Climate change is arguably one of our generation’s
most significant problems. 97% of scientists agree that humans have caused climate
change; with the IPCC stating that all of the global warming since 1950 is
human-caused. Our efforts must now turn to how we can prevent the impacts of
this phenomenon from becoming too severe, and carbon capture and storage
(“CCS”) is a promising solution.
It involves capturing the carbon dioxide from power
plant emissions, transporting it through pipeline and then storing it,
generally in geological formations, where it remains. Evidently, this is a
brilliant concept. It has the potential to remove 80-95% of the carbon dioxide
from electric power plants, which will reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by
19%.
CCS also enables coal to remain an important, if not
dominant, source of energy for years to come without heavily damaging the
environment. This will prevent the energy shortages that are threatened if
proposals to build new coal-fired power plants continue to get rejected.
Another benefit of this is that the economic model of
most countries will not have to be as dramatically altered as it would with
other proposed strategies to combat global warming. Naomi Klein, an author and
social activist, claims that the current battle with climate change is a
product of the capitalist economies of many leading nations today. CCS appears
to offer a perfect solution to keep environmentalists and corporate elites
happy.
However, there are limitations to the effectiveness
and possible viability of CCS. Firstly, although storage sites have been
predicted to retain 99% of the carbon dioxide over 1,000 years, the possibility
of leaks remains. In 1986, a release of as much of 1 million tonnes of carbon
dioxide from a crater lake in Cameroon killed 1,700 by asphyxiation. Despite
this being entirely due to natural causes, it demonstrates the potential impact
of human exposure to a leak from storage sites.
Also, due to the fugitive property of carbon dioxide,
it will migrate throughout the pore space of the storage formation. This has
the potential to cause seismic events, as well as polluting aquifers that hold the
water we drink.
Finally, carbon capture and storage is not cost
effective. It requires 10-40% of the energy produced by a power station, which
means fuel consumption will increase by 30%. Estimates are that a carbon price
of US$60 per ton will be required to make CCS competitive, which will increase
the average residential electricity price by 50%.
As a result of this, methods have been proposed to
make CCS more cost effective. Enhanced Oil Recovery involves injecting the
captured carbon dioxide into depleted oil fields, which forces out more oil.
This can be sold, which would bring about net benefits of US$10-16 per tonne. A
new process called bio CCS algal synthesis uses carbon dioxide in the
production of oil-rich algae, which can be used to make oil and, in turn,
plastics or make food for farm animals. Either of these methods enables carbon
capture to be profitable.
A Norwegian company, Statoil, introduced the world’s
first carbon capture and storage project in 1996. It enables the company to avoid
the Norwegian carbon dioxide tax, which would have been NOK 1 million per day,
as well as gaining them carbon dioxide credit for the gas that they inject into
the sandstone storage site. There has been no evidence of carbon dioxide
leakage and no seismic activity. By May 2008, over 10 million tonnes of the gas
had been stored.
 |
| CCS in Norway |
This displays the potential success of CCS if
governments around the world commit themselves to reducing carbon dioxide
emissions. Measures can be taken to avoid the possible risks and drawbacks
associated with the process if economic funding is readily available; and governments
should ensure that it is if the worst impacts of climate change are to be
avoided.
Ella Witts
