85% of the world’s commercial energy. Absence strong policy, this will not change because hydrocarbon fuels are plentiful and cheap. Hydrocarbon fuels will dominate the energy market for decades or longer. However, if policy were in place to force significant reductions in CO2 emissions, then the economics change. The price of carbon-based fuels will rise and low carbon alternatives, like CCS, can compete in the marketplace. Climate policy can take many forms, but the one thing that it must do is create a market for low-carbon technologies.
Another way to look at this issue is to ask “If there is no market today for low-carbon energy technologies, why has there been so much activity regarding CCS.” I put forward three reasons, when taken together, explains why. First, there is a view by industry that sooner or later serious restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions will be enacted. Second, developing and deploying low-carbon energy technologies like CCS take significant time (think decades). Finally, there is widespread belief that CCS will be a cost-effective solution to lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
In summary, once we reach a consensus that stabilizing the climate is as important as driving automobiles, then there will truly be urgency in adopting CCS.
Director
Precourt Institute for Energy, Stanford University
said: On 13/09/2010
Why isn’t CCS happening faster? Two important reasons are the uncertainty about the regulatory environment (especially in the US) and cost, particularly the cost of CO2 capture. In the absence of a limit on quantity or a price on CO2 emissions, public utilities commissions in most states in the US are currently not willing to approve new power plants that include facilities for CCS or passing the costs along to consumers through electricity rates. Power providers considering how to meet potential future constraints on CO2 emissions have to weigh substantial additional future capital and operating costs and long term commitments at a time when it is not yet clear how those costs will be recovered, and so far, they have chosen to commit only to a modest number of demonstration projects.
While widespread large scale implementation of CCS awaits a regulatory requirement or a clear price signal (if the price is high enough), there is a considerable effort underway worldwide to test CCS in a variety of capture and geologic settings. For example, commercial-scale projects (say 1 million tonnes of CO2 per year or more) are underway using CO2 separated from natural gas at Sleipner in the North Sea, at the Rangely Field in Colorado (USA), and at In Salah in Algeria. CO2 captured from a goal gasification plant in North Dakota is shipped by pipeline to the Weyburn oil field in Sasketchewan, where it is used for enhanced oil recovery in addition to CO2 storage.
Many other small and some quite large projects are underway or being planned by DOE-sponsored regional partnerships in the US and other organizations around the world (see http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/co2db.php, for example). In addition, about 35 years of CO2 injection experience has been accumulated in enhanced oil recovery projects that inject about 30 MtCO2 per year in West Texas, Alaska, and elsewhere. All these projects will provide a significant body of technical experience as well as detailed cost information that will support large-scale implementation when it begins.
President
Carbonfund.org
said: On 13/09/2010
The U.S. does not yet have any commercial-scale CCS electric power projects, despite the country’s reliance on coal as a major energy source. A public-private partnership to develop one, FutureGen, has faced numerous obstacles including costs. Inherent with CCS is the need to prove the technology given concerns about CO2 leakage and the energy penalty from having to capture and store the gas. Estimates place the energy needed for CCS at about 10 percent to as high as 40 percent of the energy produced by a power plant.
Market-oriented rate payers and governments ought to promote the fastest, most effective and least costly zero-carbon technology options, not hastily choosing winners and losers. While CCS is both unproven and wildly expensive, the simple fact is, renewable energy, like wind and solar energy, cost less than CCS, making them a better deal for consumers and a more effective way to solve climate change.
Meanwhile, U.S. legislation capping carbon emissions is still pending. There is a robust voluntary market for emissions reductions (in which Carbonfund.org, a nonprofit organization, participates) for individuals and businesses that is increasing demand for clean technology and reducing its costs. With temperatures rising and the effects of climate change becoming more severe, the question is—is that enough. To the disappointment of many corporate and environmental leaders, climate change has not yet become a top U.S. national priority. Until then, reducing the country’s climate impact in the way we use energy, run our businesses and in our everyday lives will require increased private action and investment.
Chief Executive Officer
European Climate Foundation
said: On 13/09/2010
The European Climate Foundation has at the heart of its mission the determination to achieve deep energy efficiency savings and a seismic shift to renewable power generation. However our analysis agrees with the assessment that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) will be vital for the efficient and secure transition to a prosperous low-carbon economy.
So why isn’t CCS progressing more quickly in the EU?
Back in 2008 the European Climate Foundation worked closely with McKinsey & Company on their report “Carbon capture and storage: assessing the economics”. The report analysed the costs and benefits of European-wide deployment of CCS. It was built on the input of over 50 companies, stakeholders and CCS experts and concluded that CCS would not become a fully commercial reality without policies that create incentives for companies to test and implement CCS.
