BEING USED FOR ENHANCED OIL EXTRACTION

Carbon capture too expensive, takes too long to build: Report



Thu, February 9, 2023

CALGARY — By betting it can solve its emissions problem with carbon capture and storage, Canada's oil and gas industry risks saddling itself with expensive stranded assets, a new report argues.

The report, released Thursday by the International Institute for Sustainable Development — a Winnipeg-based think-tank that focuses on climate and sustainable resource development — concludes carbon capture and storage technology costs too much and takes too long to build to have any hope of helping industry meet Canada's 2030 emissions reductions target.

Calling the technology "expensive, energy intensive (and) unproven at scale," the report urges the federal government not to put any more public money into the oil and gas industry for carbon capture deployment.

"The application of CCS does not align with the time scale or ambition necessary for limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C," the report states.

"The opportunity cost of investing in CCS and the risk of stranded assets for Canada’s oil and gas sector will intensify as global climate ambition ratchets up and demand for oil and gas declines."

Carbon capture and storage is a technology that captures greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources and stores them deep in the ground to prevent them from being released into the atmosphere.

The technology has existed for decades, but it's expensive and has been slow to scale up. There are currently just seven CCS projects currently operating in Canada, mostly in the oil and gas sector, and only 30 commercial-scale CCS projects in operation globally.

Still, the oil and gas industry has high hopes for the technology, with a number of new projects in the planning stage in Canada. Most notably, the Pathways Alliance — a consortium of the country's six largest oilsands companies — has proposed a major carbon capture and storage transportation line that would capture CO2 from oilsands facilities and transport it to a storage facility near Cold Lake, Alta.

While a final investment decision has not been made, the project is estimated to cost $16.5 billion and is the centrepiece of the Pathways group's total $24.1-billion pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands production by 22 million tonnes by 2030.

"The oil sector in Canada has been identifying CCS as the major component of its plan to bring down emissions," said Angela Carter, co-author of the IID report.

"In fact, some industry representatives, they frame CCS as the only option to make the kind of large inroads that are needed to reduce emissions in the oil and gas sector. It's very much like the industry is putting all of its eggs in the basket of CCS."

In a recent op-ed, James Millar — president and CEO of the International CCS Knowledge Centre in Regina, Sask. — argued that carbon capture is a way for Canada to "have its environmental cake, and eat it too."

Millar said the wide-scale deployment of carbon capture technology will allow for a transition to net-zero "while maintaining the viability of industries that have long sustained communities and workforces across the country."

"To build this capacity, industry is looking for strong signals that investments in CCS and other emissions reduction technologies align with Canada’s low-carbon future," Millar said.

"Wider investment in CCS requires clear policy providing long-term certainty on carbon pricing, along with other mechanisms that will ensure Canada remains an attractive location (especially when compared to the United States) to undertake multi-billion-dollar projects."

Carter said this kind of continued lobbying by industry for more government funding and regulatory support for carbon capture projects, above and beyond the investment tax credit announced in last year's federal budget, is problematic.

She pointed out the seven CCS projects currently operating in Canada capture just 0.5 per cent of national emissions, and that ramping that up to significant levels by 2030 would require massive government subsidies.

"CCS has been over-promised and under-delivered," she said, adding a more cost-effective use of public funds would be to encourage near-term emissions cuts through regulations, such as the federal methane rules currently under development.

Government should also be focusing on energy efficiency and electrification, as well as planning for a long-term decline in oil and gas production, Carter said.

In a report published last August, BMO Capital Markets argued that government can and must do more to get carbon capture projects up and running in this country.

The report said the Inflation Reduction Act south of the border ensures roughly two-thirds of carbon capture project costs (capital and operating costs) are covered by the U.S. government.

By comparison, the BMO report said, the investor tax credit announced by the Canadian federal government in 2022 would cover less than 15 per cent of the proposed Pathways Alliance carbon capture project's total costs by 2050.

"We believe the U.S. policy advancement further underscores the need for substantially more robust policy incentives to bolster Canada's competitive position in the decarbonization race," the BMO report stated.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 9, 2023.

Amanda Stephenson, The Canadian Press

Exxon calls for carbon price, working on CCS projects across Asia

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp is pursuing carbon capture storage (CCS) hubs across Asia and has started talks with some countries with potential storage options for carbon dioxide, the company's head of low carbon solutions said on Monday.

One of Exxon's key projects is to build CCS hubs in Southeast Asia, similar to one being built in Houston, Texas, ExxonMobil Low Carbon Solutions President Joe Blommaert told Reuters.

CCS traps emissions and buries them underground but is not yet at the commercialisation stage.

CCS advocates, including oil majors and the International Energy Agency, see the technology as being essential to help meet net zero emissions and key to unlocking large-scale economic hydrogen production, although critics say CCS will extend the life of dirty fossil fuels.

Melbourne-based Global CCS Institute said in October that global plans to build CCS projects https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/global-carbon-capture-projects-surge-50-9-months-research-2021-10-12 surged 50% over the last nine months.

For CCS to take off, a transparent carbon price and cross-border pricing adjustment systems will be necessary to enable CO2 to be captured in one country and stored elsewhere, Blommaert said in an interview ahead of the Singapore International Energy Week.

"That's why a transparent value of carbon is so important, that it is a durable mechanism, that it is agnostic to what kind of technology that goes ... and that it works across borders because emissions do not know any borders," Blommaert said, adding he expects discussions of carbon border tax similar to that in Europe https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/eu-proposes-worlds-first-carbon-border-tax-some-imports-2021-07-14 to occur in Southeast Asia.

"Because much of the world doesn't have carbon pricing, there's a risk that some operators will move to countries that don’t yet price emissions," he told the conference.

Last month, the U.S. energy major said 11 companies have agreed to begin discussing plans that could lead to capturing and storing up to 50 million tonnes per year (tpy) of CO2 in the Gulf of Mexico by 2030 https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/exxon-proposes-massive-carbon-capture-storage-project-houston-2021-04-19.

"Unlike in Houston, the storage capacity here is not close to the areas with the highest emissions," Blommaert said.

"That's why we've been studying the concept of placing CO2 capture hubs in some of Asia's heavy industrial areas such as here in Singapore and then connecting them to CO2 storage locations elsewhere in the region," he said, adding that CO2 could be transported via pipelines or ships.

Southeast Asia's industrial CO2 emissions exceeded 4 billion tpy, Blommaert said, citing 2019 data from the International Energy Agency.

ExxonMobil has listed Singapore, home to the major's largest refining-petrochemical centre globally, as one of its CCS projects. However, Singapore does not have suitable CO2 storage sites, a recent CCS study commissioned by Singapore government showed.

