Podcast Summary
The IPCC report highlights the urgency of climate action and the role of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS): The IPCC report emphasizes the need for urgent climate action and the importance of CCS in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. New CCS projects are being planned, and criticisms are being addressed to make this round of implementation different from previous attempts.
Learning from the IPCC report is that urgent action is needed to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change. The report emphasizes that we're running out of time, and delaying action will only make the situation more difficult and expensive to address in the future. The good news is that there are solutions available, and one of them is carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), which is making a comeback. Despite some high-profile failures and cost overruns in the past, new CCS projects are being planned at an increasing rate. In the interview, Chris Battai, a researcher at the Institute For Sustainable Development and International Relations and the lead author of the industry chapter of the IPCC report, discusses the importance of CCS in a deeply decarbonized future. He also addresses criticisms of CCS and what might make this round of implementation different from previous attempts. Overall, the IPCC report underscores the urgency of addressing climate change and the role that CCS can play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To support organizations like Canary Media that cover climate solutions and ensure the continuation of podcasts like Catalyst, consider making a donation at www.canarymedia.com.
History of CCS technology: Despite initial success, the transition from capturing CO2 from methane to coal flue gas proved complex, leading to high-profile failures and significant delays in CCS implementation for coal electricity plants
While the cost of renewable energy technologies is decreasing faster than expected, the history of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology has been a challenging one. CCS initially gained attention in the 1990s due to its success in separating carbon dioxide (CO2) from methane. However, the transition from separating CO2 from methane to coal flue gas proved to be a much more complex problem. Coal flue gas contains impurities such as nitrogen, sulfur compounds, and particulates, which interfere with the amine separation process used to capture CO2. Consequently, high-profile failures occurred, leading to skepticism and significant delays in the implementation of CCS technology for coal electricity plants. It's important to note that this discussion primarily covers point source carbon capture, with a brief mention of direct air capture and other carbon removal technologies for the sequestration part. The history of CCS serves as a reminder of the challenges faced in implementing large-scale carbon capture projects and the importance of continued research and innovation to overcome these challenges.
The economic feasibility of carbon capture depends on CO2 concentration: High concentration CO2 emissions make carbon capture economically viable, while low concentration emissions increase costs and challenges. Recent incentives and renewed interest may lead to wider adoption.
The success and viability of carbon capture technology hinge on the concentration and cleanliness of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. High concentration CO2 emissions can lead to capture costs in the $15 to $20 a ton range, making the process economically feasible. However, low concentration CO2 emissions make separation much more challenging. Despite the potential for carbon capture in various industries like ethanol and fertilizer plants, it has not been widely adopted until recently. The current state of affairs includes the 45q tax credit in the US and similar incentives in other countries, which could lead to the widespread application of carbon capture technology. However, there are ongoing debates about who should bear the costs, and some politicians have been hesitant to mandate its implementation. The past decade has seen several high-profile failures in carbon capture, but recent developments suggest a renewed interest in the technology, driven by the need to decarbonize heavy emitting sectors and the potential for economic viability with high concentration CO2 emissions.
Economic Feasibility of CCUS Technologies: CCUS technologies offer economic opportunities through financial incentives and enhanced oil recovery, but careful planning is needed to handle large CO2 volumes and ensure success.
The economic feasibility of implementing Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) technologies, specifically for separating CO2 from industrial processes and sequestering it, is a complex issue. While there are financial incentives, such as the $50 tax credit under 45q, the implementation of these technologies is not straightforward due to the negotiation process and the need for compensation for additional costs. The discussion also highlighted the importance of enhanced oil recovery as the first significant application of CCUS, which can reduce emissions and make the process economically viable. However, proper well management is crucial to ensure the success of this application. The challenge lies in dealing with the large amounts of CO2 produced from various industries, particularly those with concentrated flows like gas, ammonia, and ethanol. The options for handling this CO2 are either to utilize it or sequester it. Enhanced oil recovery is an intermediate solution, as it involves both utilization and sequestration. Overall, the implementation of CCUS technologies requires careful consideration and planning to make the most of the economic opportunities while minimizing the environmental impact.
Storing CO2 in Deep Saline Aquifers: Drilling and Mineralization: Deep saline aquifers are a common solution for CO2 storage due to their vast capacity, but drilling and compressing CO2 for deep injection and mineralization's dependence on natural reactions pose challenges
While there are various ways to utilize CO2, such as enhanced oil recovery and creating concrete or chemicals, the majority of CO2 capture will likely need to be stored permanently due to the massive quantities involved. Deep saline aquifers, which are abundant and can hold thousands of gigatons of CO2, are a common storage solution. However, accessing these aquifers requires drilling deep and compressing CO2, leading to electricity costs. Mineralization, which involves CO2 reacting with minerals and turning into solid carbonates, is another potential storage method and can occur naturally in deep saline aquifers. While technically there's no limitation to sequestration capacity, practical challenges such as social resistance to drilling and the difficulty of measuring how much mineralization works could potentially be bottlenecks for CO2 storage in the next decade.
Jurisdictional differences impact deep saline injection for carbon capture: Deep saline injection for carbon capture faces challenges due to subsurface rights ownership. Amine solutions dominate CO2 separation, but improvements and alternatives like ceramic and polymer filters are explored. Costs range from $15-$220 per ton, with affordability and accessibility key concerns.
Deep saline injection for carbon capture faces stakeholder issues due to jurisdictional differences in subsurface rights. In Canada, the crown owns the deep pore space, while in the US, it's mostly the landholders. Regarding point source capture technology, amine solutions are still the primary method for separating CO2, but improvements have been made, and other methods like ceramic and polymer filters are being explored. Costs for carbon capture vary widely, with some applications estimated at $15-$20 per ton for separation only, while larger industrial plants may pay $120-$150 per ton for capture, separation, transport, and recompression. Point source carbon capture plays a crucial role in reducing emissions, especially in industries where CO2 separation is already required. However, costs remain a significant challenge, and ongoing research and innovation are essential to make carbon capture more affordable and accessible.
CCUS is crucial for decarbonizing cement and chemical industries: CCUS is vital for reducing carbon emissions in cement and chemical industries, particularly for creating zero-emissions clinker in cement production and providing firm, clean power for chemical industries like plastics.
Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) plays a crucial role in decarbonizing specific industries, particularly cement and chemicals, where there are currently no viable alternatives to fossil fuels. These industries produce large amounts of carbon emissions and require significant reductions to meet net-zero goals. The discussion highlighted the importance of demand decarbonization and production decarbonization strategies, with CCUS being considered after these other measures have been explored. Cement production needs CCUS to create zero-emissions clinker, and the chemical industry, specifically plastics, also requires CCUS due to its rapid growth and reliance on carbon-based structures. While CCUS has faced challenges in the power sector, it still has a role to play in providing firm, clean power to underpin variable renewable energy sources. A notable example is NetPower, a carbon capture technology that can be integrated with natural gas power plants to reduce emissions. Overall, CCUS is a necessary component in the global transition to a low-carbon economy, especially in the cement and chemical industries.
Addressing the reliability of renewable energy with firm clean power: Focus on reducing fugitive emissions from oil and gas, consider CCS in specific industries, and improve emissions reduction technologies and policies for a more sustainable energy future.
While renewable energy sources are important for reducing carbon emissions, they also require a reliable and stable power source to underpin their variability. Firm clean power can come from various sources including hydro, nuclear, fossil fuels with CCS, and net power. However, the use of CCS is politically contentious due to upstream emissions and the perceived perpetuation of fossil fuel usage. To address this, it's crucial to focus on reducing fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction, aiming for less than 1% and eventually half percent by 2030. In the context of CCS, it's essential to consider its application in specific industries like cement and chemicals where emissions are a significant challenge. While CCS may not lock in significant oil and gas production for renewable energy systems, it's important to continue improving emissions reduction technologies and policies to move towards a more sustainable energy future.
Carbon Capture and Storage: A Complex Tool for Net-Zero Emissions: CCS is an essential component for industries hard to decarbonize, and along with direct air capture, could reach 1-2 gigatons per year or more in net-negative emissions.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a complex tool with various applications and challenges. While it may not be the sole solution to reach net-zero emissions, it is an essential component, especially for industries like cement and chemicals that are difficult to decarbonize through fuel switching alone. The optimistic view is that we may minimize the use of CCS and focus on mitigation through renewable energy and fuel switching. However, the realist perspective suggests that we'll likely rely on CCS, along with other carbon removal technologies like direct air capture, to help reach net-negative emissions. The key CDR technologies will likely be direct air capture with CCS, and it could become a significant business, potentially reaching 1-2 gigatons per year or more. CCS is neither inherently good nor bad but a tool with various shades of gray. The success of CCS depends on factors like the specific application, the cost of renewable energy, and the availability of land for alternative uses.
Understanding the Differences Between Concentrated Flows and Post-Combustion CCS: While CCS is crucial for reducing emissions, it's vital to distinguish between commercially available concentrated flows and post-combustion methods. Sectors like steel may benefit from CCS, but its use isn't an absolute requirement.
While Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology is important for reducing carbon emissions, particularly in certain sectors, it's essential to understand the differences between concentrated flows and post-combustion methods. Concentrated flows are commercially available today, but post-combustion is not. While some sectors, such as steel, may benefit from CCS, it's not an absolute requirement. Chris Bataille, a researcher at IDDRI, professor at Simon Fraser University, and lead author on the industry chapter of the IPCC report, emphasized the importance of considering the specifics of each method and their current commercial viability. For more information on this topic and to engage with the show, listeners can find Catalyst on Twitter @catalystpod, and the producers are Daniel Waldorf, Steven Lacey, Cecily Meza Martinez, with mixing by Greg Villefrank and Sean Marquand, and theme music by Sean Marquand. The show is supported by Prelude Ventures, a venture capital firm investing in climate change solutions across various sectors. To learn more about the episode and guest, visit canarymedia.com.