We have seen some significant progress since then with the announcement of two funding sources for an EU CCS demonstration programme; 1bn from the EU Economic Recovery Package (EERP) and 300m allowances from the New Entrants Reserve (NER) of Phase 3 (2013) of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). However, many of the observations of the McKinsey report still ring true:
Firstly, EU Member States do not yet have in place a long-term regulatory and market framework that will lead to the commercialization of CCS. Small steps are being taken but they are slow, many countries have not yet started to implement the CCS Directive and that is a basic minimum. The UK is consulting this year on market reforms that will enable CCS and we will be watching closely hoping for a model that can be adapted and adopted in other Member States. This regulatory uncertainty across MS States increases the investment risk of developers and prohibits them from investing in long-term CCS projects. Additionally, some technical aspects remain to be resolved; the evaluation of cross-border CO2 transport networks and national storage potentials are just two areas that could be prioritized to assist CCS commercialization.
Second, the financing instruments the Commission has proposed via the EEPR and ETS-NER will not cover the full additional investment and operation costs required for the first CCS demonstration installations. There is a need for effective funding solutions from Member States in addition to the funds Member States will be able to use on the basis of the ETS-NER. Additional funding from national governments and industrial sponsors will be crucial for providing investors with further confidence in the first CCS projects and accelerating the wide scale deployment of CCS in a timely manner.
ECF has concluded that the EU needs both a carrot and stick approach to spur CCS development and deployment: firstly, funding and political support for targeted CCS demonstration programmes and secondly, regulatory and market reforms that will eliminate unabated coal power generation and create certainty for investors and drive CCS commercialization. In the absence of both incentives, CCS deployment will be delayed and we are likely to see a growth in European and global emissions from coal-fired power plants and industrial emitters.
The global politics of CCS are vitally important, and it would be simplistic to finish this without touching on this key area. There is a G20 commitment in place for a global CCS demonstration programme but we now need to see that being driven forward.
As EU leaders have rightly recognized, our region and our world cannot meet our climate targets if we continue on a business as usual path in emissions from power generation and industrial processes. There are multiple analyses indicating that CCS will be critical in getting off the business as usual trajectory, but only if we move quickly.
For further details on the latest thinking on power sector decarbonization see http://www.roadmap2050.eu.
Senior Advisor on CCS Technology, Regulations and Policy
BP Alternative Energy
said: On 13/09/2010
While demand for energy continues to grow, our reliance on fossil fuels in the medium term is a certainty. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) features in every International Energy Agency carbon abatement scenario, and they estimate that the cost of transitioning to a lower-carbon future without CCS would be 70% higher.
CCS technology is available today, and is already being demonstrated at industrial scale in projects around the world. However, the costs for these first-of-a-kind projects are high (compared to conventional power generation technologies) and require fiscal support until a fully functioning carbon market and price are established.
While certain governments are making significant strides in implementing the policy mechanisms required to establish a CCS industry, there are many issues that need to be resolved. Many jurisdictions, such as the EU, the UK, the US, Australia and Canada, have begun setting up policy and regulatory frameworks to allow companies to invest in the first wave of demonstration projects. However, much more needs to be done to provide companies with confidence that a longer-term market will exist for these and any subsequent projects – which require large amounts of capital investment -without this, wide-scale deployment post demonstration is most unlikely. So it seems we are on the threshold of the demonstration phase of CCS technology. This is a crucial first step, yet little has been done to prepare for the necessary next step, which is required and must lead to wide-scale deployment of CCS. Without this next step, CCS might stumble and fall.
While there has been much focus on the capture part of the CCS value chain, there has been less emphasis placed on the storage end – which is key to determining if the industry has a future. The policy mechanisms and regulatory frameworks must also recognize the complexity and costs involved in storing CO2 safely. Furthermore, these CCS value chains are in themselves complex, with competing objectives along the chain and hence take time to structure.
Finally, CCS can only happen if the public support it, and some projects have already been delayed by the lack of public or government backing. If it is to succeed, governments and relevant industry bodies will need to persuade people why CCS is necessary as a technology to fight climate change and that it can be implemented in a safe and cost-effective manner.
Member
House of Lords, UK Parliament
said: On 13/09/2010
On August 20th, 10,000 people submitted objections to plans for a Coal Fired power station with Pre Combustion Carbon Capture and Storage in Scotland. Certainly, the location on the pretty Ayrshire coast might be a pointer to the objections, but this plant would be built adjacent to an existing deep water iron ore and coal terminal, and a nuclear power plant. Not exactly a green field site.
Why the objections? Lots of people take convincing that the Holy Grail of Clean Coal Technology is achievable, the heavy energy use to secure capture annoys the environmentalists, and even those who recognise that the carbon capture element is the easy bit, raise a sceptical eyebrow at the transportation issue.
And as for long term storage, carbon dioxide shares double billing in public popularity with nuclear waste.
What is to be done? Firstly, the CCS debate needs to move up a gear, although the energy geeks have been talking about this for what seems like decades, the public have not been part of the picture. Why should they take anyone’s word for an untried technology, especially with the really bad press energy companies have been getting for their forays into new fossil fuel exploration?
