Why another ramble now, well some new teak steamers (from sensitively managed forests I assure you, as John Lewis have assured me) and a sunny day finds me sat in the garden. The minute it looks like I’m not doing something constructive I can imagine a long list of gardening chores that require attention. So I have decided to set down my thoughts on Carbon Capture and Storage (“CCS”) before Jean decides I need to repair the greenhouse.
I must admit to having been inspired to do so by a recent talk on the subject by Alastair Rennie of Amec given at the Energy institute in London a couple of weeks ago. The presentation can be found at;
http://www.energyinst.org.uk/content/files/Alastair_Rennie_130509.pdf
It is well worth a quick look. As a director of Teesside Gas Transportation Limited I feel obliged to draw your attention to the slide on Teesside.
When discussing CCS there is a grave danger than you quickly wander of into the world of; “is it needed and surely climate change (a polite way of saying global warming) isn’t real because water vapour is a green house gas and airline con trails contribute to cooling etc. etc.”. Well to avoid you having to read my ramblings on that until another time at least. The whole premise of these particular ramblings is that Carbon Dioxide (“CO2”) is a greenhouse gas and that the levels of it in the atmosphere need to be reduced. Climate change is relevant to CCS because CCS has no way of generating an economic return unless politicians have decided to reward it in some way, either by payment for value of CO2 sequestered or making zero CO2 emissions mandatory for certail (all?) types of power generation (I know some liquid fuel alternatives could also make use of CCS). As we know the politicians are already moving down the path of require cuts in CO2 emmissions, all that is at issue now is the value that can be ascribed to CO2 abatement, a topic for a future ramble no doubt.
As you know, CCS is not my specialist subject and a little antequainted geology (a long time ago that was how I earned a living) can be a dangerous thing, BUT! Yes BUT it does strike me that CCS offers a well proven (yes I did say well proven) technology for removing CO2 from the atmospheric cycle. The technology is proven in terms of transporting and injecting CO2 into depleted (depleting) hydrocarbon reservoirs. All the debate seems to be around what happens if it leaks. I imagine (due to lack of knowledge) that there are the usual doom laden scenrios of CO2 from deep within the earths crust bursting catestrophically to the surface; so not in my back yard please. Well at least where I live the depleted gas fields are out under the North Sea where such a spectacular release can be expected to have less impact. Falling back on my geological upbringings I find it hard to imagine the scenario but I’m sure Hollywood already has several scripts under consideration.
The issue of leakage is a much more mundane concern over gradual leakage over of thousnads of years. The concern is that someone has been paid to store CO2 and hasn’t! Who is to pay for it, how do we get our money back I hear the cry. While this is all very sensible from a legal perspective aren’t we missing the larger picture? Surely if climate change is real then we need to act fast, CCS is one method of acting fast, combined with coal generation it provides reliable and despatchable power generation. An article in the Times last week said we had to start cutting carbon emmissions within the next 6 years! Thats quite close.
The simple geologist in me says as long as we don’t over pressure hydrocarbon reservoirs that have held gas for millions of years the prospects of catastrophic rapid failure or even slow leakage over tens of thousands of years is negligible. We should bite the bullet and get on witth it. If climate chnage is occurring then CO2 reduction now is more important than a bit of leakage in the future. Realisticly the world cannot meet its energy needs in the short term without fossil fuels, CCS is required if generation from fossil fuels is to be carbon neutral. It is the public that is going to pay for the removal of what is now percieved as a public bad. If the risk of future far distant leaks from CCS is placed upon the developers then they will over estimate the risk (well their banks will at least) and the cost of abating CO2 will be higher than if after some appropriate period the risk returns to the public. That period should be of a duration that encourages CCS operators to choose appropriate reservoirs.
Of course if you have gone through Alastair’s presentation you will see that CCS is the most costly form of CO2 mitigation. A couple of observations: Firstly CCS is a quick way of reducing CO2 emissions and we need to ask how much CO2 abatement is needed and how long can we wait. Secondly are the full costs of alternative generation fully understood yet interms of grid enhancements and supply reliability?
Tags: CCS
Great ramble. You gave me a little more confidence in CCS as viable. This will probably be a bit of a ramble too. What strikes me is that we don’t have a a goal and plan because we don’t know or have agreed as a world what is the carbon level we are willing to accept. We are committed now to some level that we can’t stop. That seems to me to be our maximum limit from which we can decide we have to further decrease or not. I would pick a level somewhat lower than the IPCC. From a backcasting standpoint (The Natural Step), we now know the future we want. Increased release of carbon from glacier, pole, and tundra melts would have to be factored into the calculations along with a lot of other things, so we would know the true reduction we need to make. If we then focus on the developed world with India and China in the fray, we can define what is achievable:
-How much solar can truly be deployed and operational each year for ten years?