LOCATIONS

Another study by the Singapore Energy Centre, partly founded by ExxonMobil, estimated nearly 300 billion tonnes of CO2 storage capacity in depleted oil and gas fields and saline formations in Southeast Asia, Blommaert said.

Countries in the region with potential storage sites include Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia where ExxonMobil has oil and gas production facilities. The U.S. major also operates a joint refining-petrochemical complex in eastern China Fujian with Sinopec and Saudi Aramco.

"We continue to evaluate all options around the world, and that includes some of those locations," Blommaert said, without naming countries.

"If you have a very high concentration of carbon dioxide stream that will represent, possibly a lower cost (for CCS)," Blommaert said.

"The market for CO2 is rather limited when you put it into that scale, and therefore storage of CO2 long term is essential."

(Reporting by Florence Tan in Singapore; additional reporting by Christina Bernadette in Jakarta, Sonali Paul in Australia, Sabrina Valle and Gary McWilliams in Houston; Editing by Lincoln Feast.)

Q&A: Studying the capture and storage of carbon dioxide during waste incineration

by Nils Røkke, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

The capture and storage of CO2, also known as CCS, from our waste is essential because this refuse is responsible for a large proportion or our cities' greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, the technology represents a relatively inexpensive abatement cost.


In order to achieve the targets set out in the Paris Agreement, aiming to keep global warming to within 1.5 degrees higher than pre-industrial levels, it will not be sufficient simply to reduce emissions. We must also actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere and establish a balance between emissions and removal.

Not all industries will be able to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The agricultural sector is a good example. But if we are to achieve total net zero emissions during the next 30 years, we have to capture one CO2 molecule and remove it from the atmosphere for every molecule we release. With between 50 and 70 percent biological material currently being processed in energy recycling plants employing waste incineration, this will make a considerable difference to our carbon accounting.

What does 'climate-positive' mean?

Let's say that you throw away a set of IKEA's Ivar storage shelves and it ends up in an incineration plant. The shelves contain CO2 extracted from the air by the wood while the tree was living. So, in principle, if we incinerate this wood the entire cycle is carbon neutral. The same amount of the gas is released on incineration as was originally taken up. But if we capture and remove the CO2 during incineration, we also extract some CO2 from the cycle and make a positive contribution to the carbon budget.

Of course there will be hurdles to negotiate, but these are also created by humans. How we calculate and reward climate-positive approaches is currently unclear, not least within the EU. I have been in Brussels for some years now, and the debate continues to rage about how fast it is possible to store the CO2 locked in biological material. It is argued that this will take longer than the 30-year perspective leading up to 2050.

"During the next 30 years, we have to capture one CO2 molecule and remove it from the atmosphere for every molecule we release."


There is some misunderstanding, and a constructive dialog is being launched on this topic as a basis for the formulation of regulations governing sustainable investment. Or "sustainable taxonomy" as it is referred to in EU jargon.

But we mustn't let such things prevent us from taking action. There is no doubt that climate-positive systems have to be implemented if we are to achieve carbon neutrality. Globally, we have to remove between five and ten billion tons net of greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere by 2050. In Norway, the figures are about the same, but here at home we're talking millions, not billions of tons. Our ability to achieve this will depend on the measures that we implement and which of these has the greatest impact.

And we have to bear in mind that such measures involve technologies that must be applied in addition to, and not simply replace, other initiatives such as electrification and lifestyle changes.

What does Brussels have to say about CCS?

Brussels views CCS as a necessary measure. There is no doubt that it is essential if we are to achieve the decarbonisation of industry and the transport sector, to provide heat and power, and to open the door to the use of hydrogen, which can also be generated from biomass using CCS. But we need countries that can lead the way, with vision that extends beyond the end of their noses. In my view, our towns and cities must be closely linked to the Norwegian full-scale project. And why not establish links to other urban initiatives taking place across Europe? We all know that passivity is much more expensive for society than taking proactive steps.

We must link CCS to wealth generation

The smart things to do are to develop a CO2 transport infrastructure across national boundaries and link CCS to wealth generation and climate-positive initiatives. In this regard, our waste materials are very well suited to such concepts, and it is quite simply amazing to see that others as well as Norway are taking up the challenge. This is not a race to be first to the finishing line considering that we need a few thousand full-scale plants in operation if we are to meet the targets set out in the Paris Agreement.

As President of the European Energy Research Alliance (EERA). I have been observing the ups and downs of the CCS debate. The challenge of climate change and the overriding political ambition within the EU to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 demand that we implement all the measures we can lay our hands on. I often say that the most expensive climate change mitigation measures are the ones we don't implement. We all know that passivity is much more expensive for society than taking proactive steps.

"And we have to bear in mind that such measures involve technologies that must be applied in addition to, and not simply replace, other initiatives such as electrification and lifestyle changes."

The significance of CCS cannot be overestimated

Research shows that we need systems to address greenhouse gas emissions in all industrial sectors. We need zero emissions electrons, zero emissions molecules and CCS. And these will all be linked together by energy—one of contemporary society's most important prerequisites.

The significance of having or not having implemented a full-scale CCS project in Norway cannot be overestimated.

I want to see a joint effort in the field of CCS based on the full-scale project, involving our towns and cities and the industrial and waste management sectors, and I want it to be closely linked to similar initiatives being carried out in Europe. I receive calls from Austria, wondering when they can deliver CO2 to Equinor's transport and storage project Northern Lights.

In a broader context, CCS is all about the future of the Norwegian welfare system

It is no less than considering the benefits of having a car—with or without roads to drive it on. Our towns and cities can make all the difference. In this respect, the assessments being made by the Norwegian Environment Agency's Klimakur ("Climate Cure") project investigating emissions mitigation measures will be well worth following up. We must lose no time in focusing our ambitions.

In Brussels, we are sick and tired of hearing about ambitions linked to CCS. We want to see action and genuine investment in real projects. In a broader context, CCS is all about the future of the Norwegian welfare system. The debate about jobs and towns and cities is welcome—but now we really have to take action!


Explore further Bus emission target unreachable without immediate move to electric

Provided by Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Feasibility Study Finds LNG Carriers Beat
Tankers When It Comes to Carbon Capture
and Storage Use

Mike Schuler

December 14, 2021

A feasibility study into shipping’s use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology shows that the LNG sector is currently better suited than tankers to benefit from the use of CCS, although tankers could also benefit as costs come down.

The study was conducted as part a partnership between tanker company Stena Bulk and the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) and aimed at exploring the potential of capturing carbon from the exhaust of large ships as the shipping industry races to decarbonize.

Stena Bulk provided data from three vessels of different types in its fleet, specifically a medium range (MR) oil/chemical tanker and a Suezmax crude oil tanker currently running on heavy fuel oil (HFO), and an LNG carrier fueled by LNG. Data collected included information on deck space, fuel use, and the availability of heat and energy in the exhaust stream, among other considerations.

