From the UK Energy Research Centre
Carbon capture and storage — new research from UKERC shows tough road ahead to realize potential
Research highlights key challenges for the government’s new CCS strategy
Government plans to develop carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies to reduce carbon emissions received a cautious welcome today. A new report concluded that most of the uncertainties facing these technologies can – in principle – be resolved.
Carbon capture and storage: realising the potential? is the culmination of a two-year project funded by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC). The report assesses the technical, economic, financial and social uncertainties facing CCS technologies, and analyses the role they could play in achieving UK energy policy goals. Its publication today follows the announcement earlier this month of a new long-term strategy for CCS by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, including the re-launch of the UK’s £1 billion competition to develop commercial scale CCS projects.
The report’s lead author, Professor Jim Watson, Director of the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex says:
‘We still don’t know when CCS technologies will be technically proven at full scale, and whether their costs will be competitive with other low-carbon options. So it is vital that the Government’s commitment to these technologies leads to several full scale CCS projects as soon as possible. Only through such learning by doing will we know whether CCS is a serious option for the future, and how the technical, economic and legal uncertainties currently facing investors can be overcome’
The report draws lessons from history, and concludes that previous technologies have faced similar challenges to those affecting CCS technologies today. In the past, such uncertainties have been resolved sufficiently for these technologies to succeed. While care is needed when learning from history, the findings offer some optimism that, given the right actions by government and industry, the uncertainties surrounding CCS can also be dealt with.
But even if rapid progress is made with the UK’s re-launched demonstration programme, which aims to have CCS plants operational later this decade, difficult choices will remain for government and other decision makers, say the authors. The report identifies four key areas where such choices need to be made:
- Deciding whether to keep options open, or close them down. The French government focused on one technological variety early on for its nuclear programme. Doing this for CCS may help speed up development, but there is a risk of picking inferior technology. The authors caution that it is too early for government and industry to close down on a particular variant of CCS technology. They welcome the plans for several substantial demonstration projects which will help to identify which variants of CCS technology can be scaled up successfully.
- Designing financial support for effective CCS demonstration and deployment. A regulatory approach that makes CCS compulsory for all fossil plants will only work if the technology is more advanced, and the additional costs can be passed onto consumers. CCS technologies are not yet at this stage. In the mean time, the government should ensure that industry maximises efficiency and minimises costs of new CCS plants. History shows that not all demonstrations will perform as expected, and government should ensure that lessons are learned from successes and failures.
- CCS deployment is a marathon, not a sprint. Developing new energy technologies can take a long time, and the process is often far from smooth. The report shows that costs do not necessarily fall in the way supporters hope – and can rise for several years before they come down, as technologies are scaled up. This requires patience. Government also needs to ensure it has an independent capability to assess costs to inform future decisions about whether to continue with public funding for CCS or to divert resources to other low carbon options.
- Dealing with storage liabilities. The report shows highlights lessons from UK nuclear waste management policy to show how complex liability arrangements for CO2 storage could be. For CCS, a balance needs to be struck between limiting liabilities for investors and protecting the interests of future taxpayers. Agreements will be needed on where this balance should lie, and what arrangements are needed to fund and insure against potential liabilities.
Professor Watson comments:
‘It will be vital to keep options open in the government’s CCS commercialisation programme. Whilst it is welcome that the government has learned from the mistakes of the past, and now plans to support a number of CCS technologies, there is a long way to go before CCS is a reality at full scale. Complex negotiations with industry lie ahead. As the National Audit Office argued recently, such negotiations require substantial capacity and skills within government to bring such negotiations to a successful conclusion.’
Copies of the report (strictly embargoed until 00.01 am on Thursday 19 April) are available for download at http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-index.php?page=ES_RP_SystemsCCS. The working papers, relating to the historical case studies referred to in the final report, are already available for download on this page, as is a UKERC Policy Insight Paper on carbon capture and storage, offering a summary of the key issues around the technology.
Let’s just change all municipal drinking water to soda water. There! Problem solved! 🙂
OK – this is really stupid, kind of like saying “the science is settled”.
If you have a very large source of CO2, like a hydrogen plant, it produces almost-pure CO2 as a by-product. Just capturing and compressing the CO2 costs about $150 per Tonne according to studies I’ve seen. Transporting the CO2 to a depleted oilfield or other disposal site and pumping it down the hole into a permeable formation would cost considerably more. I’ve also seen lower numbers quoted, totaling as low as $60 per Tonne, but wonder if they are current or credible.
Before the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) CO2-offset market collapsed, you could buy CO2 credits for 5-10 cents per Tonne. Does anyone else see a mismatch here?
There may be a market for some CO2 in enhanced recovery from depleted oilfields. Other than that, it’s just a huge cost that could easily double your electric power bill – unless my brilliant idea of carbonated municipal drinking water really takes off.
Carbon dioxide is released when we burn stuff. Now we are going to burn more stuff to ‘purify’ the carbon dioxide before we bury it. However inefficient the first burning was, the second burning will square it!
Ya know, there’s a very cheap and efficient carbon sequestration system already available. It is called the atmosphere. Sure, some of it leaches out into the biosphere and causes increased crop yields, but we can balance that by planting less crops. Well, that would leave things like forests growing faster, but we could easily chop them down faster if we wanted. Put a subsidy on house building using wood and problem solved.
