Energy and the New Reality, Volume 2:

C-Free Energy Supply

Chapter 9: Carbon capture and storage

L. D. Danny Harvey
harvey@geog.utoronto.ca

Publisher: Earthscan, UK
Homepage: www.earthscan.co.uk/?tabid=101808

This material is intended for use in lectures, presentations and as

handouts to students, and is provided in Powerpoint format so as to
allow customization for the individual needs of course instructors.
Permission of the author and publisher is required for any other usage.
Please see www.earthscan.co.uk for contact details.
 Sequence of options:
Capture and burial of CO2 from:
• Coal powerplants - why bother?
• Natural gas powerplants – if still used to complement wind
and solar
• Concentrated industrial sources that are hard to displace
otherwise
• Biomass combustion – to create negative emissions
• The atmosphere – after emissions have been eliminated, to
begin drawing down atmospheric CO2
• The atmosphere, and combined with H2 produced
electrolytically from renewable electricity to make synthetic
“natural” gas – to use in the existing natural gas distribution
network for heating of buildings
 Outline
• Sources of CO2 for capture
• Capture techniques
• Energy penalties
• Compression or liquefaction
• Disposal sites
• Environmental, safety and legal issues
• Timing
• Strategic considerations
 Context:
In many scenarios of how fossil fuel CO2
emissions might be eliminated this century,
heavy reliance is placed on shifting
transportation and heating to electricity
combined with C capture and storage -
essentially allowing substantial continuation of
fossil fuels (along with substantial renewable
and nuclear energy and some efficiency
improvements in the use of energy to reduce
demand)
 Definitions:
• Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) refers to the capture
and disposal of CO2 released from industrial processes
• This has also been referred to as Carbon Sequestration,
but this term has also been applied to the removal of
CO2 from the atmosphere through the buildup of
biomass (above-ground vegetation) and/or soil carbon
• CCS involving burial of captured CO2 in geological strata
(either on land or under the sea bed), shall be referred to
here as geological carbon sequestration, while buildup of
soil or plant C shall be referred to as biological carbon
sequestration
CO2 is easiest to capture when both the
concentration and absolute partial
pressure are large
 Table 9.1 Properties of gas streams

Source: Gale et al (2005, ‘Sources of CO2’, in IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture
and Storage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK)
 Figure 9.1 A chemical solvent-based plant that captures
a mere 200 tCO2/day

Source: Thambimuthu et al (2005, IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK)
All of the stationary CO2 sources worldwide of 0.1
MtCO2/yr or more account for about 54% of total
world CO2 emissions (see Table 9.2)
 Options for capture of CO2 from fossil
fuel powerplants:

• From the flue gases after normal combustion of fuel in air

• From the flue gases after combustion of fuel in pure
oxygen (oxyfuel methods in Table 9.3)
• Prior to combustion, during the gasification of coal for
IGCC (Integrated gasification-combined cycle)
powerplants
• During the operation of fuel cells using fossil fuels
Processes for separating CO2 from other
gases (applicable to capture after
combustion in air or during gasification)
• Absorption
- chemical (if low CO2 concentration)
(MEA is a common solvent)
- physical (if high CO2 concentration)
(Selexol is a common solvent)
• Adsorption
• Membrane-based separation
• Liquefaction
 Energy is required
• Chemical solvents require heat to drive off the CO2 (in
concentrated form) and regenerate the solvent
• Physical solvents require heat or a pressure drop for
regeneration
• Adsorbants require heat or a pressure drop for regeneration
• Membrane systems require electrical energy to maintain a
high P on one side of the membrane
• Liquefaction requires cooling the exhaust gas to as low as ~
220 K
 Combustion in oxygen

• The only gases produced are CO2 and water

vapour
• Pure CO2 is produced by cooling the gas enough
to condense out the water vapour (giving 96%
CO2) followed by distillation if desired
• Energy is required to separate O2 from air in
liquid form (usually by cooling the air to 89 K, at
which point O2 condenses as a liquid)
 IGCC (Integrated Gasification-
Combined Cycle) for coal powerplants
• Involves converting the coal to CO2, CO, and H2 by
heating it in 95% oxygen
• The CO can be reacted with steam to produce more CO2
and H2
• The resulting stream is almost completely CO2 and H2,
and the CO2 is easily removed prior to combustion of the
H2
• Conversely, CO and H2 can be fed to the turbine, burned
in air, and the CO2 removed after combustion using a
chemical solvent
• Finally, CO and H2 can be fed to the turbine, burned in
pure O2, and the CO2 separated by condensing the water
vapour that is produced from combustion of the H2
 All methods of CO2 capture involve
an energy penalty
• Capture after combustion in air requires either a physical
or chemical solvent that absorbs the CO2 but which
needs to be regenerated using heat, or uses membranes
but requires ~ 15% of the powerplant output to create
high pressures
• Capture after combustion in oxygen is easy (only H2O
and CO2 are produced), but energy is required to
separate oxygen from air (cryogenically)
• Capture during gasification of coal or during operation of
fuel cells entails a very small penalty (a few % at most)
Efficiency Penalties & Costs
 Costs, fraction of CO2 captured, and efficiencies in
generating electricity with and with C capture

