Carbon capture and storage – a progress report

ccsThose who believe that climate change can be tackled without reductions in economic growth or consumption depend on several key technologies. Electric cars is one, nuclear energy another, and carbon capture and storage is a third.

The case for carbon capture and storage (CCS) is simple. The world still has plentiful reserves of natural gas and coal. The latter in particular will be cheap for the foreseeable future. Finding a way to capture the carbon would allow us to benefit from these cheap fuels without adding to greenhouse emissions. By retrofitting carbon capture and storage to existing power stations, we could at the very least buy ourselves some time while renewable energy capacity expands.

Sceptics of the technology, on the other hand, say that it is expensive and unproven. There is a shortage of places where carbon can be stored, and they aren’t necessarily anywhere near the source of the emissions. Britain’s biggest potential carbon store is, for example, the depleted gas fields of the North Sea. It’s hard to imagine the sort of infrastructure needed to exploit that opportunity. The whole idea is a red herring, say the critics, an excuse to keep using coal.

So where are we? The Global CCS Institute has recently released its annual roundup of the state of carbon capture and storage. It has surveyed every operating or planned CCS plant around the world and reports on where the technology stands and how it could be adopted more widely.

First, the good news: CCS is not a theoretical technology. It works, and it can work at scale. There are 12 large scale plants in operation around the world. Three new ones opened in 2012, one each in Brazil, Saudi Arabia and China. Together, these 12 plants lock away 25 million tonnes of CO2 every year.

The other good news is that several others are planned. Two power plants with CCS are due to open in the US next year. China, once again, is at the forefront of new development, with 12 new plants planned. The technology is identified as a priority in the country’s five year plan. So it should be, with China’s dependence on dirty coal power and the world’s biggest carbon footprint. If anyone has the resolve and finance to deliver CCS, it is China.

There is bad news too. There is still no global climate change treaty, and therefore no real incentive for anyone to invest. Business won’t do it, and governments are increasingly unlikely to put up the funding. Five projects were cancelled in 2012 and seven delayed however. Norway’s ambitious flagship CCS plan was culled this year.

The other bad news is something that advocates of CCS usually forget to mention – what CCs is actually used for. Most plants are not built for sequestering carbon, because there’s no economic benefit. The majority are built to serve the oil industry, because waste carbon can be pumped into oil fields as part of an ‘enhanced oil recovery’ programmes.

When an oil field begins to age, oil production begins to tail off. There are various ways to get at the remaining oil and extend the life of the field. One of them is to pump CO2 underground to raise the pressure and drive oil to the surface. Oil companies buy in the CO2 from fertiliser factories or power stations that have CCS fitted, and pump it to the wellhead by pipeline. Some CO2 is sequestered in this way, but only as a by product. The main goal is more oil, which means more CO2 of course. So while this is potentially a green technology, it can equally be used in ways that are environmentally damaging. A full 70% of CCS plants in operation or at planning stages around the world are for the purposes of enhanced oil recovery.

That’s the big irony of CCS – it remains a useful tool in the fight against climate change, but at the moment it’s on the wrong side.  To make it effective in reducing emissions, CO2 needs to be priced in so that companies to take responsibility for it. CCS is not worth anyone’s time otherwise.

In short, CCS remains a potentially useful technology, but until we have a global deal on climate change, cap and trade or a similar emissions management strategy in place, that potential will not be realised.

8 Comments on “Carbon capture and storage – a progress report”

  1. imarunner2012 October 24, 2013 at 2:56 pm #

    I think it is great that they can use CO2 to get the last drops of oil out of the ground. Atleast this provides a market for a waste product.
    I think the best bang for the buck is efficiency. It is cheaper and quicker to change out all of your light bulbs and to replace old appliances and cars.
    With new lease to own programs, solar has become much more affordable also.

    • Jeremy October 25, 2013 at 10:24 am #

      From a technology point of view, yes. Without that economic use the tech wouldn’t be moving forward. From a climate change of view, it’s far better to leave that oil in the ground.

  2. Neil October 24, 2013 at 3:07 pm #

    One thing we discovered when we wrote our book is that this technology lowers the energy return of gas and coal if used. Since conventional gas, oil and coal are approaching an energy return of 10X widespread adoption of this technology as well as unconventional gas and oil would simply mean we use everything still faster.

  3. Felix Le Roux November 4, 2013 at 6:00 am #

    This CCS is the only way to really reverse global warming, and could be done with renewable or solar energy if the world ever has an abundance of renewable/solar energy.

    The big flaw I see is that the “storage” area of the CO2 will be full pretty soon. The CO2 is much less dense than the oil/gas it came from. Is that right?

    • Jeremy November 4, 2013 at 10:44 am #

      The use of CCS to reverse global warming isn’t something I’ve really mentioned, but yes, the large scale withdrawal of CO2 from the atmosphere is another angle to the technology – basically replicating what trees already do.

      There are a few different storage options, and depleted oil and gas fields are just one. Saline aquifers is another, and there are lots of those, or it can bind with coal in unmineable coal reserves. CO2 can also be mineralised into certain kinds of rock, which is more expensive but vast as a resource. We’d be talking hundreds of years worth of emissions if that’s ever feasible – but like the whole technology, that’s a big if.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Run your own carbon pathway | Make Wealth History - February 11, 2015

    […] ways of doing it. However, it also shows how dependent we are on certain key technologies. If CSS comes through, then things will be a whole lot easier. If it doesn’t, and it’s a mixed picture […]

  2. Making plastic out of greenhouse gases | Make Wealth History - February 1, 2016

    […] far the nearest thing we have to this is Carbon Capture and Storage, where greenhouse gases are captured from a coal power station or similar large source and then […]

  3. The steep path to 1.5 degrees | Make Wealth History - September 22, 2016

    […] not something I’ve written about before in much detail, but options do exist. Carbon capture and storage is the best known, but there are others. As they are now rising in importance, I will profile some […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: