Capturing the CCS debate

In 2008, Carbon Sequestration and Storage (CCS) became a bigger topic around the water cooler; for industry people, scientists, media, and Canadians at large. After the Alberta government’s official endorsement of the technology earlier in the year and subsequent pledge of $2 billion to advance CCS research over the summer, this was the year CCS moved into the mainstream.

The Alberta funding is part of that province’s climate change plan, which was launched by Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach in early 2008. The plan aims to cut GHG emissions in the province in half by 2050. CCS technology is expected to contribute to 70 per cent of the total 200 megatonnes slated for reduction by that time.

Even the federal government seemed keen on pushing CCS with Harper’s $240 million funding announcement for what they are describing as “the world’s first and largest CCS demonstration projects at the Boundary Dam Power Station in Estevan Saskatchewan.

Climate change solution or just a bunch of hot air?

Everyone seems to have a perspective on CCS – whether they’re members of industry investing in its development, or NGOs that are intrinsically wary of industry and government touted solutions.

Environmental groups in particular often regard CCS as an unknown technology and are hesitant to jump on the bandwagon. The Sierra Club is a case in point. To find the organization’s views, one need look no further than their Coal FAQs: “If coal is to remain a part of our energy future, it must be mined responsibly, burned cleanly and guaranteed to not worsen global warming pollution. At this time, there is no existing coal technology that meets these standards, including Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) or carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).”

The Pembina Institute, on the other hand, is cautiously supportive of CCS. “There is no one green bullet,” says executive director Marlo Raynolds who believes CCS should be employed as part of a “portfolio” of climate change solutions. Raynolds says that Pembina has taken on the stance that, because Alberta is situated on sedimentary basins, oil sands operate on a geology that lends itself well to CO2 storage. “If we were in other parts of the world where we didn’t have that storage capacity, we would need to look for other options. For us CCS is one part of the solution.”

Percolating the debate even further is the presence of online forums in which citizens of all walks share their knowledge, questions and opinions about CCS. One such debate was fomented on the Canada’s Oil Sands website, which was launched early in the summer to provide a platform for people to air their concerns about oil sand development. The industry funded initiative, dubbed “a different conversation” saw the introduction of many discussion topics, and it wasn’t long before CCS was added to the mix.

“If you look at the hydrocarbons – oil, gas, bitumen and for that matter coal, they are essentially sequestered carbon, only carbon that was sequestered millions of years ago,” writes one contributor under the alias ‘Bill.’ “I think it is perfectly logical option to ‘resequester’ this same carbon in depleted oil and gas reservoirs where it once was sequestered. It would be sequestered as CO2 rather than as CH4 or other hydrocarbons. We have simply extracted the energy from it.”

The discussion on the site ranges from potential ground water impact to individual responsibility for reduction of emissions.

CCS in depth

Another voice in the debate is that of CCS advocate Dr. Eddy Isaac, Executive Director of Alberta Energy Research Institute (AERI). While Isaac agrees with some concerns being raised – primarily the high cost required to test and implement – he regards CCS as a known technology with potential to address the emissions issue. Referring to the often cited challenge of transporting and storing the collected CO2, Isaac says it’s been happening everyday in the US for the last 30 years.

Already in a natural liquid state, companies have been pumping and transporting natural C02 from the ground as a solvent for enhanced oil recovery. A good example of this is the Weyburn-Midale CO2 Project in southeastern Saskatchewan which is home to a depleted oil reservoir containing deep underground rock formations called saline aquifiers. Transported via pipeline from a plant in Beulah North Dakota, pure streams of CO2 left over from the coal gasification process is injected into these underground formations for EOR. “The real challenge right now is being able to capture emitted CO2,” explains Isaac, adding the technology does exist, but is highly expensive to implement on the mass scale required to substantively reduce emissions. 

