Carbon Capture and Storage

Besides the renewable energy technologies, nuclear power and energy efficiency programs, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is one of the most promising concrete options to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, especially in short term (Bosetti et al. 2009, 128). Since the fossil fuel energy sources are still going to be used during the transformation process towards the low carbon future, it will be necessary to deploy CCS technologies on a large scale. This is especially important with respect of the heavy impact upon the environment of coal-fired power plants. The climate change requires urgent actions and at the moment it does not seem to be likely that the decrease of the share of the fossil fuels in the world energy supply would be rapid enough to reduce the 𝐶𝑂₂ emissions to the required level before the year 2050. In order to keep the overall balance, it seems to be a necessity to capture and store at least a fraction of the 𝐶𝑂₂ released by the fossil fuels (Rojey 2009, 105.)

There are different means to reduce 𝐶𝑂₂ emissions produced by combustion. According to Rojey (2009, 105-106) the possible options are:

 carbon sinks,

 geological storage,

 ocean storage,

 reacting 𝐶𝑂₂ with a basic rock and

 carbon recycling.

Some of these options, like for example ocean storage, are still considered to be too risky to carry out or they might be too far away from the realization but at least some of them have already become an industrial reality (Rojey 2009, 105.) Especially geological storage has been widely acknowledged lately and it has been considered to have a great potential of storing large amounts of 𝐶𝑂₂ underground (Rojey 2009, 107). Therefore, I am going to focus on the geological storage in the upcoming discussion.

Carbon capture and geological storage is a way to implement artificial carbon sinks by storing large amounts of 𝐶𝑂₂ underground (Rojey 2009, 107). Capture of 𝐶𝑂₂ can be most successfully applied to large carbon point sources that includes coal-, gas- or biomass-fired electric power-generation facilities, major energy-using industries, synthetic fuel plants, natural gas fields and chemical facilities for producing for instance cement. According to IPCCs Climate Change report 2007, injection of 𝐶𝑂₂ in suitable geological reservoirs might lead to a permanent storage. It is the most mature storage method and there are several commercial projects already in operation. However, there are several uncertainties remaining including technologies, anticipating climate impacts and governmental

incentives (IPCC 2007, 285.)

With present technologies, carbon capture and storage is still relatively expensive

(TemaNord 2007, 11). Especially on the supply side, a significant issue is the 𝐶𝑂₂ capture cost which is remarkably high at the moment. The cost could be reduced through learning by doing and economics of scale, which would require number of full-scale facilities to be built. Additionally, there is potential to reduce the cost through technology development by developing new and more efficient technologies. All of these measures would most likely require the governmental involvement, which would most likely provide more promising future for the CCS development. If the governments would agree that the development of CCS technologies would offer strategic value, they might subsidize demonstration

facilities and deployment of these technologies. This would make CCS technologies far more competitive for example against the other mitigation options (TemaNord 2007, 18.) The other uncertainty concerns the environmental aspects of the CCS technologies. The possible leakages of 𝐶𝑂₂ from storage sites or transportation, has an effect on the

effectiveness of CCS as a climate policy measure. These leakages that may occur in due to the explosions, earthquakes, equipment failure et cetera, might cause local effects on ecosystems and human health. The more likely smaller leakage would be gradual seepage from storage sites through for example boreholes. However, the knowledge about the likelihood of leakages from geological storage sites is still limited. Similarly, the climate consequences of leakages are not well examined and because of this, the further research work will be needed (TemaNord 2007, 19 - 20.)

Despite the uncertainties, the IEA indicates that CCS is an essential part of the new

technologies that are needed in terms of achieving substantial GHG emission reduction in a cost-effective manner. According to them, this technology could account almost 20 percent of the emission reductions required to cut the GHG emissions from energy use in half before the year 2050. This is if the governments would commit on supporting the required policies. However, in spite of this huge potential, there are still some considerable doubts remaining regarding the role that the CCS technologies should have in the future energy policies (IEA 2012, 6.)

The required CCS policies should be directed to address the creation of new markets, market barriers and failures, and promotion and regulation of infrastructure. In this

situation, the role of the overall policy architecture and the right kind of selection of policy instruments are crucial. According to IEA, the policy architecture refers to the overall policy framework and it includes various policy instruments which should be designed to respond to the policy objectives over time. These types of governmental instruments would have a chance to improve the competitiveness of the CCS technologies in a market

environment (IEA 2012, 6.) This would however require political will and shift in public attitudes.

In any case, carbon capture and storage technology has a great potential to contribute to the reduction of 𝐶𝑂₂ emissions in the future. The technology has been typically seen as a

“transition technology”, to be used during the period when fossil fuels will still have a big

role in the energy supply. However, in order to harness this potential, the intensification of research and development activities aimed at lowering the costs and securing the long term safety of geological storage, is mandatory. Additionally, the effective regulatory

framework and flexible policies in national and international level will be needed in terms of succeeding (Rojey 2009, 118.)