AT: Renewables Tradeoff DA CCS Key; Link Turn

Renewables alone fail without CCS Future Timeline 12

A way to reverse global warming study finds room to store CO2 underground, http://futuretimeline.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/a-way-toreverse-global-warming-study-finds-room-to-store-co2-underground/ A new study by researchers at MIT shows that there is enough capacity in deep saline aquifers in the USA to store at least a centurys worth of carbon dioxide emissions from the nations coal-fired powerplants. Though questions remain about the economics of systems to capture and store such gases, this study addresses a major issue that has overshadowed such proposals. Coal-burning powerplants account for about 40 percent of global carbon emissions, so climate change will not be addressed unless we address CO2 emiss ions from coal plants, says Ruben Juanes, the ARCO Associate Professor in Energy Studies in the Department of Civil and Env ironmental Engineering. We should do many different things such as developing new and cleaner alternatives, he says, but one

thing thats not going away is coal, because its such a cheap and widely available source of power. Efforts to curb greenhouse gases have largely focused on the search for practical, economical sources of clean energy, such as wind or solar power. But human CO2 emissions are now so vast that many analysts think its unlikely that these technologies alone can solve the problem. Some have proposed
methods for capturing fossil fuel emissions, then compressing and storing them in deep geological formations. This approach is known as carbon capture and storage, or CCS. One of the most promising places to store the gas is in deep saline aquifers: those more than half a mile underground, far below the freshwater sources used for human consumption and agriculture. But estimates of the capacity of such formations in the USA have ranged from enough to store just a few years worth of emissions up to many thousands of years worth. The reason for this huge disparity in estimates is two-fold. Firstly, because deep saline aquifers have no commercial value, there has been little exploration to determine their extent. Secondly, the fluid dynamics of how concentrated, liquefied carbon dioxide would spread through such formations is very complex and hard to model. Most analyses have simply estimated the overall volume of the formations, without considering the dynamics of how the CO2 would infiltrate them. The MIT team modelled how the carbon dioxide would percolate through the rock accounting not only for the ultimate capacity of the formations, but the rate of injection that could be sustained over time. The key is capturing the essential physics of the problem, says graduate student Michael Szulczewski, but simplifying it enough so it could be applied to the entire country. That meant looking at trapping mechanisms in the porous rock at a scale of microns, then applying that knowledge to formations spanning hundreds of miles. When liquefied CO2 is dissolved in salty water, the resulting fluid is denser than either of the constituents, so it naturally sinks. Its a slow process, but once t he carbon dioxide is dissolved, youve won the game, Juanes says, because the dense, heavy mixture would never escape back into the atmosphere. While this study did not address the cost of CCS systems, many analysts have concluded that they could add 15 to 30 percent to the cost of coal-generated electricity, and would not be viable unless a carbon tax or a limit on carbon emissions was put in place. While uncertainties remain, I really think CCS has a role to play, Juanes says. Its not an ultimate salvation its

a bridge may be essential because it can really address the emissions from coal and natural gas.

but it

Renewables alone fail Van Engelen 9 [Angelique van Engelen, Freelance writer, BA in Journalism Carbon Capture And Storage: Solution or Boondoggle
The Pros And Cons. July 16th, 2009 http://globalwarmingisreal.com/2009/07/16/carbon-capture-and-storage-the-pros-and-cons/] Washington Times journalist Amanda DeBard recently wrote an alarming article warning that the new US government is potentially wasting lots of money on projects to capture carbon from coal fired power plants. The paper suggests theres no proof that the new technology and the changes to the fuel industry will make even the slightest difference in the time frame envisaged. The author casts serious doubts on the viability of the US governments $3.4 billion investment in carbon capturing and storage (CCS) technology. Expensive, small-scale pilot projects are under way [to] capture carbon dioxide before it is released into the air from coal-burning power plants. But these prototypes have not been proved at levels that would make even a dent in the U.S. appetite for fossil fuels, casting doubt on the viability of the presidents plans. Still, the administration continues to promote policies that assume that the se pilot programs will soon become large-scale projects and is seeking funds to bring that day closer, the newspaper reports. Experts are quoted saying that true costs are involved that no one nows as yet and that this is extremely risky. Its promoting a vision that no one knows what the true cost will be and [whether] these technologies will succeed on a large scale, the newspaper quoted Bryan K. Mig none as saying, who is a climate and energy analyst at the Brookings Institution. So what to make of these allegations? Lets focus on the carbon capturing and storage part. Is CCS a waste of money that will never make it in time? DeBard apparently made little effort to find out exactly what prototype plants are already out there and what the strengths and weaknesses of CCS really boil down to. The article focuses on the political side of things and in my view is totally disconnected with whats going on on the ground. Before ass erting that there might be negative effects associated (the true cost) with carbon capturing technolo gy, the writer might have done best to seek out the factors determining these true costs. A few quick facts about CCS: The International Energy Agency (IEA)

estimates that globally, over 200 power plants need CCS technology in the next twenty years (by 2030), in order to prevent temperature rises of over 3C. As we previously reported, research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) suggests that carbon sequestering can reduce human generated CO2 to 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. Only four power plants and/or carbon storage projects utilize CCS as
yet: Canadas Weyburn-Midale CO2 Project is currently the worlds largest geologic carbon storage project, located in southeastern