The findings showed that the LNG carrier offered the most straightforward path to implementing viable CCS because it had the right mix of onboard infrastructure, while the Suezmax and MR tankers presented more technical challenges to implementing a CCS system.

That’s not to say tankers don’t have the potential to successfully use CCS technology. The study showed that carbon capture and storage is also technically feasible on a large tanker (in this case the suezmax benefitted over the MR tanker), but the biggest barrier is the cost of installation and operation. Upfront capex requirements of installing storage tanks, compressors, and other equipment create a barrier to entry, while operation expenses also increase because of the energy requirements for using a CCS system effectively. However, the study found that these costs could be substantially reduced if the engine was adapted for compatibility with carbon capture and storage.

The study concluded that while costs were likely to be a hurdle to deployment of CCS in the near and medium term, the technology could be a viable long-term option to meeting decarbonization targets as technology improves and costs come down. Commodity prices for captured carbon dioxide could also potentially offset some the costs to install and operate.

“We think that it’s right that the industry is honest about the challenges it faces from a technical and commercial perspective on the pathway to decarbonisation,” said Erik Hånell, President and CEO of Stena Bulk. “This study proves once again that there is no silver bullet solution to meet the IMO’s climate targets, and that we must promote and adopt a wide variety of proven and commercially sensible solutions if we are to successfully decarbonise.”

Dr. Michael Traver, Transport Workstream Chair for the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, said: “Carbon capture and storage is expected to play a key role in meeting the ambitions of the Paris Agreement and is a familiar process for many of the member companies of OGCI. Extending and adapting the technology to marine vessels poses unique challenges, but also represents a great opportunity to reduce emissions from a difficult to abate sector within transportation. Our partnership with Stena Bulk has been a great example of the type of cross-industry collaboration that will be necessary to meet the challenges we face.”

PHOTO Oleksandr Kalinichenko / Shutterstock

Study: Carbon Capture is Costly but Feasible for Tankers

LNG carriers would have the most straight forward path to CCS (Stena Bulk)

PUBLISHED DEC 13, 2021  BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

 

Some experts have predicted that carbon capture and storage aboard operating ships would not be practical and best suited to land installation, but a new study highlights the technical feasibility on a larger tanker while also saying cast would be a challenge. The Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI), an industry-led initiative working with data from Stena Bulk has found that mobile carbon capture in shipping is technically feasible and has a long-term role to play in meeting the industry’s decarbonization targets. It supports similar results for efforts in Japan and elsewhere.

The first phase of the study explored three classes of tankers, medium range oil/chemical tanker, a Suezmax crude oil tanker currently running on heavy fuel oil, and an LNG carrier fueled by LNG. The research used vessel technical information such as deck space, fuel use, the availability of heat and energy in the exhaust stream, from Stena Bulk. 

The study findings showed that the LNG carrier offered the most straightforward path to implementing viable CCS because it had the right mix of onboard infrastructure. The Suezmax and MR tankers presented more technical challenges to implementing a CCS system. A full feasibility study was however also conducted based on the Suezmax tanker’s technical specifications because of the positive impact that a potential carbon capture and storage system would have, and to test feasibility on a ship that was representative of the global fleet.  

“Carbon capture and storage is expected to play a key role in meeting the ambitions of the Paris Agreement and is a familiar process for many of the member companies of OGCI,” said Dr. Michael Traver, Transport Workstream Chair for the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative. “Extending and adapting the technology to marine vessels poses unique challenges, but also represents a great opportunity to reduce emissions from a difficult to abate sector within transportation.”

Based on these technical reviews, the study identified the biggest challenges were likely to be the cost of installation and operation, with storage tanks, compressors, and other equipment generating a large upfront CapEx barrier. Operating expenses would also increase, the study found, because of the energy required to use the CCS system effectively. However, the study found that these costs could be substantially reduced if the engine was adapted for compatibility with carbon capture and storage and they are reporting that they do not believe the challenges are unsurmountable.

The study concluded these costs were likely to be a hurdle to the deployment of CCS in the near and medium-term, but that as the technology improves and becomes cheaper to operate, it could be a persuasive option for the industry’s decarbonization trajectory. Wider context could influence this as well, the study pointed out, with commodity prices for captured carbon dioxide potentially offsetting some of the costs for owners and operators.
 
Erik Hånell, President and CEO of Stena Bulk, said: “These results show promise, but also make clear that there are commercial and technical challenges that our sector must overcome if we are to use CCS as a decarbonization solution. We think that it’s right that the industry is honest about the challenges it faces from a technical and commercial perspective on the pathway to decarbonization. This study proves once again that there is no silver bullet solution to meet the IMO’s climate targets, and that we must promote and adopt a wide variety of proven and commercially sensible solutions if we are to successfully decarbonize.”

The study, launched in October 2020, investigated the potential of capturing carbon from the exhaust gases of the large internal combustion engines that large ships predominantly use for propulsion. OGCI published the complete results online.

A similar research program was also launched in 2019 including companies from Japan, Russia, Norway, and Denmark among others while the Japanese shipping companies have been moving forward with demonstration programs. Japan’s National Maritime Research Institute (NMRI) has been studying incorporating CCS into the scrubbers fitted on ships while in October 2021, Japan’s K Line working with Mitsubishi Shipbuilding announced that they have successfully tested a demonstration unit aboard one of the line’s bulkers. Wartsila plans to install another CCS test system on a vessel by 2023.

Is Joe Manchin Aware That His Favorite Climate Technology Is a Total Bust?

The conservative Democrat is insisting that Biden’s Build Back Better Act include funding for carbon capture projects. 

But even the fossil fuel industry admits the tech is a nonfactor in fighting global warming.

WIN MCNAMEE/GETTY IMAGES

NEW REPUBLIC
Geoff Dembicki/October 14, 2021

Senator Joe Manchin has insisted for months that he won’t support President Biden’s Build Back Better Act unless it subsidizes a largely unproven and expensive climate technology. Democrats are now bending to the conservative Democrat from West Virginia: The multitrillion-dollar reconciliation bill being debated in the Senate is likely to include generous tax credits for coal, oil, gas, and other industrial companies to capture their massive greenhouse gas emissions and bury them underground.

But carbon capture and storage, or CCS, is light years away from doing anything to help climate change. That’s the conclusion of a new report written not by a climate group but rather by some of the technology’s biggest corporate defenders.