Fossil fuels get a bad press , the lights going out, however, gets an even worse press. Do the public really get the energy security issues that have zoomed up the public policy agenda in the past decade?
Politicians, coping with the aftermath of recession, cannot afford to moth ball existing coal fired power stations, and even if the money could be found to retro fit capture and storage capacity, the power supply industry remains extremely coy about proceeding with plans, looking all the time for state safety nets, while in the next breath complaining that Governments should not be in the business of picking winners.
Less than two years ago the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, based in Australia, was launched to great fanfair at the G20, since then the excitement about the prospects for the technology has become more muted. If a country with an economy as dependant on coal as Australia seems to be back pedalling, while emerging economies are building traditional coal plants as fast as they can get them up, the prospects do not look good.
The politicians can do only so much, all the targets and prototype competitions in the world will not give either the commercial reassurance or the public confidence.
Big Energy needs to show that it sees value in the technology by committing to real large scale investment to iron out the problems. Supportive statements need to give way to real drive , otherwise, lots of us will conclude that membership of all the committees in the world, plus some pump priming of experimental plants are little more than fig leaves for the continued exploitation of fossil fuel.
Mechanical Engineer
Jaidah Group
said: On 15/09/2010
As the Oil and Gas industry plays a major role in the economy of a country producing these natural resources, the viability of these projects have become National issues. It is only through proper Government control that Carbon Capture and Storage (CSS) can be catapuled to higher levels.
Government must impose hefty taxes and fees to oil and gas companies which do not comply with the emission standards. If this is the case, major companies will be forced to find solutions to control the emission of Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As this continues, there will be R&D to find better ways to control emissions.
Integrating the different organisations and their efforts to limit the amount of Carbon being released into the atmosphere is another key factor that should be seriously considered. Scientist might find simple solutions to complex problems and thereby create cost effective ways to protect the Earth’s atmosphere.
I would rather suggest a very easy and conventional way to limit the damage caused by Industrial Carbon, though the results, when compared to, technologies involved into CCS, might be minor; it is very cost effective and enviornmentally freindly. CREATE HUGE GREEN BELTS AROUND INSDUSTRIES. Plants use Carbon di oxide for photosyntesis and absorb the so called unwanted Industrial by product.
Association Manager
European Geothermal Energy Council
said: On 20/09/2010
and what about public acceptance of CO2 capture and deposit (storage; do you plan to use it again) ?
notably the micro-seismicity when injesting the CO2 underground…
EGEC urges public authorities to produce an underground regional planning in order to optimise resource allocation between geothermal energy, carbon storage and possible other underground usages, and therefore maximize the benefits for society.
There is obviously conflicting potential as a result of the competition between CO2 disposal and geothermal energy projects because they may target the same deep aquifers, or the same areas within sedimentary basins. Geothermal energy may also be produced from rocks below the depth range for potential CO2 disposal sites, and investigations are needed to determine if geothermal exploitation beneath CO2 deposits might be feasible at all.
Carbon capture and storage is essentially a bridging technology whereas geothermal energy is a sustainable energy resource.
Zones of dual use capability should be clearly identified and priority should be given to their use for geothermal energy over their use as a carbon storage site.
Project manager
NOAH Friends of the Earth Denmark
said: On 22/09/2010
The available global carbon budget is so small that global emissions must peak before 2015 if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. From 2015 onward, emissions must decline rapidly. That is a clear message from recent scientific studies like Meinshausen et al. (Nature Vol 358 | 30 April 2009) or The Copenhagen Diagnosis.
Any mitigation tool must be seen in this perspective. However, this is frequently not done. Carbon capture and storage, CCS, cannot fit into such a scenario because it cannot be deployed fast enough. Power plants and industries that could be equipped with CCS will emit far too much CO2 before 2050 – the usual milestone in climate scenarios.
It is often stated that CCS can reduce the emissions from power plants by 85%. So what is the problem? Firstly, this is a figure that has not been confirmed in practice on large scale plants. Given this can be achieved the figure still does not take into account the energy penalty that comes with the CCS equipment, nor the upstream or downstream emissions. If they are considered the reduction is lowered to about 70%.
Second, this looks at the emissions from a single plant only. It is necessary to take into account the cumulated emissions from the whole sector, e.g. all fossil fuelled power plants, 2010-2050.
Even with a very optimistic rate of deployment as foreseen by IEA, the emissions to the atmosphere will burst the CO2-budget. This is the conclusion that NOAH Friends of the Earth Denmark has reached in a recent analysis. (See footnote)
Nearly 90% of emissions expected between 2010 and 2050 from the large coal fuelled plants would reach the atmosphere anyway, according to this report.
On top of that, CCS will be extremely costly, which is probably the major reason why it is not “happening faster”.
