SourceWatch needs your financial support to survive and thrive. If you've found this information on the people, organizations, and issues shaping the public agenda helpful, please make a tax-deductible donation now.

From SourceWatch

This article is part of the coalSwarm coverage of "clean coal."
Sub-articles:
Clean Coal Clean Coal Technology Clean Coal Marketing Campaign
Related articles:
America's Power America's Power Army Americans for Balanced Energy Choices American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Carbon Capture and Storage FutureGen U.S. coal politics

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), or carbon sequestration, is a means of separating out carbon dioxide when burning fossil fuels, collecting it and subsequently “dumping” it underground or in the sea. CCS is an integrated concept consisting of three distinct components: CO₂ capture, transport and storage (including measurement, monitoring and verification). All three components are currently found in industrial operation today, although mostly not for the purpose of CO₂ storage.

Contents 1 Capture 2 Problems with Carbon Storage 3 Retrofitting Existing Coal Plants for Carbon Capture 4 Transport 5 Storage 5.1 Storage capacity in the United States and Canada 6 The Problem of Financing CCS 7 Obama and CCS 8 Regulatory problems 9 Timeline 10 CCS and Increased Water Demands 11 SCS Energy's PurGen One Plant 12 Study analyzes energy sources according to global warming emissions and energy security 13 Schwarzenegger clause 14 Articles and resources 14.1 References 14.2 Related SourceWatch Articles 14.3 External resources 14.4 External links

Capture

By far the most energy intensive portion of the CCS process, carbon capture produces a concentrated stream of CO₂ that can be compressed, transported and eventually stored. Some capture technologies are economically feasible under specific conditions while others remain in the research stages. To date, there has not been a single application of CCS to large scale (> 500 MW) power stations. Since every ton of coal burned produces 3.7 tons of CO2, the sheer volume of CO2 that must be disposed of makes CCS inherently impractical and overly expensive.^[1]

Depending on the process or power station in question, three approaches to capture exist- pre-, post- and oxyfuel combustion:

• Pre-combustion capture systems remove CO₂ prior to combustion. This is accomplished via gasification. The gasification of a fossil fuel produces a “synthesis gas” (syn gas), which is primarily a mixture of carbon monoxide, methane and hydrogen. Before combustion, the syn gas is reacted with steam to produce CO₂ that is subsequently scrubbed from the gas stream, usually by a physical or chemical absorption process. The result is a hydrogen-rich fuel that can be used in a range of applications. Pre-combustion systems are not a mature market technology but are intended for deployment in conjunction with Integrated Gasification and Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology. The use of IGCC for coal-based electricity production is limited with only four coal-based IGCC demonstration plants in operation globally.^[2] Reliability, availability and cost of technology have hindered wider deployment of IGCC.^[3]

• Post-combustion techniques are the standard practice for removing pollutants, such as sulfur, from the flue gas of coal-fired power stations. Flue gas typically contains up to 14% CO₂, which must be separated- either through absorption (chemical or physical), cryogenics and membrane technologies. For CO₂ capture, chemical absorption with amines, such as monoethanolamine (MEA), is currently the process of choice.^[4] Once recovered, the CO₂ is cooled, dried and compressed for transport. Post-combustion systems are posited as a carbon mitigation solution for the existing fleet of coal-fired power plants around the globe. However, retrofitting a capture system to a power station requires major technical modifications. These alterations are quite costly and are accompanied by substantial decreases in generating efficiency. For example, an MEA retrofit of an existing 500 MWe subcritical pulverized coal (PC) power plant cuts efficiency by 14.5 %. Net electrical output is diminished by over 40% to 294 MWe. Such a retrofit is expected to impose capital costs of USD 1600/kWe.^[5]

• Oxyfuel combustion burns fossil fuels in 95% pure oxygen instead of air. This results in a flue gas with high CO2 concentrations (greater than 80%) that can be condensed and compressed for transport and storage. This method of CO₂ capture is still in the demonstration phase.

Problems with Carbon Storage

According to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal of Society of Petroleum Engineers, titled "Sequestering Carbon Dioxide in a Close Underground Volume", the authors argue that past calculations of CCS were widely off, rendering the technology impractical. Writing for Casper, Wyoming's Star-Tribune, report author Prof. Michael Economides explains,

Earlier 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 percent of pore space. This will require from 5 to 20 times more underground reservoir volume than has been envisioned by many, including federal government laboratories, and it renders geologic sequestration of CO2 a profoundly non-feasible option for the management of CO2 emissions.

Injection rates, based on displacement mechanisms from enhanced oil recovery experiences, assuming open aquifer conditions, are totally erroneous because they fail to reconcile the fundamental difference between steady state, where the injection rate is constant, and pseudo-steady state, where the injection rate will undergo exponential decline if the injection pressure exceeds an allowable value.