-How much wind power can truly be deployed and operational each year for ten years?
-How many car miles can new mass transit take out of the mix for each of the next ten years?
-How many car miles can new policies take out of the mix for each of the next ten years, e.g., closing all drive-throughs in the US, no vehicle idling laws worldwide, no speed limits over 55mph, no private air transportation for business and almost all of government officials?
-How much carbon would be reduced through requiring building energy and water use retrofits each year for the next ten years?
-How much of the rainforests can we realistically believe we can protect each year for the next ten years?
-How many trees can we plant each year and what carbon will they sequester each year for ten years?
-Based on new mileage efficiency standards and banning any cars and trucks getting below 20 mpg, how much carbon do we reduce each year over ten years?
-At least in the United States and Europe, how much carbon do we save if we ban construction of all new coal fired plants and nuclear plants?
-Based on banning any lighting except CFC and LED, how much carbon do we save?
-Based on requiring businesses (large and small) to reduce their carbon footprint by 5%/year over 10 years, what do we save?
-Etc. of existing technolgy solutions that can reduce carbon and conserve water.
None of the above, faced with an urgent global problem, seem that difficult to assess, divide into shares and accomplish. They clearly need to go further especially in the US to force us to use and consume less and recycle and save more. Based on these realistic implementation assessments with measurable commitments by each developed country with some level of commitment by China and India to smart growth, how far off the mark are we? Then we add in what carbon sequestration and other carbon strategies can buy us and factor them into arriving at a plan that beats the carbon target we set. One other thing we have to add is energy use growth for the energy impoverished. Developing countries can’t develop unless they have reliable energy. The developed world will have to take a lot more of the share in reductions in addition to giving and enabling renewable energy technology and resources for developing countries.
The IPCC tried to develop a target and get international commitment and the US, under Bush, was no help. The IPCC’s target is too high, the commitments are two weak, the accountability is non-existent, and probably worst of all, the plan does not include real implementation commitments, measurement, and reporting. I have seen lots of plans like Plan B 3.0, but nothing so far that really says this how we the US or we the world are going to make the goal.
I am a big believer in shared, common purpose brings results and what you measure is what you get. I am also very concerned about the realism of some of the ideas out there.
Using an example from a different issue, I am all for healthcare reform. It is important and urgent here in the US. However, I don’t see a systems-thinking approach being applied, no trials of ideas, etc. Our healthcare system has a certain stock (number of labs, hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc.). If overnight or even over a couple of years we add 40% more people to the system, our current system is likely to collapse. It doesn’t have the stock to support that kind of demand on the stock of the system. In fact, just applying some lean principles, like having a lot more Work in Process slows down a system almost exponentially. By blindly adding 40% to the system, it is likely not to function for as many people as it does today. Again, we have not taken a backcasting approach. What is it that we want say five years from now for our healthcare system. I have no problem with a goal of healthcare should be available to every US citizen. I do want it privately run and be a system that supports choices by the patient within a independently vetted set of guidelines. What additional stock has to be put in place to provide a healthcare system that can support 40% more people? It really isn’t so much about insurance coverage as it is a fixing and growing a system that doesn’t work well now and continually experiences cost increases well beyond inflation.
Without defining and agreeing on the future we want, whether in healthcare or related to climate change, we can figure out what realistically can be accomplished then commit and measure those implementation commitments. I don’t think this can start on a world stage however. It has to start here in the US where we have the most to reduce in energy and water consumption. We can’t expect the world to get on board when we haven’t and only just now appearing to take some steps. Congress’ vote that we can’t do anything to support climate change action if it has potential to jeopardize our economy is an example that it wasn’t just Bush that has been out to lunch. We were all out to lunch. Perhaps the economic crisis is the best thing that could have happened to us?! We are spending less, consuming less, more aware of the importance of savings, etc. I hate the greed and fraud that brought it about, but it probably couldn’t have come at a better time for us to reassess how we view the world and ourselves.
I am going to keep demanding real policy and rule changes, as well as implementation plans from all my representatives. I think CCS has to be part of the plan.
Sorry for the long ramble, but was teed off by a response I got from one of my representatives and your positive ramble saved my day.
Debbie