Another component in the equation is storage. Isaac says this is being done already, albeit on a smaller scale, as acid gas from gas plants containing a mixture of CO2 and hydrogen sulphide is regularly stored in what’s called, saline formations. According to Isaac, there are 50 projects currently underway that involve injecting acid gas into these formations, but bringing the technology into mass commercial use involves major costs that should eventually start decreasing. “We’re going a step further and saying in the long run we need to find other formations to put the CO2 in – yes we can use it for enhanced oil recovery, but in the long run we want to also just inject it and forget about it.”

But perhaps it’s not that simple. Recent research points out the energy intensive process of operating CCS technology, suggesting a new metaphor for the technology might be in order – the Ouroboros, more widely recognized as a snake eating its own tale. It is a representation of infinity or, less inspiring, the impossible or self-defeating. A recent study reveals the possibility that CCS could result in increased emissions, due to the additional energy required to power the very process that was supposed to reduce air pollution in the first place.

Says Science News, “When the researchers factored in all the “cradle to grave” pollution of a CO2-burying plant, emissions of acid rain-causing gases like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx) were up to 40 percent greater than the total cradle-to-grave emissions of a modern plant that doesn’t capture its CO2.”

Advocates of the technology, such as Isaac, believe this isn’t necessarily the case. “The technologies used in new power plants that will capture CO2 will be based on gasification technology or Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC),” he says, adding that although plants using IGCC technology are expensive and seldom used today, the technology is suited, in many respects, to bringing emissions down to zero. “The use of this technology reduces SOx and NOx by orders of magnitude compared to conventional pulverized coal technology. So while I believe we need to do life cycle analyses, all the data I have seen indicate much lower SOx and NOx emissions.”

Another solution for the CCS energy use conundrum comes from Stephen Kaufman, Chairman of the Integrated CO2 Network (ICO2N) an industry supported carbon capture and storage (CCS) system proposed for Canada. “By undertaking CO2 capture there is a loss in plant efficiency and more energy is required for the same output,” says Kaufman. “The CO2 emissions from this additional energy use will also be captured in the majority of cases”

CCS – a question of politics

While the challenges and solutions for CCS continue being posed, the debate also veers into political territory. Should the high cost to implement CCS become the responsibility of industry or taxpayers? Such is a topic experts from all representations seem to have an opinion about as well.

“It’s subsidizing industry through taxpayer dollars. We end up paying to clean up industry’s mess.” says Jeh Custer, Northwestern Energy Campaigner with the Sierra Club. Describing the announcement as industry’s “get out of jail free card” Custer says the technology ultimately allows them to continue business as usual. “It’s an unproven technology. To think that we’re going to take carbon and put it under the ground and it will be there for hundreds or thousands of years seems over reliant on technological solutions.”

Kaufman, on the other hand, says that research from ICO2N shows large-scale CCS will not proceed if left to the market alone as the investment risks in the early years are substantial. “CCS is ideal for a public-private partnership as this approach enables industry and, both provincial and federal, government to work together to address long-term policy, financial risk-sharing and regulatory issues,” says the chairman.

“Carbon sequestration is still a relatively new and expensive process,” says Jacob Irving, Executive Director of the Oil Sands Developers Group, adding that developing the Alberta oil sands was also expensive in the beginning. But as time passed and technology advanced, the cost to develop decreased substantially. “We expect the same would be true for carbon sequestration technology but only through the construction and generation of actual projects. And that can only happen with the ongoing efforts and investment of industry alongside the support of government through initiatives such as the recently announced CCS fund.”

Meanwhile, the wheels are already steering the CCS debate from the realm of talk and into the realm of action. The Alberta Government recently announced three Alberta test wells are slated for drilling in a “ground-breaking, long-term, large-volume CO2 sequestration project,” that will reach the end of the field test phase in June 2010. As well, with $2 billion flowing up the provincial pipes, many industry players and scientists are excited by the chance to push the technology so it can be brought to mass-scale commercial use. AERI, the organization responsible for fielding applications has been short-listing those proposals that demonstrate high potential for speed of development and ability to substantively reduce GHGs through CCS technology. Full project proposals will be submitted by early 2009 and the specific allocation of monies from the $2 billion CCS fund will be determined by March 31, 2009.

At that point, expect a little more conversation at the water cooler about CCS.