The implications of our work are profound. They show that 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 percent 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 percent of the pore volume and likely as much as 100 times less.

We related the volume of the reservoir that would be adequate to store CO2 with the need to sustain injectivity. The two are intimately connected. The United States has installed over 800 gigawatts (GW) of CO2 emitting coal and natural gas power plants. In applying this to a commercial power plant of just 500 MW, which by the way produces about 3 million tons per year relentlessly, the findings suggest that for a small number of wells the areal extent of the reservoir would be enormous, the size of a small U.S. state. Conversely, for more moderate size reservoirs, still the size of the U.S.'s largest, Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay reservoir, and with moderate permeability there would be a need for hundreds of wells. Neither of these bode well for geological CO2 sequestration and the work clearly suggests that it is not a practical means to provide any substantive reduction in CO2 emissions.^[6]

Retrofitting Existing Coal Plants for Carbon Capture

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, it is not economical to retrofit existing coal plants with carbon capture technology:

Existing CO2 capture technologies are not cost-effective when considered in the context of large power plants. Economic studies indicate that carbon capture will add over 30 percent to the cost of electricity for new integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) units and over 80 percent to the cost of electricity if retrofitted to existing pulverized coal (PC) units. A recent study from the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) confirms that additional alternatives need to be pursued to bring the cost of carbon capture down. In addition, the net electricity produced from existing plants would be significantly reduced - often referred to as parasitic loss - since 20 to 30 percent of the power generated by the plant would have to be used to capture and compress the CO2.^[7]

Transport

Unless a power station is located directly above a geological storage area, captured CO₂ must be delivered to a storage site. Pipelines are the most feasible transportation method for large amounts of CO₂ for distances up to around 1,000 km. While they are a mature market technology, pipeline infrastructure for large-scale transport of CO₂ is mostly lacking. Cost estimates for constructing a dedicated network of CO₂ pipelines are US$ 20,989/in of pipeline diameter/km with annual operation and management costs of US$3,100/km.^[8] The risk of corrosion and leakage should be taken into consideration when constructing pipelines, especially when moving CO₂ through populated areas. On a local scale, release of CO₂ leading to concentrations greater than 7–10 percent by volume in the air can immediately jeopardise life and health of exposed individuals. A natural example of a sudden emergence of a large volume of CO₂ occurred in a volcanic active area at Lake Nyos in Cameroon in 1986. Large quantities of CO₂ accumulated on the bottom of Lake Nyos were suddenly released. The released CO₂ poured an invisible cloud over the valleys below, killing 1700 people and thousands of cattle in a range of 25 km.

CO₂ can also be transported by ships as well as rail and road tankers. Transport of liquefied CO₂ via ships is possible in some situations and may even be more economical than pipeline transport when long distances are involved. Road and rail transport, while technically feasible, is costly and unlikely to be utilized in utility scale CCS operations.^[9]

Storage

The final component of CCS is the long-term isolation of CO₂ from the atmosphere. A number of specific “storage options” and associated techniques are in varying stages of research and development. They largely include methods relating to geological and ocean storage. In conjunction with the actual physical storage of CO₂ in these locations are the subsequent measuring, monitoring and verification (MMV) processes needed to ensure that the integrity of the storage site is maintained. Leakage of CO₂ poses a threat not only to climate mitigation efforts but also to human health and the environment. Standard protocol and the precise tools for MMV await development. At present, substantial gaps exist with respect to a legal and regulatory framework that would govern the safe and long-term administration of CO₂ storage, leaving significant questions about liability and risk unanswered.

Storage capacity in the United States and Canada

On November 17, 2008, the DOE released its second Carbon Sequestration Atlas for the United States and Canada. The Atlas identifies over 3,500 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide storage potential in oil and gas reservoirs, coal seams, and saline formations. The document suggests that these geologic formations could provide over 1100 years of CO₂ storage.^[10]

A study in March 2008 found that the United States will need to drill over 100,000 - and perhaps up to 3 times that number - injection wells to inject enough carbon dioxide and keep total emissions at 2005 levels. The study was based on data from the petroleum industry, which has been injecting CO₂ for enhanced oil recovery for more than 30 years. As a comparison for feasibility, approximately 40,000 oil and gas wells are drilled each year in the U.S. All told, the total cost of such a carbon dioxide sequestration effort could easily top $1.5 trillion per year.^[11]

The study concluded:^[11]

Whether, when, and how much carbon dioxide sequestration will ever occur on a commercial scale remains in question, and to achieve it will be expensive and problematic. The proposition has yet to be properly addressed in either a real or a practical context.