Saskatchewan and started in 2000. ExxonMobil/Statoils Sleipner plant in Norway is the worlds oldest project. It stores carbon injects carbon 1,000 meters below the seabed into a sandstone aquifer. It has been operational since 1995. The 30 megawatt pilot plant at Schwarze Pumpe in Germany, opened last year. The trial plant is operated by Swedish utility Vattenfall and burns its fuel at 42% efficiency with a target to increase that to as high as 50-55%. Another Statoil project in the Snhvit gas field, in the Barents Sea, stores 700,000 tonnes per year, equivalent to 330,000 cars with average CO2 emissions of 160g/km and annual driving distance of 15,000 kms. The main problem preventing large scale CCS adoption by power plants is that the technology is very expensive and largely unproven. Lobbyists say that ultimately the costs will as a matter of course decrease as we get experience, but the lack of precedent is again a deterrent to true belief. All this leads to something of a chicken or egg argument in political and policy circles. The cos ts of CCS arise mainly because the process of capturing the carbon and compressing it requires a lot of extra power. Engineers estimate that power plants require up to 25% more power when they are fitted with CCS. They also need considerably more facility space. Using the carbon dioxide rather than compressing it in energy intensive ways and burying it underground makes a lot of environmental sense. It also circumvents the danger that the carbon might leak and make its way back into the atmosphere. The International Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that risks are comparable to those associated with current hydrocarbon activity. CO2 could be trapped for millions of years, the IPCC believes, with retention rates of over 99% over 1000 years. Greenpeace objects, however, that if 1 percent of the carbon leaks, the next 100 years
would see the evaporation of 63% of the stored carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It also highlights the dangers of the carbon permeating the storage shelter over time. The US is spending $3.4 billion on the technology. The California Public Utilities Commission recently endorsed a feasibility study by South California Edison into building a utility-scale base-load power plant. The plan is to power the plant with hydrogen derived through gasification of petroleum coke, coal and possibly biomass. In the US, oil companies could be a big part of the CCS solution. They tend to use carbon dioxide for oil and gas exploration. For instance, Exxon Mobils La Bar ge, Wyoming facility is the worlds biggest CCS operation. Rather than storing the carbon, it transports the carbon dioxide 3,600 miles (5,800 kms) to gas and oil exploration sites. The worlds biggest CCS enabled power plant, the Dakota

Gasification Company plant in Beulah, North Dakota captures its CO2 for use in advanced oil field recovery in Weyburn Canada. The company produces methane from coal and has a track record of more than 30 years. Further plans are to use around 1.5 million tonnes of CO2 from Weyburn every year for oil recovery. Duke Energy is currently constructing a plant in Indiana based on coalgasification that promises to reduce emissions by 75% compared to the conventional coal plant it replaces. Its an example of one of the clean coal technologies favoured by the incoming Obama administration, says Eugene Bukoveczky, a stock analyst at Forbes Investopedia. However, the construction costs were almost
double the original estimates, at $2.35 billion. Bukoveczky believes that future federal carbon regulations are another major deterrent for the time being for companies to execute similar plans. The European Union government in Brussels ordered all its member countries last year to invent their own rules for CCS within the next two years. Individual countries must select storage sites and come up with standards for monitoring, safety and finance structures. At the moment, nine European countries ( Norway, Germany, France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Hungary. Poland, Croatia and Denmark) are investing 81 million (about $105 million US) in buil ding fifteen research laboratories for CO2 capture and storage. A major weak point for CCS globally is that Kyoto does not recognize it. That means that poor countries wanting to submit CCS plans in order to participate in the carbon trading scheme can not do so. However, some effort went underway last April to change this. No matter what the risks are of future leakages and the costs involved in CCS, I believe that so long as it is possible to capture carbon from power plants running on coal, we should do this as

best we can. Even if it means partial solutions are deployed. The only way to end the worlds worst pollution drama right now is to try to end it with all means available. There is no way that alternative energy such as wind or solar power is going to be adopted to such an extent that ordinary power plants will be closing down in the near future. Meanwhile, every day the smoke stacks emit carbon dioxide is one too many . The interim measures at power plants themselves might be simply non-existent,
but already smaller inventors are producing a host of commercial applications for CO2 based products, ranging from cement to algae, to plastics. Even if we capture the carbon for transport at a later date, that justifies the start of CCS (with the storage part simply left out or turned into a commercial/financing opportunity). The economic incentive for power plants to quit coal altogether is only strong if the economy thrives. Before the first half of 2008, the price of coal doubled due to massive international demand. Now that the economy is in the doldrums, theres less of a reason to quit coal in the minds of the energy barons. Prices have returned to normal levels which reflect the abundance of coal myth. In the future, coal prices might not only climb up a gain but analysts also expect coal to become more expensive as cap and trade laws or a carbon tax are passed. So yes, the true cost of CCS is still an unknown variable. But one that is pretty much dependent on something weve known for a while; continuing as usual is a risk we certainly cant afford. And there are alternatives whether you like it or not!