The 43-page report, released earlier this week by the Global CCS Institute, reveals that even with substantial financial support from governments and thousands of advertisements from oil companies touting the potential of CCS, the actual climate-fighting capacity of such projects in operation or in various stages of planning worldwide is slightly lower than it was a decade ago. “Despite unprecedented growth in the CCS project pipeline for the last 12 months, there remains a massive gap between today’s CCS fleet and what is required to reduce global anthropogenic emissions to net zero,” explains the institute, whose members include Chevron, Exxon, General Electric, Occidental Petroleum, Southern Company, and dozens of other top industrial climate polluters.

The report says that CCS projects would need to be capturing the equivalent of 5,600 million tons of carbon dioxide in order to keep global temperatures below two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the threshold beyond which scientists warn our climate system could spin dangerously out of control. Today, however, the technology is capturing 40 million tons. That’s a climate rounding error when you consider that atmosphere-altering emissions from Exxon’s oil and gas products alone were 1,300 million tons in 2019.

“The technology works great,” Matt Bright, a spokesperson for the Global CCS Institute, wrote in an email to The New Republic. “Yes, it’s feasible, it’s just difficult. Going to the moon wasn’t feasible in 1960. Then JFK said ‘We’re going to the moon in this decade,’ made it feasible, and we got there in 1969.”

Climate advocates have a much different interpretation of the report. “The world is finally having a reality check on CCS,” climate activist Tzeporah Berman tweeted in response. “No progress in a decade despite billions in investment.”

Even the most advanced carbon capture facilities are failing to deliver. Chevron acknowledged this summer that its $54 billion Gorgon gas project in Australia, considered to be the largest use of CCS technology in the world, was only capturing and burying 30 percent of the operation’s emissions. It was supposed to be 80 percent. Exxon is proposing an even bigger CCS project near Houston that would cost $100 billion, with much of the funding coming from U.S. taxpayers.

Manchin has acknowledged disappointment in CCS’s progress (or lack thereof). “I’d love to have carbon capture, but we don’t have the technology because we really haven’t gotten to that point. And it’s so darn expensive that it makes it almost impossible,” he said earlier this month. But he is nonetheless adamant that carbon capture play a starring role in the Build Back Better Act. In a July memo made public in September, the senator proposed cutting the package from $3.5 trillion to $1.5 trillion, which necessarily would require major cuts to the bill’s climate spending. But at the same time, he insisted the bill be “fuel neutral” and that carbon capture on coal and natural gas “can feasibly qualify” for a portion of the remaining money.

Manchin seems to be betting that even if Biden is successful in shifting 80 percent of the power grid to clean energy within the next decade, coal and natural gas will still be required to provide the remainder. If those fossil fuel plants are able to bury their emissions, they could potentially stay open for decades. “For someone whose biggest priority is keeping coal plants open, this offers a longer-term lifeline than just the status quo,” one person close to the talks told E&E News. (Manchin’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment from TNR.)

“We’re deeply concerned that a scaled-back climate portion of the package will be funding false solutions like carbon capture instead of actual solutions like building more wind and solar and eliminating fossil fuel subsidies,” Mitch Jones, policy director for the environmental group Food & Water Watch, told me.

But Democrats don’t have much choice other than to negotiate with Manchin. Either they get his vote in a Senate with the slimmest possible Democratic majority, or there’s no climate spending package at all. In that sense, some federal support for carbon capture could be worthwhile, said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. “They could usefully spend some money on demonstration projects to show that maybe it can be done right,” he said. “But really, it’s a political decision to keep Joe Manchin happy and the people he represents.”

Geoff Dembicki @GeoffDembicki is a climate reporter. He is the author of Are We Screwed? How a New Generation Is Fighting to Survive Climate Change

THE REALITY IS THAT CCS IS NOT GREEN NOR CLEAN IT IS GOING TO BE USED TO FRACK OLD DRY WELLS SUCH AS IN THE BAKAN SHIELD IN SASKATCHEWAN
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-myth-of-carbon-capture-and-storage.html

ALSO SEE https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=CCS

Huge carbon capture pipeline network proposed: Industry’s ‘delay-and-fail strategy’ rises again

By Kurt Cobb, originally published by Resource Insights

July 25, 2021


An astute journalist I know once described carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a “delay-and-fail strategy” devised by the fossil fuel industry. The industry’s ploy was utterly obvious to him: Promise to perfect and deploy CCS at some vague point in the future. By the time people catch on that CCS won’t work, the fossil fuel industry will have successfully extended the time it has operated without onerous regulation for another couple of decades.

And because huge financial resources (mostly government resources) will have gone to CCS projects instead of low-carbon energy production, society will continue to be wildly dependent on carbon-based fuels (giving the industry further running room).

The trouble is that the cynical CCS strategy has already been under way and failing for more than two decades already. And yet, it is seeking a renewed lease on life with a proposal for a vast network of carbon dioxide pipelines “twice the size of the current U.S. oil pipeline network by volume.” The public face of the effort is a former Obama administration secretary of energy with a perennially bad haircut, Ernest Moniz.

Moniz has a partnership with the AFL-CIO to push the idea. No doubt unions like the project because it would create a lot of jobs regardless of whether it actually addresses climate change.

Just for the record, here’s a list of reasons that CCS doesn’t work and likely will not work in any time frame that matters for addressing climate change:

It’s very costly. Many of the pilot projects have been shut down because they are uneconomical.
Suitable underground storage is not abundant and frequently not near facilities that produce the carbon dioxide.

Long-term storage may fail, releasing the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere anyway. After all, one must have injection wells into the underground storage, wells that can leak if not properly maintained. Not least, there is no multi-decade record of successful, leak-free sequestration. And finally, there is no assurance that such storage facilities can be maintained properly for the many centuries required to have them actually protect the climate.

The carbon dioxide in some current viable CCS projects is used by the oil industry to flush out more oil from existing wells. That’s hardly in keeping with the purpose of addressing climate change

Energy expert Vaclav Smil did some calculations for an American Scientist magazine article that demonstrate the scale of the CCS challenge:

[I]n order to sequester just a fifth of current CO2 emissions we would have to create an entirely new worldwide absorption-gathering-compression-transportation-storage industry whose annual throughput would have to be about 70 percent larger than the annual volume now handled by the global crude oil industry whose immense infrastructure of wells, pipelines, compressor stations and storages took generations to build. Technically possible—but not within a timeframe that would prevent CO2 from rising above 450 ppm.

Smil wrote that back in 2011. The latest reading in Hawaii at the often-cited Scripps Institution of Oceanography Mauna Loa Observatory is 418 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. The relentless upward slope of the observatory’s graph of carbon dioxide concentration shows that the fossil fuel industry’s tactics—of which delay-and-fail CCS is just one—are working splendidly.

It is troubling that a key official at the U.S. Department of Energy is taking the CCS plan seriously. One would think that decades of failure would finally make clear the false promises of the industry. But, of course, failure is the whole point of the CCS ruse. What’s puzzling is that the failure to date has somehow become a rallying cry to try harder by building one of the biggest boondoggles ever conceived.