If a thing’s not worth doing at all, it’s not worth doing however well. CCS is the perfect example.
Andi Cockroft says:
April 18, 2012 at 9:18 pm
“However, you could use unreliable and ad hoc “renewables” to power CO2->Carbon conversion when such power is available, then burn that carbon as needed to provide power on demand. ”
This German company turns wind/solar power into Methane and builds a pilot plant for Audi, to be ready in 2013.
http://www.solar-fuel.net/en/the-challenge
Don’t know about the economics.
Adding to the cost would be the necessity of designing (engineering) leak proof containment to prevent CO2 seeping out and smothering everything around.
Every cent spent on CCS increases the costs of energy generation. Which is the real goal.
__
Bill Tuttle;
We’re offsetting opposites. My hair thinned by age 40, but I have no grey or white hair at age 65 (other than facial hair, which is optional).
DirkH says: April 19, 2012 at 12:32 am
This German company turns wind/solar power into Methane and builds a pilot plant for Audi, to be ready in 2013.
http://www.solar-fuel.net/en/the-challenge
Don’t know about the economics.
_________
Interesting scheme, but I suggest the economics will be quite unattractive.
Economics will improve (but still could remain unattractive) if you give zero value to the wind power, which is actually just about what it is worth.
Pumping CO2 into oil and gas wells under the sea is illegal under international law: essentially dumping toxic waste (well, the greenies think CO2 is toxic!) at sea.
Then of course the CO2 will come back out again. Ships tend to sink if they try to float in soda water!
Brian — my old battalion’s Sergeant-Major used to say, “Better gray than nay” — but he shaved his head, nonetheless…
It has all already been said here.
So I will just summarise:
Category: Goofy, greenie ideas,
Sub Category: Pointless, expensive, stupid and impractical.
Prize: First
The crops in the northern hemisphere over the coming decades may be depleted badly over the coming decades by some cooler weather. Now is the time to grow hugely excessive crops of barley and hops.
This would achieve many goals even green ones. Beer in those cold decades will become a luxury unless we brew it now, for massive carbon capture and storage. The need for huge quantities of stainless steel containers would ensure mining and manufacturing jobs.
The brewers would qualify for huge subsidies in carbon capture and would run at a profit without selling beer. This is a win win situation, the beer sold in the future decades would ensure some huge profits. A beer futures prospectus will be available soon.
I was goint to say that we need’nt worry, because this nonsense will never work.
But then I thought that it is not the point – the point is money and power appropriation, by using some scientifically sounding excuse. So, yes, I feel sorry for the £1Bn totally wasted.
Perhaps we can inject waste co2 into fraccing wells….
I must admit that when out in the surf, there certainly seems to be a LOT less oxygen than when I was younger..
As I’m still in peak condition (lol) the increase in CO2 can be the only explanation !!
Wish I was a plant, then I’d be really happy !!
Real environmentalists LUV CO2 because they know it does only good !!!
An extraordinary popular delusion is further fuelled.
CCS is right up there with geoengineering for its stark-raving insanity.
Bill;
I wasn’t clear; I still have hair, just thinned somewhat. No areas of “nay”. Whiskers are a mix of dark, grey, and white; I’m currently showing them, though the dramatic effect that has on people’s assumptions about my degree of elderhood may cause me to go bareface again soon ….
We have a CCS process. The technology has been around for years. If you want to buy a bottle of co2 just go to your local hardware store. They are available in 10lb, 15lb and 20lb containers. They are red with a black handle and hose. They are called a ABC Fire Extinguisher.
Picture this: next to a coal fired power plant build a huge plant pulling co2 out of the atmosphere, storing it in a huge red container with a black handle with a hose going underground. While we are at it. The Governments/UN, in all its wisdom, could mandate that everyone on the planet carry a 15lb Fire Extinguisher at all times. All new and remodeled buildings must have a 1000lb Co2 fire extinguisher system for every 1000 cubic ft of area. All paid for by the taxpayer creating useless jobs for a useless problem.
Combustion of pulverised fuel (coal) in oxygen would lead to a reduced flue gas flow and booster/compressor power consumption but would lead to very high flame temperatures in the combustion zone. The boiler tubes and refractories would have be special to deal with the high heat flux. Clearly CCS would not just be a booster bolt on to a conventional boiler plant but would require a completely new steam generation system. The power consumed transporting the CO2 enhanced flue gas to storage beneath the seabed and in separating N2 from air initially would still be very high probably requiring the output from an additional power station and so on ad infinitum. As CO2 does not cause global warming the whole excercise is completely unnecessary.
“And the additional costs can be passed onto consumers”
Tells you all you need to know…
plant a f*ckin tree
Going on from Lord Haw Haw at 3:13, seriously, grow stuff (anything), turn it into charcoal and give it to the farmers. Once they get the hang of it they might even buy it. Farmers being farmers tho, that is of course very doubtful ;-D
Look up ‘biochar’ – its a win win win, except for university types and other rent seekers simply because it is so lo-tech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar
http://www.biochar-international.org/
Carbon capture is a great way to waste fuel and thereby drive prices up in an already strained market. Hopefully the economic damage is not severe enough to prevent an adequate response to natural disasters in the future.
I’ve concluded that I’ve had no actual hair loss but that increased CO2 has merely caused it to grow backwards into my brain and out my ears and nose. It explains everything including memory loss and a substantial discount at the barber shop…