The Problem of Financing CCS

In November 2009 the World Coal Institute, a lobby group for the coal mining industry, released a report arguing that the "current CCS deployment is too slow to allow necessary global GHG emissions reductions goals to be achieved. There is an urgent need to fund demonstration projects and that funding needs to come from both governments as well as a robust carbon market."^[12]

The coal lobby group argued that "reducing GHG emissions will require society to pay costs long before most benefits are realised. Success will therefore require strong political will and leadership. The appetite for this will largely hinge on public acceptance."^[12]

"An effective programme to accelerate the widespread deployment of CCS," the coal lobby group argued, "should build public confidence in and acceptance of CCS as a mitigation option".^[12] The lobby group argued that CCS could be funded by one or more of the following options:

• a levy on electricity consumers;
• a percentage of revenue from a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme;
• issuing free or bonus emission allowances for CCS plants;
• a levy on fossil fuel plants that aren't fitted with CCS technology;
• including CCS in the Clean Development Mechanism (see Clean Development Mechanism and Carbon Capture and Storage for further details);
• direct subsidies such as tax credits, loan guarantees, market mechanisms or direct payments;
• tendering for a project;
• incorporating CCS in Emissions Performance Standards (such as the "Schwarzenegger clause') and mandates.^[12]

Obama and CCS

The Obama administration has requested $300 million in 2011 for the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E), the newest part of the Department of Energy (DOE). In 2009 the agency received $400 million in stimulus funds. Officials on March 2, 2010 announced that its second solicitation for alternative energy proposals - which focused on biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and batteries - yielded over 500 concept papers.^[13]

Regulatory problems

In its 2008 annual report, Massey Energy, a major U.S. coal mining company, stated that uncertainty over the prospects of CCS and its regulation could adversely affect the financial performance of the company. "Considerable uncertainty remains, not only regarding rules that may become applicable to carbon dioxide injection wells but also concerning liability for potential impacts of injection, such as groundwater contamination or seismic activity. In addition, technical, environmental, economic, or other factors may delay, limit, or preclude large-scale commercial deployment of such technologies, which could ultimately provide little or no significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from coal combustion," it stated.^[14]

Timeline

One of the most controversial aspects of CCS is the projected date of commercial availability.

• World Business Council on Sustainable Development (2006): "Commercial implementation is not expected for another 20 years."^[15]

• Electric Power Research Institute (2007): "[W]e believe that the greatest reductions in future U.S. electric sector CO2 emissions are likely to come from applying CCS technologies to nearly all new coal-based power plants coming on-line after 2020."^[16]

In October 2008, a report issued by the International Energy Agency warned that the time and resources being invested in developing CCS technology are far less than the amount necessary. The IEA's proposal to begin at least 20 large-scale CCS researcy projects by 2010 was endorsed by the G8 group, but according to the report, "current spending and activity levels are nowhere near enough to achieve these deployment goals." The IEA cited a rise in technology costs over the past five years, scarcity of funding for demonstration projects, and an absence of regulatory incentives as reasons for the lack of progress. Citing a 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IEA cautioned that without a means of curtailing CO₂ emissions from the energy sector, the pace of global warming could double in this century.^[17]

CCS and Increased Water Demands

A consultancy report for an Australian government agency highlighted that CCS would also impose additional demands on finite water supplies. "Issues related to water availability and carbon dioxide emissions present long term challenges for electricity generators. This is because water-cooled, low-emission, thermal power plants are likely to be significantly more water intensive than current coal-fired power plants. For example, coal-fired power plants incorporating carbon capture and storage (CCS) could be one-quarter to one-third more water intensive," the report states.^[18]

SCS Energy's PurGen One Plant

SCS Energy (SCS) of Concord, Mass. has proposed constructing a 750-megawatt (MW) IGCC / coal-to-fertilizer SCS Energy's PurGen One Plant on a contaminated industrial site on the Arthur Kill waterway in Linden, N.J. The plant would gasify coal and burn the gas to generate electricity when power prices are high, or make fertilizer when power prices are low. SCS plans to pump 90% of the carbon dioxide emitted from the plant through a 100-mile-long pipeline to a point 70 miles offshore from Atlantic City, N.J., where it will be pumped into a sandstone formation 1.5 miles beneath the floor of the ocean. SCS Energy has said the coal plant, with carbon sequestration, will be fully operational by 2016.

SCS Energy has filed a 362-page application for an air permit for PurGen from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

The Environmental Justice Advisory Council to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection passed a resolution Nov. 4, 2009 opposing construction of the PurGen plant in Linden.

On December 16, 2009, Emily Rochon of Greenpeace International spoke against the PurGen plant in Linden and a video of her talk is available.

According to Forbes magazine Nov. 30, 2009, the PurGen plant would bury 14.5 million tons of liquefied CO2 beneath the ocean each year. At that rate, if the power plant ran for 50 years, it would bury a total of 725 million tons of CO2.