CCS is not in lack of supporters though. CCS has probably the most powerful lobby. But all sober reports and the industry itself will only give CCS a chance with large public financing. That is in the pipeline, but probably too little. Still, it dwarfs the support for renewables e.g. in the EU.
Government/EU financing of CCS is likely to be a misuse of public funds. EU and governments should direct their subsidies exclusively to energy conservation, energy efficiency and renewables, as well as finance development of sustainable energy supply systems in developing countries. That’s the way to secure decreasing emissions.
CCS not only competes with renewables for R&D resources and capital, thus preventing the rapid development of sustainable energy supply systems as is the case in the EU. CCS will also represent obstacles for a sustainable energy supply system in the same way as nuclear power does: neither work well with the intermittent energy from renewables.
What we need is a fossil free future. It goes without saying that it will be extremely difficult to carry out. We must reduce energy demands in rich countries with high emissions, and we must increase energy efficiency. The remaining demand must be met by truly renewable energy technologies. In Denmark several scenarios have been developed that shows how we can do it.
“Europe’s Share of the Climate Challenge”, a study prepared by Stockholm Environment Institute, in partnership with Friends of the Earth Europe, shows how a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved in the EU-27 without CCS, biofuels or offsetting and phasing out nuclear by 2050.
***
Main findings
More than 350 Gt CO2 will be emitted from coal plants to the atmosphere despite a fast deployment of CCS in a scenario with CO2-emissions decreasing to 50% by 2050.
Emitting 350 Gt of CO2 will make demand on 90% of the remaining budget for CO2 from all fossil fuels 2010-2050.
46 Gt of CO2 or 11% of CO2 emissions will be avoided between 2010 and 2050.
***
Bendsen, P; Ejlertsen, K; 2010. An assessment of cumulative CO2 reductions from carbon capture and storage at coal fuelled plants in a carbon constrained world. NOAH Friends of the Earth Denmark. (2010) Available at http://ccs-info.dk/cumulative_co2.pdf
***
Heaps, C.; Erickson, P.; Kartha, S.; Kemp-Benedict, E., 2009. Europe’s Share of the Climate Challenge. Domestic Actions and International Obligations to Protect the Planet. Stockholm Environment Institute. (2009) Available at: http://sei-international.org/publications?pid=1318
The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science. UNSW Climate Change Research Centre, Australia. (2009) Available at http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com
Research Lecturer
Centre for Environmental Policy
said: On 27/09/2010
While CCS is definitely seen by many as a crucial technology to deal with climate change, in fact, what is urgent is not CCS per se but rather, to achieve significant global CO2 reduction. Such reductions are needed by 2050 to stabilize temperature rises at 2oC.
There is no doubt that large investment is being made in this technology. For example, the UK Coalition government will continue public sector investment in CCS technology for four coal-fires power stations in the UK, a pledge previously made by the former Labour government. It has already awarded a share of £90 million worth of Government funding to compete to build the first commercial-scale CCS plant in the UK. The winning project will be selected and is set to receive total funding of £1 billion and will be included as part of an overall target of publicly funding four coal-fired CCS demonstration projects across the UK.
The funding problem however, still plays a role in not allowing the technology develop faster. Although it has been claimed that the three additional projects will be supported by a proposed levy on electricity, with a competitive process for selection due to be announced by the end of 2010, the details of public funding for the four UK coal fired CCS demonstrations projects and the role of a prospective Green Investment Bank are still moving slowly.
However, among the important reason for CCS not happening quicker is that, while there has been worldwide endorsement of the technology – and no one doubts that at its best, it may be able to cut CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel power generation by up to 90% – there has also been wide criticism. Believers of CCS technology think that the key to climate change mitigation is technology innovation and deployment, and all efforts must be made to approve and implement the technology. They would reinforce their argument by claiming that without CCS, society would have to rely on devastating cuts in energy use, with crippling effects on the economy.
The critics indicate the not least crucial environmental effects of continued coal mining, high costs to sequester carbon, and uncertainty regarding storing carbon underground. CCS takes 20% to 40% more energy to run a plant equipped with CCS technology – increasing operating costs by between 25% and 60% – and the space needed to store CO2 has been hugely underestimated. Importantly, should CCS become the main approach to reduce CO2 emissions – would it be enough public and private funds to invest in alternative, decentralized approaches to produce energy and in this way, reduce CO2? After all, the aim is to reduce greenhouse gas emission, not the development of CCS.
President
Merchant Consulting
said: On 27/09/2010
The problem with CCS is that we live in a World that is Reactive rather than Proactive, its human nature. For the past 38 years, the Oil Industry has been successful in sequestering CO2 into underground oil and gas reservoirs through Enhanced Oil Recovery with CO2. Since 1972, 82 active CO2 projects have been implemented in the United States producing over 237,000 BOPD with over 2000 miles of pipeline laid. In addition, CO2 flooding is expanding to many parts of the World to fill the Energy Gap between a Consuming World built on oil and a planet that contains a limited amount of that valuable resource.
