Taking the fizz out of Carbon Capture and Storage

This week’s final fabulous policy presentation was on the topic of questionable technologies such as carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy, and their role in the Clean Development Mechanism.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a technique that removes CO2 from large point sources of emissions, and either pipes it underground or underwater to prevent it from entering the atmosphere. It does not remove existing CO2 in the atmosphere (although a fairly new discovery suggests that basaltic rock has co2 absorbing properties). CCS is capable of capturing 85-95% of CO2 in some cases. The CO2 is often transported along pipelines and either stored underground using well-established geologic technology, or piped to the bottom of a large and deep lake or ocean where the pressure keeps the gas from escaping. A new technique called mineralization is currently being researched, but is at the moment far more energy intensive than the geologic or oceanic sequestration techniques mentioned previously.

The oil and gas industries have been using CCS to help bring these fuels to the surface for easy extraction; however, the storage capacities of geologic sequestration are not well understood. This mechanism is also at risk from seismic activity, crack or fissure developments, or ruptures into undetected wells. There are significant biological problems with the ocean sequestration techniques, as any high school chemistry teacher will tell you. This is because CO2 has an acidifying property, and acid can dissolve calcium. Acidifying water guarantees significant species loss (think corals, shellfish) in our oceans – as if that isn’t already a huge problem!

The challenges surrounding the inclusion of CCS in the CDM process include such uncertainties as: how to deal with underground reservoirs that cross political boundaries, how to measure or quantify seepage, and how to select suitable sites. CCS is also an extremely pricey mitigation tool at the moment, and financing would be a significant challenge. (Keep in mind the astronomical estimated cost of adaptation to climate change, in addition to any technology and mitigation funds that may arise).

Quite honestly, I think CCS as a technology has great potential for minimizing emissions from these sectors as an interim measure while we figure out how to bust out of this oil-driven economy. Nonetheless, numerous uncertainties make it completely unsuitable for the Clean Development Mechanism. Countries such as Canada, Norway, Russia, and other major oil-producing economies should continue to contribute to the research and design of improved systems, and are encouraged to apply them to their own emission mitigation strategies. They should not be encouraged to support including CCS as a CDM mechanism – focus on renewable energy technologies instead! CCS should never replace or take away from investments in renewable energy technology, as this represents our only option for truly returning to a stable climate, and minimizing the risks of extreme climate change. And no, Nuclear energy is not a renewable energy…which will lead me to my next posting. Until then, invest in them there windmills!