Photo: Carbon Capture Pilot Plant in 2012. Author Mm907 (2015).Via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_capture_32.jpg

CO2 capture and storage: Environmental lifeline or blank cheque for polluters?

Grégoire SAUVAGE -

CO2 capture and storage technologies are gaining momentum as the world struggles to reduce emissions enough to avoid a climate catastrophe. Some climate activists are sceptical and see this technology as a cop-out. But others say its use could well be necessary.


CO2 capture and storage: Environmental lifeline or blank cheque for polluters?

© Alexiane Lerouge, AFP

For years, carbon capture and storage (CCS) was outside the mainstream, hindered by prohibitive costs and a lack of political support. But now the CCS industry is booming.

The French Institute of International Relations counted a record 76 CCS projects on the go in Europe in a 2021 report.

“Currently, CCS is progressing along two tracks in Europe; there’s a lot of enthusiasm in northern Europe and a lot less enthusiasm in southern Europe, where there’s a lack of political will to implement these technologies,” said Thomas Le Guénan, a geologist at the French Geological and Mining Research Bureau.

The market for CO2 capture and storage equipment is expected to quadruple over the next three years, reaching some $50 billion in 2025, according to Norwegian research firm Rystad Energy. Thanks to surging investment in Europe and North America, the CCS industry should be able to sequester 150 million tonnes per year, up from 40 million at present. This is nevertheless a drop in the ocean when compared to the 38 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted by humans in 2019.

Piloted by oil supermajors Total, Shell and Equinor, the Northern Lights project is expected to make Norway a CO2 storage powerhouse. Near the island of Bergen, a terminal is set to capture nearly 1.5 million tonnes of CO2 per year produced by European industry. “The ship will unload its CO2 in liquid form; it’s like water, odourless and colourless,” explained Cristel Lambtone, the project's technical director, speaking to France Info. The CO2 will then be transported through pipelines to be stored 2,500 metres below the North Sea in wells currently being drilled.

How does CO2 capture work?

Needless to say, CO2 needs to captured before it is buried. The easiest way to do this is while fossil fuels or wood are being burned. There are various processes, but the one the CCS sector has mastered best is called “post-combustion” – using a solvent to isolate the CO2 from the industrial fumes. This technique is especially effective on the most polluting manufacturing sites, like power stations, steelworks, chemical plants and cement plants.

The next step is to transport the compressed CO2 to storage sites such as old oil reservoirs or saline aquifers. “These are not holes but deep formations with porous rocks that allow CO2 to be injected,” Le Guénan explained. “We also look for formations with impermeable rock on top to prevent CO2 from rising up.”

Related video: Shipping industry feeling increased pressure to reduce carbon emissions

Duration 4:17 View on Watch

It is also possible to suck CO2 straight from the atmosphere using giant hoovers. The largest operation using this technology is the Orca site in Iceland. Although still in its infancy, this technology has won a lot of investment over the past two years, especially in the US. Tech titans like Elon Musk and Bill Gates have poured in money.

A gigafactory capturing CO2 directly from the atmosphere is due to start work in the US state of Wyoming, a big coal producer. This “Bison” project aims to capture 5 million tonnes of CO2 per year by 2030.

Limits of CO2 capture

CCS looks like a godsend as countries around the world struggle to wean themselves off fossil fuels.

But while prices have reduced significantly, the high costs of these energy-intensive technologies still place a ceiling on what the sector can do. “As things stand, the price of the carbon allowance issued under the EU’s CO2 emissions trading scheme is still lower than the costs for manufacturers of CCS technology,” said Florence Delprat-Jannaud, head of the CCS programme at the French Institute of Petroleum. “Subsidies are needed to accelerate the implementation of this technology.”

The cost is even higher for direct capture from the air – up to €335 per tonne of CO2 – because the process requires a lot of energy, since CO2 is not highly concentrated in the air.

Nevertheless, costs could fall below €100 per tonne by 2030 for facilities benefitting from large renewable energy resources, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

And it takes a long time to make storage locations operational. “You’ve got to collect a lot of data to have enough confidence in a site; all in all, it can take about a decade,” said Le Guénan, who is currently studying a potential storage area in Grandpuits in the Paris region as part of an EU project.

‘Essential’ or a ‘risky bet’?

At the same time, many people do not like the idea of CO2 storage sites in their local area due to fears of gas leaks and lower house prices. Fierce opposition from local populations to proposed projects has already been seen in Germany and The Netherlands.

Many environmentalists are also sceptical. “Manufacturers see CCS as a way of carrying on with the same production model, when it would be better to reduce energy consumption while recycling industrial materials,” said Léa Mattieu, head of the heavy industry programme at the NGO Climate Action Network.

“It’s a risky bet,” Mattieu continued. “Manufacturers have been talking about this technology for several decades – and we haven’t really seen the results come to fruition. CCS is still too expensive and it may well end up being a last resort solution, just for heavy industry.”

Indeed, as things stand CCS plays a marginal role in reducing CO2 emissions and its potential for development remains unproven. At present only around 30 large-scale installations are at work across the globe, capable of capturing and storing some 40 million tonnes a year. In order to achieve carbon neutrality, according to the IEA, 50 or even 100 times more than that needs to be captured and stored by 2035.

All that said, as countries struggle to bring enough renewable and nuclear energy on line, scientists from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say CCS is essential to averting a climate catastrophe – while highlighting that nothing must distract from the imperative of drastically reducing emissions.

This article was adapted from the original in French.

Explainer-Why carbon capture is no easy solution to climate change

2023/11/22


By Leah Douglas

(Reuters) -Technologies that capture carbon dioxide emissions to keep them from the atmosphere are central to the climate strategies of many world governments as they seek to follow through on international commitments to decarbonize by mid-century.

They are also expensive, unproven at scale, and can be hard to sell to a nervous public - making unworkable, at the moment, the model envisaged worldwide of capturing carbon and storing it for money.

As nations gather for the 28th United Nations climate change conference in the United Arab Emirates at the end of November, the question of carbon capture’s future role in a climate-friendly world will be in focus. Here are some details about the state of the industry now, and the obstacles in the way of widespread deployment:

FORMS OF CARBON CAPTURE

The most common form of carbon capture technology involves capturing the gas from a point source like an industrial smokestack. From there, the carbon can either be moved directly to permanent underground storage or it can be used in another industrial purpose first, variations that are respectively called carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS).

There are currently 42 operational commercial CCS and CCUS projects across the world with the capacity to store 49 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, according to the Global CCS Institute, which tracks the industry. That is about 0.13% of the world’s roughly 37 billion metric tons of annual energy and industry-related carbon dioxide emissions.