CO2 Sequestration into deep saline reservoirs, though a learning process, is something that has been and can be accomplished. The Sleipner project in the North Sea is an example where 1 million tons a year of CO2 has been sequestered below the sea bed since August, 1996. The technology, though in its infancy, can be developed to prove that the technology to properly sequester CO2 into deep saline reservoirs can work.
Starting in 2002, the United States Government became Proactive when it established the Regional Partnerships to address Climate Change Issues across America. During this time frame FutureGen projects and other CCS projects have been identified. A significant amount of time and effort has been involved in the design, planning, and implementation of these projects that would ensure the Public that the technology works. Unfortunately, the Reactive nature has also surfaced, much of it politically motivated. Just look at the difference of views between Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
In regards to Global Warming, Climate change is a phenomenon that has occurred throughout geologic time. If you look at the Sahara desert 10,000 years ago, a good portion of it was a savannah. Within 100 to 200 years, it became the biggest sand pile in the World. Today, if we ignore the Polar Ice Caps and Glaciers that are shrinking before our eyes, then we are truly blind to the fact that Climate can change quickly through time. The question is “Just how long do we have?”, And, “Can we change it before Mother Nature changes it for us?”
In the book “Atlas Shrugged”, Ayn Rand said the World would change when the lights went out in New York City”. If current water levels continue to drop in Lake Mead due to the continuing drought in the Southwest, Hoover Dam will stop producing electricity between 2013 and 2020. The experts don’t really know when the drought will end. The lights may not go out in New York, but look out Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Southern California.
I will be presenting a New SPE paper at the SPE CO2 Sequestration Conference in New Orleans in November and in December, the CO2 Conference in Midland. The paper is titled “Life beyond 80 – A look at Conventional WAG Recovery beyond 80% HCPV in CO2 Tertiary Floods”, which extends current tertiary recovery from 18% OOIP to as high as 26% OOIP with 190% HCPV Slug Size. The abstract follows:
During the past 38 years, CO2 flood technology for Enhanced Oil Recovery projects evolved from a partially understood process filled with uncertainties to a process based on proven technology and experience. Many questions involved with CO2 flooding have been thoroughly analyzed and answered. This knowledge is currently being used by a limited number of companies that actually know how to design, implement, and manage a CO2 flood for long term profit. Unfortunately, this knowledge has not been disseminated to operating companies interested in EOR flooding or to CO2 Sequestration Communities interested in storing CO2 in EOR projects.
The primary objective of this report is to target “Conventional WAG Techniques” which have been used in over 90% of all the Enhanced Oil Recovery projects implemented in the Permian Basin in Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. Over the years, oil companies have reported a wide range of values of Tertiary Oil Recovery, CO2 Utilization, and CO2 Retention, resulting in a wide range of variation and uncertainty. Many of the numbers reported to date are tied to a specific HCPV CO2 Injected based on some Economic Cut-off. This typically has been in the range of 30% to 80% HCPV Injected. The question becomes “What is life after 80% HCPV?” And “What effect does life after 80% HCPV have on Tertiary Oil Recovery, CO2 Utilization and CO2 Retention in different producing formations?” Results of this study show Tertiary Oil Recovery can be as high as 26% OOIP when slug sizes exceed 190% HCPV injected.
CTO
Vorsana
said: On 27/09/2010
By 2035 the EIA forecasts annual US CO2 emissions of 6.32 billion metric tons, 38% of which (2.40 billion) will be from coal plants alone. To put that in perspective, consider that in Texas the huge Permian Basin oil field’s current annual enhanced oil recovery (EOR) demand is only 7 million tons of CO2, about the output of a single 1 GW coal-fired power plant. See this article from POWER magazine. Clearly, EOR in depleted oil and gas reservoirs can’t handle the expected volume of CO2 that must be stored each year just from power generation.
The only other potentially available pore space, once we set aside the tiny capacity of depleted reservoirs, coal beds, and dry formations, is in deep saline formations. Although deep saline formations have lots of pore space, i.e. spaces between grains in the rock, the pores in the rock are full of brine. Deep saline formations are not empty tanks, but full tanks. Moving the brine out and the CO2 in may well be impossible at the scale of billions of tons each year. We hear a lot about the 25 years of successful experience with EOR, but it is the extrapolation of this EOR experience to permanent CO2 storage in deep saline formations that is at issue because there are not enough depleted reservoirs to accommodate the tremendous volumes of CO2 going to permanent storage. So EOR in depleted reservoirs (empty tanks) is immaterial.
