Carbon Dioxide Emission Management in Power Generation. Prof. Lars O. Nord

climate.

      4 Will the CO2 stored in the ground remain there or will it leak out into the atmosphere after a few years?

      5 The CO2 could leak out of the ground and kill people!

      6 Who is responsible in the long term for CO2 stored in the ground?

      7 CCS is a methodology for the rich countries to continue their unsustainable way of life with an excessive use of energy!

      8 In many countries, the challenge is to provide enough electricity, cars, and gasoline for the people. We cannot start CCS before we have developed our society into something closer to what they have in Europe and North America.

      9 History shows that it will not be possible to make strong enough international agreements about CCS and other greenhouse gas emission limitations, so it is a waste of time and resources!

      10 We should rather spend our money and engineering resources on renewable, non-fossil energy sources and technologies!

      11 Some CCS scientists are suggesting use of CO2 to increase the production of oil and thereby putting at least the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere as captured – why should we trust those people?

      12 CCS requires the use of large amounts of chemicals, which will create the problem of handling toxic waste!

      13 CCS requires the use of additional energy and will deplete fossil energy resources faster, resulting in less time to develop new energy sources.

      The following statements could be made in favour of CCS:

      1 The climate is changing and we should do what we can to reduce both the damage and the greenhouse gas emissions, which are a major cause of it!

      2 In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly, CCS is the only realistic alternative to a substantial reduction in the use of fossil energy sources. Such a large reduction in the use of fossil energy sources could take us decades back in the development of our societies.

      3 We have the knowledge, methodologies, and resources to perform large-scale CCS; what are we waiting for?

      4 Underground storage of gases is something we know very well because we are today managing large-scale storage of natural gas.

      5 We have experience with CO2 capture – there are so many plants out there in the chemical industry!

      6 We have experienced with CO2 storage – there are many examples in the oil industry.

      7 When storing CO2 using our best knowledge, the possible leakage rate of CO2 back to the atmosphere is so low that we can hardly measure it!

      8 The rich countries should start CCS projects now to demonstrate to the world that this can actually be done, thereby setting the standard.

      9 If we do not go for large-scale CCS, nuclear energy will be the alternative (Macfarlane and Miller 2007). There could be a lot of nuclear plants, most probably in many countries that do not have them today, and still no adequate long-term waste management, and possibly increased danger of nuclear war and terrorist actions with nuclear weapons and waste!

      10 Large-scale CCS will cost us less than our military spending!

      11 In order to cope with the challenge of man-made climate change, and because of its magnitude, there is no choice between CCS, renewable energy, nuclear energy, and energy conservation; we have to do them all!

1.10 Show-stoppers for CCS Deployment?

      A number of studies have been conducted to find out what people in general (Curry et al. 2005; Itaoka et al. 2005; Uno et al. 2005; Huijts et al. 2007; Tokushige et al. 2007; Bachu 2008) and also what the experts (Gough 2008) think about the possibility and difficulties for the extensive use of CCS. Based on these reports, it seems that technology issues are not what people think will be stopping large-scale CCS from happening. The perceptions of environmental non-government organisations (NGOs) regarding CCS vary considerably. Most NGOs accept the necessity of CO₂ capture and storage in geologic formations, while only a small fraction does not (Wong-Parodi et al. 2008).

      There are two main issues of concern: one is the lack of long-term policy and national and international regulatory frameworks and the other is the likely high and yet uncertain cost. Regulatory frameworks are necessary for commercial operation of CCS, and they are also necessary on an international level in order to create trust in CCS as a large-scale measure for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Van Noorden 2010). One show-stopper could be that some countries take on the burden of CCS, while others do not, and that the latter benefit economically. A policy issue that needs to be addressed is the ownership of the pore space and the competition between storage rights and other mineral rights. Some people fear that CO₂ storage can reduce the economic value of underground structures where coal mining, oil production, or mining of minerals may take place in the future. Another policy issue is long-term (100, 500, and 1000 years) liability. It is not likely that private companies will have the longevity required for the time scale of safe storage of CO₂. In general, industry will not assume an indefinite and undefined risk. For this reason, the current thinking is that, after the active injection period, a closure period should follow where the operator demonstrates the safety of the storage, after which the state will assume long-term liability for the site. A possible complication here is when or if a CCS project is international in the sense that the CO₂ is captured and stored in different countries.

Public acceptance is an issue of major concern, and many people are worried about the storage of CO₂. The ‘not in my backyard’ (NIMBY) syndrome is growing globally, whereby the public in general accepts the technology and its benefits, but the local public does not want to accept the local economic and societal cost resulting from a CO₂ pipeline and storage. In this context, the need to resolve health, safety, and environmental (HSE) issues at an early stage is very important. An incident in the phase of installing and establishing CCS technologies can have a crucial impact on public acceptance and further development.

      The risk of having a major leakage of CO₂ from a pipeline will most probably set a limit on the possibility of transporting CO₂ from a capture plant to a storage site. Sources and sinks of CO₂ do not in general match well (IPCC-CCS 2005), and it will be necessary to have a significant amount of CO₂ transported in pipelines. Assuming large-scale CCS with a larger number of capture plants, it is difficult to avoid transport of CO₂ through densely populated areas. A major leakage from a pipeline is potentially dangerous for humans. Therefore, it is of great importance to understand the human reaction to various extents of CO₂ exposure and, with this knowledge, generate the necessary safety measures. Issues could also arise from the transnational transport of CO₂ because of legal aspects (Leung et al. 2014).

      Leakage of CO₂ from an underground storage site is also of concern. A major leakage from a storage site may irreversibly reduce the credibility of CCS. It is important and also difficult to inform society about the mechanisms of CO₂ storage and CO₂ flow underground and to deal with the risk of leakages, not least, mentally.

      The whole process of CO₂ capture, transport, and storage combines not only existing and well-understood technologies in a new context but also new methods, unknown operating regimes, and quantities. This combination holds a lot of risk for both the separate process steps and the total technology. As for the capture part, these concerns are connected to the maturity of the novel technologies themselves and also with regard to the large scales of CO₂, which need to be captured and stored. Moreover, the assessment of these risks in a cost-efficient and systematic manner is very important. When it comes to transportation, the limited operating experience with CO₂ is a problem, as the standards for existing pipeline transportation cannot easily be transferred one-to-one. The aspect regarding generally consistent guidelines can also be applied to the storage locations. Moreover, monitoring and safety issues regarding the sites, wells, and the injection itself can also be seen as critical points (DNV 2010).

1.11