Some 30 of those projects, accounting for 78% of all captured carbon from the group, use the carbon for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), in which carbon is injected into oil wells to free trapped oil. Drillers say EOR can make petroleum more climate-friendly, but environmentalists say the practice is counter-productive.

The other 12 projects, which permanently store carbon in underground formations without using them to boost oil output, are in the U.S., Norway, Iceland, China, Canada, Qatar, and Australia, according to the Global CCS Institute.

It is unclear how many of these projects, if any, turn a profit.

Another form of carbon capture is direct air capture (DAC), in which carbon emissions are captured from the air.

About 130 DAC facilities are being planned around the world, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), though just 27 have been commissioned and they capture just 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually.

The U.S. in August announced $1.2 billion in grants for two DAC hubs in Texas and Louisiana that promise to capture 2 million metric tons of carbon per year, though a final investment decision on the projects has not been made.

HIGH COSTS

One stumbling block to rapid deployment of carbon capture technology is cost.

CCS costs range from $15 to $120 per metric ton of captured carbon depending on the emissions source, and DAC projects are even more expensive, between $600 and $1,000 per metric ton, because of the amount of energy needed to capture carbon from the atmosphere, according to the IEA.

Some CCS projects in countries like Norway and Canada have been paused for financial reasons.

Developers say they need a carbon price, either in the form of a carbon tax, trading scheme or tax break, that makes it profitable to capture and store the carbon. Without that, only carbon capture projects that increase revenue in a different way - like through increased oil output - are profitable.

Countries including the U.S. have rolled out public subsidies for carbon capture projects. The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, offers a $50 tax credit per metric ton of carbon captured for CCUS and $85 per metric ton captured for CCS, and $180 per metric ton captured through DAC.

Though those are meaningful incentives, companies may still need to take on some added costs to move CCS and DAC projects ahead, said Benjamin Longstreth, global director of carbon capture at the Clean Air Task Force.

Some CCS projects have also failed to prove out the technology's readiness. A $1 billion project to harness carbon dioxide emissions from a Texas coal plant, for example, had chronic mechanical problems and routinely missed its targets before it was shut down in 2020, according to a report submitted by the project’s owners to the U.S. Department of Energy.

The Petra Nova project restarted in September.

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION

Where captured carbon can be stored is limited by geology, a reality that would become more pronounced if and when carbon capture is deployed at the kind of massive scale that would be needed to make a difference to the climate. The best storage sites for carbon are in portions of North America, East Africa, and the North Sea, according to the Global CCS Institute.

That means getting captured carbon to storage sites could require extensive pipeline networks or even shipping fleets – posing potential new obstacles.

In October, for example, a $3 billion CCS pipeline project proposed by Navigator CO2 Ventures in the U.S. Midwest - meant to move carbon from heartland ethanol plants to good storage sites - was canceled amid concerns from residents about potential leaks and construction damage.

Companies investing in carbon removal need to take seriously community concerns about new infrastructure projects, said Simone Stewart, industrial policy specialist at the National Wildlife Federation.

"Not all technologies are going to be possible in all locations," Stewart said.

(Reporting by Leah DouglasEditing by Marguerita Choy)





© Reuters

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2023/11/sci-fi-tek-carbon-removal-is-latest-way.html

Carbon Capture Projects Hit Record, But Would Mitigate Less Than 1% of Emissions

WOULD USE THEM TO FRACK OLD WELLS


James Fernyhough
Sun, October 16, 2022 

(Bloomberg) -- The number of carbon capture and storage projects in development grew to record levels this year on the back of rising carbon prices and government incentives, but would still only mitigate less than 1% of annual emissions, a new report finds.

There are now 153 CCS projects in the planning phase, 61 more than this time last year and more than at any time in history, the Melbourne-based Global CCS Institute found in its annual survey of the sector, released today. They would add to the 30 projects currently operating and a further 11 under construction.

The US leads the way with 34 new proposed CCS projects, followed by Canada, the UK, Norway, Australia, the Netherlands and Iceland. Favorable policies stimulated investment in these countries, including higher carbon prices, tax credits and direct grants, the report found.

Despite the jump in new capacity, all existing and proposed projects would be able to store just 244 million tons of CO₂ a year, less than 1% of the 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide the International Energy Agency estimates was added to the atmosphere last year.

Carbon capture and storage technology, which captures carbon dioxide from a range of sources and stores it underground, usually in depleted oil or gas reservoirs, has proved a controversial technology. Supporters say it has a vital role in the push to keep global warming to within the Paris Agreement’s stated target of 1.5 degrees celsius, with around 1.3 billion tons of storage capacity needed by 2030 to meet that target, according to the IEA. But critics argue CCS is an expensive, ineffective technology that serves to prolong the life of fossil fuels.

Early examples focused on capturing emissions from coal-fired power plants, while on the storage side, CO₂ was often injected into petroleum reservoirs to extract oil, a technique known as “enhanced oil recovery”. Both applications supported continued fossil fuel use, which is still the main area for CCS projects.

Natural gas processing is the most common application in existing CCS projects, while ethanol production, power generation, manufacture of hydrogen with natural gas (known as “blue hydrogen”) are the most common for those in development.

But attention has increasingly widened to technology such as “direct air carbon capture and storage” (DACCS) -- which removes CO₂ directly out of the atmosphere and stores it -- and capturing the emissions from hard to abate industries like cement and steel. These applications were advocated by international authorities and were found growing.

“CCS is the Swiss Army knife of climate mitigation -- it will continue to play multiple, unique roles in decarbonising the global economy,” said Jarad Daniels, Chief Executive Officer of the Global CCS Institute. “Many essential industries like cement and chemical production have no other viable path for deep decarbonisation other than CCS.”

The report did not say how much the planned projects would cost, but the Global CCS Institute last year estimated between $655 billion and $1.28 trillion of investment in carbon-capture technologies could reduce emissions by 15% by 2050 -- which it argued was “well within the capacity of the private sector”.

Don’t be fooled: CCS is no solution to oil and gas emissions

The oil and gas industry wants you to believe it can capture its emissions and keep drilling as usual. That’s no way to avert climate chaos

Al Wasl Dome at the Cop28 venue in Dubai, UAE

 (Pic: Flickr/Cop28/Neville Hopwood)

By Laurence Tubiana and Emmanuel Guérin
Published on 04/12/2023

At the Cop28 climate conference taking place in Dubai, oil and gas producers are counting on carbon capture and storage (CCS) for a social license to keep drilling as usual. Don’t fall for it.

While it can be helpful at the margins, CCS cannot possibly deliver reductions in greenhouse gas emissions on the scale needed to avert climate disaster. This can only happen if the main sources of emissions – fossil fuels – are phased out.