Source: Rubin et al. (2015, Int. J GHG control 40:378-400)

 Taking advance coal powerplants
as an example

• the efficiency in generating electricity is 42%

without CO2 capture, and 32% with CO2 capture
• Since the amount of coal needed to generate a
unit of electricity varies with 1/efficiency, the
ratio of coal use (with capture/without capture) is
42/32=1.31
• Thus, 31% more coal is needed with CO2
capture compared to without
 Cost and capacity factor (CF)
comparisons
• Coal: $2500-4000/kW without C capture
$4000-5000/kW with C capture
• Onshore wind: $1000-1600/kW, 15-25% CF
• Offshore wind: $2000-5000/kW, 25-50% CF
• Floating offshore wind: $4000-5000/kW
• PV: $2000-4000/kW (today), 15-25% CF
• CSTP: $3000-9000/kW today
• $2000-3000/kW future, 25-85% CF
Effective CO2 Capture Fraction

Because of the efficiency penalty, more fuel is

needed to produce the same amount of electricity,
and the effective CO2 capture fraction is reduced

For example, if 80% of the CO2 in the exhaust is

captured but the efficiency of the powerplant drops
from 40% to 35%, then 40/35=1.143 times as
much fuel is required. The CO2 emission is thus
0.2 x 1.143 = 0.229, so the effective capture
fraction is only 77.1% (1.0-0.229)
Pilot Projects: A proposed 450-MW IGCC powerplant with
carbon capture in Saskatchewan was abandoned after
estimated costs ballooned from Cdn$3778/kW to
Cdn$8444/kW.

The US DOE FutureGen project (a 275-MW IGCC plant

that would co-produce electricity and hydrogen) was
cancelled around 2007 after projected costs rose from
$3250/kW to $6500/kW (Obama re-instated the project).
At COP24 (the 24th meeting of the Conference of Parties to the UN Climate
Change Convention), in Bonn in November 2017, 23 governments and
additional businesses, lead by Canada and the UK, formed the “Powering
Past Coal Coalition” and agreed to the following:

“Government partners commit to phasing out existing traditional coal

power and placing a moratorium on any new traditional coal power stations
without operational carbon capture and storage, within our jurisdictions.

Business and other non-government partners commit to powering their

operations without coal.

All partners commit to supporting clean power through their policies

(whether public or corporate, as appropriate) and investments and
restricting financing for traditional coal power stations without operational
carbon capture and storage.”
The governments involved are:

Alberta, Angola, Austria

Belgium, British Columbia
Canada, Costa Rica
Denmark, El Salvador
Fiji, Finland, France
Italy, Luxembourg
Marshall Islands, Mexico
Netherlands, New Zealand
Niue, Ontario, Oregon
Portugal, Québec
Switzerland, United Kingdom
Vancouver, Washington
Note that the declaration bans coal unless it has CCS – but
even without CCS, coal powerplants are now more
expensive than onshore wind and PV, and not much less
expensive than offshore wind and CSTP. With CCS, coal
powerplants are even more expensive. So, effectively, this
means an end of coal for electricity among the participating
countries.