Study analyzes energy sources according to global warming emissions and energy security

A detailed report from Stanford University, released in December 2008, reviewed and ranked major energy solutions to global warming and energy security. Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering, conducted the first quantitative, scientific evaluation of the major, proposed energy-related solutions. His study assessed their potential for delivering energy for electricity and vehicles, their impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, water supply, water pollution, and wildlife, as well as their space requirements, reliability and sustainability. Jacobson found that the options getting the most attention are 25 to 1,000 times more polluting than the best available options.^[19]

The study concluded that ethanol, nuclear, and coal with CCS are all dirty, inefficient and wasteful compared to wind, solar, geothermal and ocean energy, and that these cleaner energy sources could eliminate global warming gases, create energy security, and meet the world's ongoing energy needs entirely.^[20][21]

Schwarzenegger clause

In October 2008, the European Parliament's Environment Committee voted to support a limit on CO₂ emissions for all new coal plants built in the EU after 2015. The so-called "Schwarzenegger clause" applies to all plants with a capacity over 300MW, and limits their annual CO₂ emissions to a maximum of 500 grammes per kilowatt hour. The new emissions standard essentially rules out traditional coal plant technologies and mandates the use of Carbon Capture and Storage technologies. The Committee also adopted an amendment to support the financing of 12 large-scale commercial CCS demonstration projects, at a cost that could exceed €10 billion.^[22][23]

However, in November 2008, the proposal to subsidize the CCS demonstration plants appeared to be headed for defeat. Several European countries have voiced opposition to the plan, including Spain, Germany, France, Denmark, Hungary, and Poland. Among the objections to the proposal include concerns that it puts too much investment in experimental carbon capture and not enough incentives for proven technologies like solar power and hybrid cars. European nations with the largest populations, including Spain and Germany, have extra votes and could force the research plan to be omitted from the larger EU climate and energy legislation. If the subsidy plan fails to pass, the pilot projects may not be able to secure financing.^[24][25]

Articles and resources

References

Related SourceWatch Articles

• Carbon Capture and Storage in Australia
• Carbon Capture and Storage in Canada
• Carbon Capture and Storage in China
• Carbon Capture and Storage in India
• Carbon Capture and Storage in the United Kingdom
• Carbon Capture and Storage in the United States
• Clean Development Mechanism and Carbon Capture and Storage
• Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration Project (United Kingdom)
• CO2 Capture Project (United States)
• C02CRC Otway Project (Australia)
• CO2SINK (Germany)
• Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute
• Hydrogen Energy
• Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate Technology Action Plan: Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage
• National Carbon Capture Center
• North American Carbon Capture and Storage Partnership
• North American Carbon Atlas
• Peterhead Carbon Capture and Storage project
• Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of Carbon Capture and Storage - Report 5: Synthesis Report
• The Australian Coal Association's Proposed Carbon Capture and Storage Taskforce
• West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (United States)
• Weyburn-Midale CO2 Monitoring and Storage Project (Canada)
• ZeroGen, Queensland, Australia

External resources

• "IPCC Special Reports: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
• "Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada," U.S. National Energy Testing Lab
• Thomas M. Kerr, Legal Aspects of Storing CO2, International Energy Agency, June 2007. (Pdf)
• International Energy Agency, Carbon Capture and Storage: Full-scale demonstration progress update", International Energy Agency, June 2009. (Pdf)
• L.E.K. Consulting, An Ideal Portfolio of CCS Projects and Rationale for Supporting Projects Report, Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, October 16, 2009. (Pdf)
• WorleyParsons Services Pty Ltd, Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of Carbon Capture and Storage - Report 5: Synthesis Report, Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, October 2009. (Pdf) (While WorleyParsons Services is listed as the author of the synthesis report, the firm was the leader of a consortium which also included Schlumberger, Baker & McKenzie and the Electric Power Research Institute.)

External links

• International Panel on Climate Change Special Report on CCS
• MIT Future of Coal Report
• A list of web sites related to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) at precaution.org
• Joe Baum, "Process would make coal burn cleaner," Deseret Morning News, 1/13/08
• Peter Viebahn et al, "Comparison of Carbon Capture and Storage with Renewable Energy Technologies in the Year 2020 by Way of a Life Cycle and a Cost Assessment," accessed 4/08 (PDF file)
• Peter Vieban et al, "Comparison of carbon capture and storage with renewable energy technologies regarding structural, economic, and ecological aspects in Germany," International Journal on Greenhouse Gas Control, 2007.
• "Carbon Capture and Storage: Key Issues and Challenges" (conference proceedings) The Edison Foundation, March 3-4, 2008.
• Emily Rochon, False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won't save the climate, Greenpeace, May 2008.
• "A last chance for coal: Making carbon capture and storage work," Green Alliance (supported by BP), August 10, 2008.
• NatCarb, NETL's project to create a view of carbon sequestration in the US