CCS is expected to deliver less than a tenth of the cumulative carbon dioxide emission reductions, over the 2023-2050 period, needed to hold global warming to 1.5C.

In the International Energy Agency net zero emission (NZE) scenario, CCS captures approximately 1.5 billion tons (GT) of CO2 in 2030, and 6 GT by 2050. But very little of that is applied to emissions from fossil fuel production and combustion. It is primarily used to capture CO2 from sectors where emissions are harder and more expensive to reduce, such as cement production or chemicals.

Is the IEA NZE scenario the only way to achieve net-zero emission and limit the temperature increase to 1.5C? Certainly not. There are different scenarios out there, including those of the Energy Transition Commission and McKinsey. And scenarios coming out of models are not to be confused with reality. The fossil fuel industry claims it can achieve the same objectives as in the IEA NZE scenario, while producing more oil and gas, by relying more heavily on CCS. Is this true?
50% more expensive

Another IEA scenario, the stated policies scenario, gives the answer. Reaching net-zero carbon emissions in this way would require the capture of 32 GT of CO2 emissions by 2050, including 23 GT through direct air capture (DAC).

At this scale, DAC alone would require 26,000 TWh of electricity to operate, which is more than the total global electricity demand today. Reaching net-zero emissions in this way would be 50% more expensive (for an annual investment cost of $6.9 trillions) than in the IEA NZE scenario.

People in the oil and gas industry know there is zero probability of this high-CCS scenario coming true. They are not even seriously investing in it, but waiting for governments, through taxpayers, to pick up the bill. The reality is they are just fooling us one more time, to buy time we can’t afford to waste in dealing with the climate crisis.

For all these reasons, framing the objective of the energy and climate transitions in the Cop28 decision text as “phasing out unabated [i.e. without CCS] fossil fuel emissions”, without specifying the order of magnitude of CCS in the overall portfolio of zero-carbon energy solutions (approximately 10%), and its primary use (hard-to-abate sectors, outside the oil and gas industry), would be profoundly misleading.
Focus on real solutions

It would also be a missed opportunity for Cop28 to send a clear signal of where investments should be going in the energy sector, to ensure climate safety as much as energy security and future profits of energy companies: energy efficiency and savings; the deployment of renewable energies and other zero-carbon energy solutions (green hydrogen, sustainable biofuels, synthetic fuels, etc.); the complete decarbonization of the power sector (electricity generation); and the electrification of energy demand.

Today, the oil and gas industry is not part of the energy transition: it represent only 1% of the total investment ($1.8 trillion in 2022) in clean energy solutions, globally. And it invests only about 2.5% of its own record-high profits into clean energy, as opposed to the further expansion of oil and gas.

What should be the ratio of investments between zero-carbon energy solutions and the maintenance of existing oil and gas facilities, to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C? 50/50 by 2030, says the IEA in its fossil fuels special report, before it shifts further in the direction of a complete phase out from fossil fuels.

These should be the real objectives of Cop28, in relation to the energy transition. Otherwise, we are just mixing up the signal and the noise, confusing what should be the priority (phasing-out fossil fuels, phasing-in zero-carbon energy solutions) and what is a small part of the strategy (CCS) for a successful energy transition.

Laurence Tubiana is the CEO and Emmanuel Guérin is a fellow at the European Climate Foundation.

Biology: Coal plant 'help' with climate change nothing short of a miracle

Steve Rissing
Fri, November 26, 2021



The Washington Post recently described the odd situation of a North Dakota coal industry group advocating for electric vehicles. This in a state where coal’s fossil fuel friends, the oil industry, disdain the concept.

According to the Post, the idea depends on “…a long-shot project to (capture and) store carbon emissions in deep underground wells."

Inside Climate News recently reported on similar efforts by advocates proposing to retrofit carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology at North Dakota’s largest coal-fired generating plant. Coal Creek Station and its nearby mine employ almost 800 people; they see the technology as a “godsend.”

Clean air advocates, on the other hand, see it “as an expensive distraction from the urgent need to embrace cleaner options to help address climate change.”

With the infrastructure bill passed and other proposals to address climate change, powerful coal industry interests have increased efforts to advocate for CCS technology.

When I read about hopes for CCS technology, I think of the iconic Sidney Harris cartoon depicting two scientists at a chalk board full of equations. One says to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two” while pointing to a statement among the equations that reads, “then a miracle occurs.”

Miracles, almost by definition, violate the Laws of Thermodynamics; CCS gets close to qualifying. To understand this, think of the often-told parable of a gossip seeking absolution for mistruths they have spread. Their spiritual advisor tells them to take a feather pillow to the top of a nearby hill and release the feathers to the wind.

The gossip returns and says, “That wasn’t too hard.”

“But that’s not your penance,” the advisor replies; “now go capture them all and sequester them back in the pillow.”

“That’s impossible!” gasps the gossip.

“My point exactly!” says the advisor.

That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the concept of entropy: All things, including burning fossils, tend toward disorder. Only adding energy into the system can reverse the effect.

Green plants transform sunlight energy when they bind atmospheric carbon dioxide with water and make sugars. They and everything that eats them directly or indirectly use that energy building bodies and staying alive.

Burning fossil fuels formed over hundreds of millions of years releases that locked-away sunlight. It also, of course, liberates all that carbon dioxide captured long ago by green plants and sequestered underground through geological processes.

Reversing that with CCS requires a near-miraculous amount of energy. Ironically, some CCS advocates propose using wind-generated electricity to capture carbon dioxide emitted from coal. That reduces CCS’s carbon footprint but competes with other uses.

Advocates argue that capturing carbon dioxide on the way up a smokestack will increase CCS efficiency.

Picture grabbing feathers as they fly from that hilltop.

CCS technology aims to capture 90% of carbon dioxide from burning coal. The MIT Climate Portal estimates exhaust from a coal burning plant contains 300 times the carbon dioxide of surrounding air. Cutting that by 90% still increases atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The proposed solution: Aim for 99 percent!

The chances of that from the view of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Horsefeathers!

Steve Rissing is a professor emeritus in the Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology at Ohio State University.
steverissing@hotmail.com

This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Capturing carbon from burning fossil fuels needs a miracle to work

Cementing a cleaner future: how Japan is cutting carbon from industry

By Euronews • Updated: 08/11/2021 - 

.
Copyright euronews

In this episode of Green Japan we focus on the latest innovations to capture and recycle carbon and develop zero-carbon concrete.

Carbon dioxide is the main cause of global warming. In the western wing of Tomakomai port, Japan has shown that CO2 can be captured and stored. Experts are confident the technology implemented at the Tomakomai CCS demonstration project centre will be crucial for reaching net-zero emissions in Japan and worldwide.