The hope was expressed by the original partners that, by

COP25 (in 2018), 50 partners will have signed on.
Use of biomass with CCS to
create negative CO2
emissions
BECCS – Biomass Energy-Carbon Capture and Storage

Source: Kemper (2015, Int J. GHG Control 40:401-430)

Capturing CO2 from biomass powerplants

The most efficient method of producing electricity

from biomass is through biomass integrated
gasification combined cycle (BIGCC), a technology
that is still under development

Gasification of biomass would occur in pure O2,

producing syngas (a mixture of CH4, CO2, CO and
H2) and a char residue that is combusted to
provide heat for the gasification process.
The syngas would be used in a gas turbine to
generate electricity, with waste heat from the gas
turbine used to produce steam for use in a steam
turbine to generate further electricity (as in natural gas
combined-cycle power plants, NGCC)

NGCC state-of-the art powerplants have an efficiency

of 55-60%

BIGCC efficiency would be after 34% without capture

of CO2 and only 25% with capture of CO2

The result is an effective CO2 capture fraction of only

39% and an increase in the required biomass by 33%
C Flow for a dedicated switchgrass-IGCC powerplant

Source: Kemper (2015, Int J. GHG Control 40:401-430)

Table 9.6 Characteristics of capture of CO2 from BIGCC powerplants (with
or without the water shift reaction) that could be available after 10 years
of intensive R & D

B IG C C B I G C C w ith c a p tu r e
P a r a m ete r w ith o u t w ith o u t w it h
c a p tu re w a te r s h ift w a te r s h ift
C a p it a l c o s t ( $ /k W ) 1250 1730 1980
N e t e ffic ie n c y (H H V b a s is )(% ) 34 28 25
E m is sio n (k g C /k W h ) 0 -0 .1 4 - 0 .2 0
C a r b o n c a p tu r e fr a c tio n 0 .4 4 0 .5 5
E ffe c tiv e C O 2 c a p tu r e fr a c tio n 0 .3 2 0 .3 9
N o n - f u e l O & M ( $ /k W - y r ) 100 131 146
C o s t o f e le c tr ic ity (c e n ts /k W h ) 5 .9 8 .2 9 .3
C o s t o f C O 2 r e m o v e d ($ /tC ) 102 123 135

Source: Rhodes and Keith (2005, Biomass and Bioenergy 29, 440–450
Various schemes for capturing CO2 that would be
produced from gasification of black liquor (a
processing waste) in integrated pulp and paper
appear to be much more favourable, but would
also require many years of intensive research and
development
 Status of BECCS projects in 2014

Source: Kemper (2015, Int J. GHG Control 40:401-430)

 Capture of CO2 during the
production of N fertilizer
• Production of ammonium nitrate from natural gas or coal
releases CO2 chemically, in addition to the CO2 released
through the combustion of fuels in order to provide heat
for the chemical reaction

3CH4 + 4N2 + 2H2O + 8O2 → 4NH4NO3 + 3CO2 ↑

• Production of ammonium bicarbonate consumes CO2

chemically, offsetting (at least in part) the CO2 produced
from combustion of fuels to supply heat for the reaction

3CH4 + 4N2 + 14H2O + 5CO2 → 8NH4HCO3 ↓

Conversely, flue gases from combustion of fossil
fuels or biomass could be used as a source of C
for the production of ammonium bicarbonate
through the net reaction

2CO2 + N2 +3H2 + 2H2O → 2NH4HCO3↓

with the H2 produced electrolytically from water

using renewable energy to generate the electricity
used for electrolysis. 90% of CO2 in flue gases
would be taken up by the above net reaction.
 Direct Air Capture (DAC) of CO2

This entails flow of ambient air over a

chemical sorbent that selectively
removes CO2, then releasing the
captured CO2 in concentrated form for
collection and disposal, and
regeneration of the sorbent
 Capture of CO2 from ambient air

One direct capture scheme involves the following

steps:

• Absorption of CO2 by NaOH solution, producing

dissolved Na2CO3
• Reaction with Na2CO3 with Ca(OH)2 to produce
CaCO3 and NaOH
• Decomposition of CaCO3 to CaO (lime) and CO2
• Reaction of CaO with H2O to regenerate Ca(OH)2
According to a 2011 assessment of DAC:

• The cost is estimated to be $600/tCO2, with

large uncertainty and higher values more likely
than lower values
• No demonstration or pilot-scale DAC system had
been deployed anywhere
• It is entirely possible that no DAC concept under
discussion today or yet to be invented will
succeed in practice
An enormous physical structure would be required to remove
even modest amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere

• To remove CO2 from the atmosphere at a rate equivalent

to the emission from one 1000-MW (1-GW) coal power
plant would require a structure 10m high and 30 km long
(this would absorb 6 MtCO2/yr).
• Lots of electricity would be need to power fans to such
air over the absorbing surfaces, and heat would be used
to regenerate the absorbing materials
• This could be powered by renewable energy, but it would
make sense to do this only after all existing electricity
emission sources have been replaced with renewable
energy sources.
 Perspective:

• Pre-industrial atmospheric CO 2 concentration was 280 ppmv

• The current concentration is 400 ppmv
• Under aggressive emission-reduction scenarios, the
concentration peaks at 450-500 ppmv
• To draw down the concentration by 50 ppmv means lowering
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by roughly 100 Gt
• But once we start removing CO2, the biosphere and oceanic
CO2 sinks get weaker, so to have a sustained lowering by 100
Gt means removing about 200 GtC or 733 GtCO 2 or 733,000
Mt CO2
• If done over a period of 100 years, this means removing about
7300 Mt CO2/yr – with about 1200 structures 10 m x 30 km.
Compression or liquefaction
of captured CO2
 Compression of CO2

• Compression would be required prior to transport

by pipeline, with an energy requirement of 300-
400 kWh/tC if compressed from 1.3 to 110 atm
• If applied to all of the CO2 produced by a coal
powerplant with 40% efficiency, this corresponds
to an energy cost of 7-10% of the electricity
produced (this is in addition to the energy
required to capture the CO2 from the flue gases)
 Liquefaction of CO2

• Liquefaction would be required prior to transport

by ship, with an energy requirement of about
400-440 kWh/tC.
• The latter would amount to an efficiency penalty
of 10-12% if applied to the CO2 produced from a
coal powerplant, but less than 2% if applied to
the 71% of the CO2 that can be easily captured
while producing H2 from natural gas
 Disposal sites:

• Deep saline aquifers on land and beneath the

ocean bed
• Depleted oil and gas fields
• Active oil fields, as part of enhanced oil recovery
• Coal beds (displacing coal-bed methane)
• Injection below the 3000 m depth in the ocean
(liquid CO2 is denser than seawater at this and
greater depths)
 Storage of CO2 in deep saline aquifers

• Some remains as a gas, under pressure

• Some dissolves very slowly into pore water
• In aquifers rich in calcium and magnesium
silicates, the CO2 will react with the rock and
carbonate will precipitate, reducing the
permeability of the rock and creating a
permanent trap where none existed before –
flood basalts are particularly good
 Existing and planned aquifer
storage projects:
• Sleipner West gas field, underneath the North
Sea (off of Norway)
• Deep aquifers in Japan and US, planned for
Australia, Germany, and Norway
Storage of CO2 in depleted oil and gas fields
and for enhanced oil and gas recovery
• CO2 is currently injected into the base of oil and gas fields in order
to increase the oil or gas pressure, thereby increasing the amount
of oil or gas that can be extracted
• Only the net CO2 storage should count as credits against
emissions
• Storage in already-depleted oil and gas fields is another
possibility, but would provide no economic credits and, like
enhanced oil or gas recovery, would require long-distance
transport of CO2 from the major emission regions to the major oil
and gas fields
 Storage of CO2 in coal beds
• Coal usually contains methane that is adsorbed onto
the surfaces of micro-pores
• This methane is call coal-bed methane, and there can
be up to 0.76 GJ methane/tonne of coal (compared to
a heating value of coal itself of 32 GJ/t)
• CO2 has a greater affinity for coal, so injection of CO 2
into coal beds will displace methane while being stored
in the coal
• Up to 2 CO2 molecules are adsorbed for every CH4
molecule displaced
• The methane would be collected and used as an
energy source
 Estimated Worldwide Storage
Potential on Land
• Oil and gas reservoirs: 230 GtC
• Deep saline aquifers: 55-15,000 GtC, likely
minimum: 270 GtC
• Coal beds, 16-54 GtC theoretical potential, 2 GtC
practical potential
• TOTAL MINIMUM: about 500 GtC, equal to about
100 years of current fossil fuel emissions (about
10 GtC/yr) if storing the one half of current fossil
fuel emissions that would be amenable to capture
Environmental and Safety Issues
Associated with Capture,
Transmission and Storage of CO2
 Capture of CO2

• Emissions during production and transport of

materials used for capture of CO2 (chemical or
physical solvents, limestone and ammonia)
• Transport and processing of waste produced
during regeneration of solvents
• Additional requirements for ammonia, limestone
and water compared to generation of electricity
without CO2 capture
• Increased NOx and ammonia emissions from
pulverized-coal powerplants with CO2 capture
 Figure 9.10 Withdrawal and consumptive water use in
powerplants with and without capture of CO2
7

6 Withdrawal
Consumption
Water Use (litres/kWh)

0
Without With Without With Without With
Sub-critical PC Super-Critical PC IGCC
Source: Shuster (2008, Estimating Freshwater Needs to Meet Future Thermoelectric Generation Requirements. US
Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory)
 Transmission and injection of CO2

