I’ve noticed that there seems to be a lot of anti-CCS views being aired on Twitter at the moment, along with some CCS news articles that are factually incorrect (see bottom of this post).
So here is a quick overview of what CCS is and isn’t. I intend to write more detailed blogs discussing these points sometime soon – just need to find the time.
So, what is CCS?
- CCS stands for carbon capture and storage
- CO₂ is captured from energy production and industry. That CO₂ would otherwise end up in the atmosphere and cause global warming.
- The captured CO₂ is permanently* stored deep (2-3 km) underground in pore spaces in the rock.
- CCS is the only feasible way of reducing CO₂ emissions from industry – especially the steel industry, necessary for building wind turbines!
- CCS is a way to reduce CO₂ emissions while we are transitioning from a fossil-fuel to low-carbon energy infrastructure.
- CCS is a fully developed and tested technology.
- CCS is a potential way of getting negative CO₂ emissions – i.e. reducing CO₂ in the atmosphere by combining CCS with burning of biofuels for energy.
- Implementing CCS is cheaper than dealing with the consequences of global warming.
* CO₂ will be stored deep in rocks on the timescale of thousands to millions of years. So technically not “permanently” on a geological timescale, but permanent on a human timescale and easily long enough to buffer global warming.
Now to address some of the misconceptions about CCS.
What CCS is NOT:
- CCS is NOT an excuse to keep burning fossil fuels indefinitely.
- CCS can minimise CO₂ emissions while we transition from a fossil-fuel to a low-carbon energy infrastructure over the next 50-100 years. I do not know anybody working with CCS that thinks it is a long term solution that will let us keep burning fossil fuels.
- CCS is NOT unnecessary for reducing our CO₂ emissions.
- Many reports (including IPCC) show CCS is needed to meet climate targets.
- Existing energy infrastructure cannot yet cope with the intermittency of many forms of renewable energy.
- CCS is currently the only way to reduce industry CO₂ emissions.
- CCS is NOT storing CO₂ in caves / fractures.
- In the vast majority of storage sites, CO₂ is and will be stored in rock pore spaces many kilometres underground. Up to 20% of the volume of a rock can be empty space – think of a box of marbles and the gaps between the marbles. That is where the CO₂ will sit. And the storage rocks are deep, with many impermeably layers on top of them which means the CO₂ will not leak out of the ground.
- CCS is NOT a new, un-tested technology.
- Lots of CCS pilot-projects exist that show CO₂ can be captured at large scale from power plants, and the world’s first CCS power station –Boundary Dam – was opened in Canada last year (2014).
- The storage technology behind CCS has been used for years in the oil industry for something called enhanced oil recovery (EOR) where CO₂ is pumped into an oil field to get more oil out of the ground, and there are lots of storage pilot projects that show that the CO₂ can be injected into deep rocks, without causing earthquakes and without leaking.
So, onto the newspapers that are getting their facts wrong.
On January 6th 2015, The Guardian published this article, including the following paragraph:
“CCS is strongly supported by energy companies like Shell. It involves the sequestration and piping of carbon dioxide into underground fissures and currently aids fossil fuel extraction, as well as allowing their continued burning long into the 21st century.”
Carbon dioxide is NOT pumped into underground fissures! It is injected into pore space in rocks!
Then we have this pleasantly optimistic article in the Irish Times published on January 8th 2015 that contains 2 slip-ups I feel need correcting.
Firstly is this paragraph with similar problems to the Guardian article:
“Statoil has been trying out CCS at its Sleipner natural gas field in the North Sea since 1996. Since then, it has injected some 14 million tons of carbon dioxide into geological caverns and “successfully” proved that it is technically feasible, the company’s Olav Skalmerås said in Bonn.”
There are no caverns in the Sleipner natural gas field. The CO₂ stored in Sleipner (and the natural gas that has been stored in the rocks at Sleipner for thousands to millions of years) exists in the pore spaces between grains in the rock. For more information, see this article by the British Geological Survey.
Next was this paragraph:
“Novel approaches to carbon capture are also being tested. One €8.75 million project in Iceland called CarbFix, which has EU support, involves capturing carbon dioxide from a power station, dissolving it in water and effectively “mineralising” it as basalt for injection into volcanic fields.”
This is a different kind of technology from most CCS storage projects; here the CO₂ is stored by reacting it to make a solid mineral. Maybe I am nit-picking, but “effectively “mineralising” it as a basalt” is incorrect. Basalt is not a mineral – it is a rock (a volcanic rock that forms from lava flows, like the current Bárðabunga / Holohraun / Nornahraun eruption). In this project, basalt is the storage rock that the CO₂ is being injected into. The CO₂ reacts with calcium in the basalt to produce a carbonate mineral called calcite, which should be stable for thousands to millions of years. For more information, see the CarbFix website.