Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been lauded as offering a solution that provides the best of both worlds: a way to continue to use coal for energy generation while reducing carbon dioxide emissions. So how close are we to seeing CCS deployed in a meaningful way?
Not much, says Ayaka Jones, an associate with CERA, an IHS company. “There has been progress, but I really haven’t seen any significant change.”
In fact, the situation hasn’t changed much since Jones authored a paper on the topic last year. In Carbon Capture and Storage: Early Adoption by 2020, she wrote, “Sustained progress has been made in carbon capture and storage (CCS) development in the past few years, but fundamental breakthroughs toward commercialization have not occurred. CCS still has a long way to go to be commercialized, facing high uncertainties in the feasibility of the technologies, public acceptance, and legislative and regulatory framework for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and storage issues.”
Pressure may be mounting, however, that could help push CCS forward. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, signed by President Obama on February 17, has set aside $3.4 billion for CCS, including research and demonstration of its viability. Some that money may be used to jump-start the FutureGen project, a utility-scale CCS public-private project that was cancelled last year by the Department of Energy after construction and operations cost estimates climbed to $1.8 billion.
Still, $3.4 billion is a drop in the bucket when it comes to CCS, and FutureGen is only one project. Much more needs to happen before CCS can be considered viable, such as a utility-scale integrated demonstration of carbon dioxide capture, transportation and storage. While FutureGen offers this possibility, the effects of its CCS operations need to be studied for a number of years. This is because the effects of the long-term cumulative injection of large amounts of carbon dioxide underground are unclear.
“The average 500 megawatt coal plant emits approximately 3 million to 4 million tons of carbon dioxide a year. This means that billions of tons of carbon dioxide from coal power plants would need to be injected underground over time if we are to achieve meaningful reduction of CO2 emissions,” Jones explains. “It is impossible to determine the long-term impact of the cumulative injection on the environment without first studying the effects of a demonstration project for a number of years.”
Another issue is the lack of a comprehensive regulatory and legal framework associated with CCS. For example, if carbon dioxide is kept underground and starts leaking, who is responsible? Few states or countries have made that determination. However, in February, the Wyoming legislature passed a law stating it was the responsibility of the company that stored the carbon.
“That’s the kind of thing we’re watching for,” says Jones. She goes on to explain: “If you want to stimulate the private sector to participate in the cost sharing [with the government for CCS], you need to specify all these legal issues so that they can do the risk analysis and management.”
Besides liability issues, CCS is hindered by another problem: a lack of public acceptance. Some people are understandably nervous about the idea of storing billions of tons of carbon dioxide under their feet, while others argue that rather than spend the money on a largely unproven and expensive technology, it would be better spent on expanding the use of renewables that don’t cause carbon dioxide emissions in the first place.
Despite these challenges, Jones believes CCS has a future. She foresees widespread use of CCS won’t happen for some time, though. According to Jones and the analysts at CERA, the best case scenario will be for early adoption of CCS at commercial-scale fossil fuel plants to occur around 2020.
As Jones points out, the world has too much invested in coal not to at least investigate the possibilities of CCS. “We have such a big coal industry and so many jobs related to this. … In my view, it’s worth trying at least a couple of integrated projects because this will really decide coal’s future if we’re determined to tackle the climate change issues. Before we decide whether we should walk away from such a huge resource or not, we at least need to be clear if this is an option.”