• Rapture of CO2 pipelines – careful selection of

routes needed, constrains locations of capture
sites
• Well blow-outs during injection of pressurized
CO2 into the ground
 Storage in deep saline aquifers
• Slow leakage, the potential sources of leakage being:
- fracturing of rock during CO2 injection, which must be carried out at high
pressure
- leakage through injection and exploration boreholes or through oil-
extraction boreholes (of which there are 400,000 in Alberta and 1 million
in Texas, many of which are unmapped)
• Upward displacement of saline water into aquifers
• Mobilization of toxic materials due to the weak acidity produced as CO 2
reacts with groundwater
• Foreclosure of the possibility in the future of using saline groundwater as
a source of freshwater (through desalination) or of using minerals
dissolved in saline groundwater (Li, Zn and Mn in particular)
 Storage in coal beds

• A given mass of methane is 72 times as

effective as CO2 in warming the climate over a
25-year time span, so if only a small fraction of
displaced methane leaks to the atmosphere
rather than being captured and burnt (for
energy), the global warming effect would exceed
the benefit from capturing and storing CO2
• Injection of CO2 and capture of released CH4
would require a dense grid of pipes on the
ground over the coal beds that are being used
Injection of CO2 into the deep ocean

Note: over a period of about 1000 yrs, about 85% of the

CO2 that humans could ever emit will be absorbed by
the oceans, but causing acidification of the oceans at
the same time

• About 15% of the injected CO2 eventually leaks

into the atmosphere
• There would still be global-scale impacts on
ocean acidity if 100s GtC were injected
• More pronounced acidification would occur near
the injection sites
 Figure 9.12a Fossil fuel CO2 emission scenarios

30
Fossil Fuel CO2 Emission (GtC/yr)

25 Scenario 1

Scenario 2
20

Scenario 3
15
Scenario 4

10

0
2000 2025 2050 2075 2100
Year
 Figure 9.14b Rates of injection of CO2 into the oceans, equal to
the difference in emissions between Scenario 4 of Fig. 9.12a and
the indicated scenario

30
Rate of C Sequestration (GtC/year)

Scenario 1
20

Scenario 2
10

Scenario 3

0
1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100

Year
Figure 9.15a Atmospheric CO2 concentration for emission Scenario
1 with and without C sequestration, and for emission Scenario 4.

1750

1500
Atmospheric pCO2 (ppmv)

Scenario 1 without
1250
sequestration

1000

Scenario 1 with
750 sequestration

500 Scenario 4

250
1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100

Year
Figure 9.15b Atmospheric CO2 concentration for emission Scenario
2 with and without C sequestration, and for emission Scenario 4.

750

700

650
Atmospheric pCO2 (ppmv)

600 Scenario 2 without

sequestration
550

500 Scenario 2 with

sequestration
450

400

350
Scenario 4
300

250
1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100

Year
Figure 9.15c Atmospheric CO2 concentration for emission Scenario
3 with and without C sequestration, and for emission Scenario 4.

550

500 Scenario 3 without

Atmospheric pCO2 (ppmv)

sequestration
450

400
Scenario 3 with
350 sequestration
Scenario 4
300

250
1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100

Year
Figure 9.14b Impact on the pH of ocean surface water of fossil fuel
scenarios without CCS (solid lines) and with CCS (dashed lines)

8.5
8.4
8.3 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

8.2
8.1
8.0
pH

7.9 Scenario 2
7.8
7.7
7.6 Scenario 1
7.5
1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100
Year
Conclusion with regard to injection of CO2 into
deep ocean water:

This is environmentally acceptable, if at all, only

where CO2 injection is used as a complement to
strong reductions in the use of fossil fuels
(accelerating the phase-out of CO2 emissions
from, for example, 2100 to 2070)
 Injection of CO2 into sediments
beneath the bed of the sea
• Unlike in terrestrial sediments, CO2 in the upper few
hundred metres of marine sediments would be denser
than the pore fluids because the temperature at any
pressure found in marine sediments would be lower
than the temperature at the same pressure in
terrestrial sediments
• Thus, CO2 in these sediments would be stable (it
would not tend to rise)
• The potential storage capacity in buoyantly stable
sediments within the US economic zone, for example,
is estimated to be several thousand GtC
 Legal Issues
• A rigorous regulatory process that has broad
public and political support will be required if
CO2 is to be sequestered underground on a
large scale
• Some sort of international monitoring system will
be needed if countries or companies are going
to engage in international trading of credits
related to sequestration of CO2
• Issues related to prohibition by international
conventions of dumping of industrial waste in the
ocean will need to be resolved (would fossil fuel
CO2 qualify as an ‘industrial waste’?)
Time scale large-scale deployment of CCS:
• 1-2 generations of demonstration projects for
capture techniques from a variety of different CO2
sources (10-15 years)
• Monitoring of full-scale (1 MtCO2/yr) injection of CO2
into aquifers in 10 or so different geological settings
over a period of 10 years
• After both of the above, gradual deployment of C-
capture plants on the remaining CO2-rich sources
(assuming that we are simultaneously working
intensively to reduce CO2 emissions)
• Thus, CCS could not have a significant impact on
CO2 emissions before mid-century, and could not be
relied on as the primary emission reduction measure
 Magnitude

• Sequestration of only 1 GtC/yr is equivalent to

1/3 of the total current flow of oil out of the
ground, with the need for a corresponding
infrastructure
 Strategic Considerations:
• Don’t waste low-cost C storage potential storing CO2
emissions that can be eliminated in other ways
• In particular, don’t waste it on CO2 from coal plants.
We can get coal off of the grid altogether in North
America and in Europe in 20-30 years through a
wind/solar/biomass/geothermal/hydro system
interconnected with a backbone grid of HVDC lines,
almost certainly at less cost than CCS
Strategic Considerations (continued):

• Focus on CCS from CO2 sources that are not so

easy to otherwise eliminate – steel, cement,
ammonia manufacture in particular
• Prepare to deploy CCS of CO2 released from the
use of biomass for electricity generation, so as
to create negative CO2 emissions
Finally, pursuing CCS of coal, even if effective
from a climatic point of view, means that the
severe landscape impacts associated with coal
mining, illustrated in the following slides, will
continue.
 Alternatives to DAC
• We are going to need to actively remove CO2 from the
atmosphere (through “negative” emissions), but DAC
does not seem to be even remotely practical on the
required scale
• The best hope for creating negative emissions seems to
be through building up soil C (especially using biochar)
and restoring some deforested land (which could be freed
up the more diets shift to vegetarian and vegan diets)
• There could be a potential to withdraw 1-2 GtC/yr for 100
years or me (100-200 GtC total, enough to lower the
concentration by 25-50 ppmv in the long term)
Some people have considered combining H2 (produced by electrolysis
with C-free electricity) with CO2 taken from the atmosphere with DAC,
to produce synthetic natural gas (SNG) (natural gas is 95-98% CH4,
with some ethane). This suffers from the same limitation concerning
the impracticality of DAC at the required scale.

Alternatively, CO2 captured from any of the sources discussed here

could be reacted with H2 to produce SNG.

The SNG would then be used in the existing NG distribution network,

which is a major and valuable asset.

Thus, we use only the first part of CCS (Carbon capture) and omit the
storage part (and all the problems and uncertainties associated with
that), and instead use the capture CO2 to make SNG. Of course, this
CO2 is now ultimately emitted to the atmosphere, but total emission
(including from the original CO2 sources) is reduced
 We could have a C-neutral source of SNG if
biomass were gasified (producing a mixture of CO
and H2) and then reacted with additional H2
produced by electrolysis, to produce CH4. This SNG
would be used in place of fossil fuel NG in situations
(such as home heating and hot water) where it is
too costly to eliminate the use of natural gas

[note: I’ve drifted off topic now – making SNG this

way is not really CCS]
Some non-climate reasons to
phase out the use of coal as
quickly as possible
 Strip mining in Australia

Source: Emily Rochon, GreenPeace

 Mountain decapitation in Appalachia

Source: Kent Kessinger, www.ilovemountains.org

 Coal mine in South Africa

Source: Emily Rochon, GreenPeace

 Risk of accidents such as this one (collapse of a dam
holding coal ash owned by the Tennessee Valley
Association in December, 2008)

Source: Emily Rochon, GreenPeace

 TVA coal dam collapse (continued)

Source: Emily Rochon, GreenPeace

 TVA coal dam collapse (continued)

Source: Emily Rochon, GreenPeace

 Tar sands mining in Alberta, Canada, the processing of which is
another intensive source of CO2 that has been considered for CCS
while pursuing business-as-usual growth in the rate of extraction.

Source: www.petropolis-film.com (GreenPeace)