Once injected into the formation, the CO2 would have to be securely contained there. This fundamental point seems to have been overlooked. In 2010, a sobering article appeared in the refereed Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering (70:123-130), authored by two distinguished full professors, Christine Ehlig-Economides and Michael J. Economides. Here’s a quote from the abstract:
“Published reports on the potential for sequestration fail to address the necessity of storing CO2 in a closed system. Our calculations suggest that the volume of liquid or supercritical CO2 to be disposed cannot exceed more than about 1% of pore space. This will require from 5 to 20 times more underground reservoir volume than has been envisioned by many, and it renders geologic sequestration of CO2 a profoundly non-feasible option for the management of CO2 emissions [my emphasis].”
Profoundly non-feasible is a polite way of saying laughable. Curiously, the Ehlig-Economides paper, a peer-reviewed article authored by two prominent experts in petroleum engineering, was not among the references cited in the recent interagency report on CCS. So its optimism about sequestration may be based on ignorance.
A rebuttal was posted by Dooley et al. The Dooley, et al. paper does not dispute the merits of the Ehlig-Economides et al. paper. Instead, Dooley et al. trump the merits by claiming the analysis is irrelevant because CO2 storage formations are not closed systems, but open systems which are expected to leak through permeable seals and therefore the 25 years of successful experience with EOR in open systems can be extrapolated.
In the interest of fully informed debate on this important issue, here are links to other rebuttals to the Ehlig-Economides article:
ZEP opinion piece
American Petroleum Institute rebuttal
Cavanagh, et al. rebuttal
Oldenburg, et al. rebuttal (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)
Economides response
“Closure” is a term of art meaning that the volume is bounded vertically and horizontally by impermeable barriers, commonly called a seal. See the testimony of USGS geologist Dr. Robert C. Burruss to Congress on July 24, 2008, p. 4. Closure is of the essence in any storage plan, so the assumption of a closed underground volume by Ehlig-Economides et al. — so vehemently rejected by Dooley et al. — does not seem unreasonable, at least as to deep saline formations.
In EOR the flow is steady state and not intermittent because there is a production well that provides a path out of the formation and the flow is at constant pressure. The CO2 dissolves in the oil and is recycled back into the reservoir after it is extracted. The depleted reservoir is like an empty tank, with flow in and out, i.e. an open system. All sequestration projects so far — the “25 years of successful experience” — are of this type, and they have been done because of the economic benefit to oil companies of capturing the CO2 and injecting it back into the formation to scavenge oil from depleted reservoirs.
Ehlig-Economides et al. challenge the steady state assumption underlying capacity calculations for deep saline formations: “models that assume a constant pressure outer boundary for reservoirs intended for CO2 sequestration are missing the critical point that the reservoir pressure will build up under injection at constant rate. Instead of the 1–4% of bulk volume storability factor indicated prominently in the literature, which is based on erroneous steady state modeling, our finding is that CO2 can occupy no more than 1% of the pore volume and likely as much as 100 times less.” I’m inclined to trust their sincere expert guidance when lives may be at stake. See here the textbooks that these authors have written.
The steady state assumption is clearly not appropriate with respect to deep saline aquifers, where there exist no means for flow out of the formation, and injection would have to be against high pressure into a full tank, raising the pressure. Pumps to hammer in the supercritical CO2 and displace the brine would produce pulsed, not steady, flow. As the more CO2 goes in, the pumps will have to work even harder against higher pressure.
The density of the injected supercritical CO2 is only 50-70% of the density of the saline water, (Burruss, p. 4) so sequestered CO2 would be buoyant and would have to be physically trapped by caprock and lateral containment. Hydraulic fracturing of the sealing formation by high pressure (the fracture pressure of the sealing formation is >4200 psi), pulses during supercritical CO2 injection might have disastrous consequences. Lateral leakage of buoyant supercritical CO2 out of the sealing formation would also be a disaster because this high pressure bubble could find its way around the caprock and erupt at the surface, or into groundwater supplies. The CO2 cannot dissolve in the brine or become carbonate quicky enough to mitigate the danger from leakage. When sequestration proponents expect the storage formations to leak enough to be classified as open systems, then there seems to be no point (other than EOR for the oil companies) of injecting CO2 underground and it probably is safer to dump it in the atmosphere.
The lifetime emissions from just one large coal-fired power plant would displace water equal to the size of a giant oil field (4.1 billion oil barrels), as USGS research geologist Robert Burruss pointed out in his testimony to Congress in 2008. Work would be required to lift all of that brine to the surface to make way for the tremendous volume of CO2. That work would presumably come from combustion of fossil fuels, adding to the CO2 emissions. Will the energy for CCS create more CO2 than it stores?
What will be done with all of that brine once it is extracted? Reverse osmosis reject brine (brine concentrate) is classified as “industrial waste” by the EPA, and the extracted deep saline brine will be even saltier (up to 463,000 ppm). Disposal of reverse osmosis reject brine is already a limiting factor in desalination deployment, and this will be a much bigger and saltier waste stream.