“CCS is an acronym for Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage. It is a technology aimed at preventing global warming by capturing CO2 generated from industrial activities and storing it underground,” explains Nakajima Toshiaki, President of Japan CCS.

President of Japan CCS Nakajima Toshiaki explains carbon dioxide and storage technology.Euronews

The CO2 source is a gas supply facility at Idemitsu Kosan Hokkaido Refinery, adjacent to the Tomakomai CCS Center. A gas containing carbon dioxide is sent by pipeline to the Capture Facility.

Yamagishi Kazuyuki, from CCS, explains the process.

“We receive a maximum of 25 tonnes of CO2 per hour which is equivalent to 600 tonnes a day. Our target was to process 100,000 tonnes in one year. We achieved the injection of 300,000 tonnes two years ago.”

Once the gas containing CO2 arrives at the demonstration plant, CO2 is separated from the gas and captured by chemical absorption inside three towers, which are part of the main CCS facilities. The CO2 now needs to be stored.

“The captured CO2 is sent to the inlet of this well, after a certain amount of pressure is applied. Through this pipe, the CO2 is sent to the geological layers below the seabed,” Kazuyuki says.

The two injection wells of the project were drilled from onshore towards offshore sub-sea bed reservoirs. One well targeted a sandstone layer between the depths of 1,000 to 1,200 metres. The other one reached a volcanoclastic layer between 2,400 to 3,000 metres deep.

Japan is convinced this technology will become a key approach for reducing the impact of global warming once it reaches the implementation phase.

“"The International Energy Agency estimates in 2050 we'll have to be capable of storing over 7 billion tons of CO2 per year with CCS systems in order to achieve net-zero. This would allow to use fossil fuels in a cleaner way, or to capture CO2 directly from the atmosphere and store it underground,” says Japan CCS President Nakajima Toshiaki.
Carbon negative concrete

While CO2 can be captured before entering the atmosphere and stored in the ground, Japan has also found a way to use CO2 to produce a carbon negative concrete, called CO2-SUICOM.

“Ordinary concrete emits approximately 288 kg of CO2 per cubic metre during its production, but CO2-SUICOM has achieved minus 18kg,” says Watanabe Kenzo, the General Manager of the concrete and construction materials group, Kajima Technical Research Institute.

This is the first concrete in the world that is not only carbon negative, but is also capable of absorbing CO2 during the curing process.

The key to making this happen is the addition of a special material, which is a chemical by-product, and then exposing the concrete to CO2.

Developed in Japan, CO2-SUICOM is a carbon negative concrete.

Euronews

“We use CO2 gas instead of water for the CO2-SUICOM's curing process. CO2 is immobilised by bringing it into contact with the concrete while it is still hardening. We add a special mixture “γC2S”, we call it “magic powder” as it solidifies a large amount of CO2. The more we produce this “magic concrete” the more it reduces CO2 from the atmosphere,” says Kenzo.

This eco-friendly concrete has already been used in all sorts of infrastructure and building projects as a precast-material. SUICOM has already been used to build walls, ceiling panels and interlocking blocks. In the near future, developers intend to apply this technology to a wider range of construction materials. The carbon negative concrete could then be used as a common already-mixed concrete for cast-in place usage. This would open a new green way forward for construction.

Norway starts work on carbon storage program — says it’s “absolutely necessary”
The country believes simply reducing our emissions isn't enough -- we'll also need to sequester carbon underground.

 by Mihai Andrei
July 23, 2021
in Environment, Future, News


Norway is investing 1.7 billion euros into a full-scale carbon capture, transport, and storage project. The project named “Longship” is now under construction, and Norway is inviting other countries to join the project.

Image credits: Departments of Energy and Climate Change.
CCS


If we want to ensure a sustainable future without catastrophic climate damage, we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions — especially carbon dioxide. That can be done in several ways; one approach is to replace fossil fuel energy with renewable energy; another is to replace diesel cars with electric cars, or bicycles; changing our diets to less carbon-intensive foods can also make a big difference.

But there’s one area in which reducing emission has proven extremely difficult: factories — especially cement factories.

Cement alone represents around 8% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and, overall, 20% of global emissions come from heavy industries, which are typically factory-based). If cement facilities were a country, it would be the world’s third-largest emitter behind only China and the US. This is where carbon capture and storage (CCS) would come into play.

“According to the UN Panel on Climate Change, the capture, transport and storage of CO₂ emissions from the combustion of fossil energy and industrial production is crucial in order to reduce the world’s greenhouse gas emissions,” the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy writes on the project’s page.

“For some industries, especially cement production and waste incineration, the capture and storage of CO₂ is the only way to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

CCS is the process of capturing carbon dioxide and sequestering it underground. It works best when the CO₂ is captured from large point sources like (you’ve guessed it) factories. The technology could also be used to extract existing carbon from the atmosphere, but that technique is far less mature.

Image credits: Sask Power.

The aim is to prevent the release of carbon into the atmosphere and instead, inject it into geological formations where it would stay indefinitely.

The problem is that CCS is still expensive, and the technology is still emerging. Without a firm tax on carbon, the technology is pretty much a money sink. Besides, you also require the right geology to inject the carbon.

But Norway, a country that could become carbon-neutral as early as 2030, has the right suitable geological conditions, and is willing to invest money into a pioneering project, with the approval of the Norwegian Parliament. CCS is “absolutely necessary” if the world is to avoid runaway climate change, a state secretary told Dezeen.

“If we succeed in capturing and storing CO₂, it will be significantly cheaper to achieve the climate goals. Longship contributes in making this more feasible and less costly,” the project’s page writes. The carbon dioxide will be buried under the North Sea, into suitable bedrock. There is enough bedrock at the site to store Norway’s current emissions for a thousand years.

The government is also working with several companies. Northern Lights, the organization tasked with transporting the greenhouse gas and storing it under the sea, is already in discussion with several industrial partners. Reportedly, 60 companies are already interested in the project. The first carbon capture will happen at the Norcem cement factory in Brevik.

From Brevik, the CO₂ will be transported by ship to a new reception terminal in Øygarden in Hordaland. Then, the CO₂ will be sent through pipelines and permanently stored in a geological formation about 2,600 meters below the seabed. Northern Lights (a venture that involves Equinor, Shell, and Total) will realize the transport and storage of CO₂ in Longship. However, it's not clear how much such a service could cost.


This is an encouraging step, but in order for CCS to work, it requires international cooperation -- not just for the storage itself, but also for developing and commercializing new technology. Without CCS, reaching our emissions goals is exceedingly difficult -- but we're still just getting started.

According to the Global CCS Institute, in 2020, CCS operations had a capacity of about 40 million tons of CO2 per year, with another 50 million tons per year in development. In contrast, the world emits about 38 billion tonnes of CO2 every year.