You can’t just dump it, so where will that deep saline brine go to make way for the tremendous volumes of CO2 that will replace it deep underground? If the plan is to hammer the supercritical, buoyant CO2 into the saline formation in order to force the water to flow elsewhere underground, will that even be possible against the tremendous pressure at the depth required to maintain supercriticality? Will the displaced brine flow up to pollute fresh water supplies or increase soil salinity, leading to famine? Will the hydraulic hammering of pumping CO2 fracture the sealing formation, leading eventually to a disaster like Lake Nyos in 1986, where 1,700 people died from asphyxiation when CO2 erupted from underground? If a CO2 plume does escape from the sealing formation, what can be done about it?
Repeating the “25 years of successful experience” line is not an answer to these questions. Especially not after the BP blowout.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report of September 30, 2008, noted that sequestration also faces huge political obstacles, such as: (1) the vast infrastructure that would have to be built to transport and inject the CO2 emissions, (2) public resistance to a lethal gas dump under their neighborhood, and (3) the liability issues associated with ownership of a CO2 dump. Public resistance (e.g. Mattoon, Illinois) is already hardening.
It’s time to punt sequestration. Let’s not blow what remains of the scarce Recovery Act CCS research money on a “profoundly non-feasible option” which might result in an even worse environmental disaster — migration of brine into groundwater supplies and CO2 eruptions that kill people.
Chief Economist
Global CCS Institute
said: On 27/09/2010
There have been a number of interesting and important points made already in this discussion:
• CCS technology – at least at a scale sufficient for power or large industrial applications – is still in its large-scale development phase.
• CCS is not a silver bullet –it is one of a number of approaches required to slow and eventually reverse the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Many technologies will be needed across the large range of activities that use energy.
Moving beyond low cost renewables and energy efficiency options – which can take us only so far towards decarbonisation – means bringing in more expensive technologies. Among the current options, CCS is a considered a leading contender because it is competitive with new generation nuclear, and much more competitive for than solar thermal.
That is partly because all elements of CCS – capture, transport and storage – have been undertaken at differing scales and in differing industries over the past thirty to forty years.
Similarly, the amount of activity around CCS deployment may be in the eye of the beholder. While we debate the details around ‘why this isn’t happening,’ many governments are providing significant support in order to “make it happen” – at least for the purposes of proving safe and reliable capture and storage by demonstrating current CCS technologies at scale.
There is in excess of US$42 billion on the table in direct subsidies from governments around the world. This funding is targeting around thirty large-scale demonstration plants: in Europe, in North America and in the Asia Pacific.
This crosses activities in the power and industry sectors, across the three main capture technologies as well as different storage approaches. This doesn’t include still more government support for smaller scale pilot and R&D activities or storage initiatives.
As we identified in our interim CCS Project Status report in July, there are five large scale CCS plants operating and more than 70 in various stages of planning and development. There are at least three other operating large scale projects undertaking capture, transport and storage activities for enhanced oil recovery, but the exclusion of MMV activities means they cannot be considered as providing permanent storage and hence are not CCS – nonetheless they still provide important learnings associated for the development of capture technologies or storage behaviors.
Finally, CCS is also a technology that offers the opportunity to move beyond not only the opportunity to move to near zero atmospheric CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels for energy but also to start to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. In biomass fueled power plants CO2 is captured twice, first during the life of the growing plant and again when CO2 is captured from the flue gas.
So, as US President Barack Obama’s interagency taskforce report on CCS recently noted: “there are no insurmountable technological, legal, institutional, regulatory or other barriers that prevent CCS from playing a role in reducing GHG emissions.” We need to start seeing domestic action on climate change to unleash the technology’s potential. The absence of this action is “the key barrier to CCS deployment.”
Founder
Carbon Capture & Storage Association
said: On 27/09/2010
CCS is a highly cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Technically proven over decades, it is contributing to emissions reductions today with a number of industrial-scale CCS projects each safely storing over 1 million tonnes of CO2 every year. Although the two degree global warming target will require deployment of every possible mitigation option there is no solution that does not include CCS. We urgently need to build CCS plants on commercial-scale power stations as well as CO2-intensive industrial sectors, such as steel, cement and chemicals. With continuous experiential learning and shared knowledge we can move on to the kind of massive worldwide investment in CCS that will be essential if we are to minimise fossil emissions and beat climate change.
What is holding up this world imperative? An entire new global industry is being created from scratch and that takes time. Regulations have to be forged on an international, national and regional basis. Industry has got to create new business relationships, gain confidence in the new regulatory regime and establish contractual agreements with major financial consequences. All this is against a background of highly uncertain international climate policy. There is a massive amount of work to be done and governments as well as industry are making major investments in CCS to secure reliable energy supplies and economic development whilst containing climate change.
The CCS juggernaut will take some time to gain momentum but it will move inexorably to make a major contribution in global climate change mitigation.
Researcher
Institute of Physics Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences
said: On 29/09/2010
I am agree, Carbon Capture and Storage is urgent. It is a good task. But I think it is not necessary it is happening faster. And it is impossible now. We must faster replace using hydrocarbon fuel to ecological pure renewable sources of energy. Actually, this replacing is urgent. First of all, we are necessary widely to use wind, solar and hydrogen energy sources.
Managing Director Concept & Technical advisor
New World Concepts P/L
said: On 29/09/2010
I have to agree with previous comments, but having said that wave and more importantly tidal generation has great application possibilities in equatorial regions that experience massive tides 20 hours a day every day, as well as fast flow river systems. Generally speaking, the likelihood of this technology adding to bass-load input for the majority of geographic locations is unlikely. Also as previously stated, I feel the site specific differences in application is also a major negative as viewed by most potential financial backers.
Bio-mimicry technology’s may in the future prove capable of inspiring the imagination, and may well pave the way forward for tidal energy to move forward. In direct answer to the question posed, environmental concerns are equally as much a drawback in these technology’s moving to a point of development funding.
Petroleum Economics Manager
ENOC
said: On 29/09/2010
There are three key reasons. The first is the very long lead times for major new energy technologies to emerge, a function of the capital intensity, risk aversion, technical complexity and long asset lives of the energy industry. For instance, wind power has taken two decades or more to reach its current share of some 1% of global energy. For CCS, this problem has been exacerbated by rapidly escalating capital costs over the past decade. CCS also needs to be demonstrated at a large scale, unlike wind or solar power which can be installed in modest-sized increments, hence reducing financial exposure.
The second is the lack of a natural owner or champion. Responsibility is divided between the power companies (who would presumably operate capture-equipped power stations) and oil & gas companies (who would probably operate storage facilities). This is a commercially complicated situation, analogous to the natural gas business.
Any company that wants to take the lead in CCS will have to spend billions of dollars, and take significant financial risk, but will probably not be able to monopolise the benefits. The first generation of CCS plants will probably be relatively costly, as it will take time to find the best technology(s) and optimise their performance. Hence the case for government support to get the first generation off the ground. But, given the large sums involved, government support (beyond modest sums for R&D) has been slow to emerge, and policy has frequently changed course (as with FutureGen in the USA, and the UK’s CCS competition).
Carbon capture & storage, though essential for environmental reasons, does not contribute to energy security (as least, not while there is no global price/cap on carbon dioxide emissions), and therefore is not appealing to countries such as India and China, who do see the energy security benefits from solar, wind, biomass and advanced coal combustion technologies, which increase domestic energy supply.
Similarly, environmental groups have generally been hostile to, or at best unenthusiastic about, CCS (with a few exceptions, such as Norway’s Bellona). This contrasts to their robust support for solar, wind, etc. This scepticism comes from a number of angles: continuing opposition to fossil fuels and fossil fuel industries, including the upstream extractive sector; concerns about the environmental impact of CCS, notably leakage from storage; and a ‘mental model’ that has seized on renewables and energy efficiency as the preferred solution.
The third reason is the same one that climate change mitigation measures of all kinds have advanced slower than needed: the lack of a global carbon price or cap, the failure to reach a comprehensive global climate agreement, and the so-far unsuccessful struggle to pass climate legislation in countries such as the USA and Australia. For a technology such as CCS, whose value hinges entirely on its CO2 mitigation potential, this continuing uncertainty makes it very difficult for investors to commit substantial funds. And CCS has still not been agreed to be eligible for clean development mechanism (CDM) credits.
Despite all these issues, there are several operating CCS projects worldwide, mostly large-scale ones on CO2 from natural gas, but including some pilot-scale projects on power and industrial facilities. There is also a long line of commercial-scale CCS projects under development. Over the next decade or so, we should see a thorough test of the CCS concept, and potentially its emergence as a major part of the climate change effort.
Vice-President, Business Development
CO2 Solution Inc.
said: On 22/11/2010
The principal challenge with deployment of CCS in my view is two-fold, namely the need for more efficient, lower costs methods of CO2 capture from existing power plants and industrial emissions sources and the requirement for a financial incentive system for emitters to avoid their emissions through use of the technology. On the first point, current methods of capturing CO2 from post-combustion flue gases are exceedingly expensive. The use of monoethanolamine (MEA) solvents, considered the current benchmark, applied at commercial scale to a typical coal-fired power plant would nearly double the cost of producing electricity (Ref: NETL). This is simply not viable without a correspondingly high price (US $80+ a ton) on carbon emissions, an unlikely scenario even in the longer term. New solvent based approaches that consume less energy must be employed that can overcome this cost barrier. On the second point, assuming acceptance of a price increase for fossil generated power, regulation must be put in place, starting in the United States which would provide a sufficient penalty-avoidance system to incentivize this new lower-cost technology being deployed. This will require significant political will and greater understanding by the public of its urgent necessity.