User:Quasimodo1420/Carbon capture and storage

Article Draft

Lead

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a process in which a relatively pure stream of carbon dioxide (CO₂) from industrial sources is separated, treated and transported to a long-term storage location. For example, the burning of fossil fuels or biomass results in a stream of CO₂ that could be captured and stored by CCS. Usually the CO₂ is captured from large point sources, such as a chemical plant or a bioenergy plant, and then stored in a suitable geological formation. The aim is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus mitigate climate change. For example, CCS retrofits for existing power plants can be one of the ways to limit emissions from the electricity sector and meet the Paris Agreement goals.

Carbon dioxide can be captured directly from the gaseous emissions of an industrial source, for example from a cement producing factory (cement kiln). Several technologies are in use: adsorption, chemical looping, membrane gas separation or gas hydration. However, as of 2022, only about one thousandth of global CO₂ emissions are captured by CCS, and most of those CCS projects are for natural-gas processing. CCS projects generally aim for 90% capture efficiency, but most of the current installations have failed to meet that goal.

Storage of the captured CO₂ is either in deep geological formations or in the form of mineral carbonates. Geological formations are currently the favored option for storage. Pyrogenic carbon capture and storage (PyCCS) is another option. Long-term predictions about submarine or underground storage security are difficult. There is still the risk that some CO₂ might leak into the atmosphere. A 2018 evaluation estimates the risk of substantial leakage to be fairly low. CCS is so far still a relatively expensive process. Carbon capture becomes more economically viable when the carbon price is high, which is the case in much of Europe. Another option is to combine CCS with a utilization process where the captured CO₂ is used to produce high-value chemicals to offset the high costs of capture operations.

Some environmental activists and politicians have criticized CCS as a false solution to the climate crisis. They cite the role of the fossil fuel industry in origins of the technology and in lobbying for CCS focused legislation. Critics also argue that CCS is only a justification for indefinite fossil fuel usage and equate to further investments into the environmental and social harms related to the fossil fuel industry. With regards to public support or rejection, communities who have been negatively affected by an industrial activity in the past are less supportive of CCS. Communities that feel inadequately informed about or excluded from project decision-making may also resist CCS development.

Globally, a number of laws and rules have been issued that either support or even mandate the implementation of CCS. In the US, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides support for a variety of CCS projects, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 updates tax credit law to encourage the use of CCS. Other countries are also developing programs to support CCS technologies, including Canada, Denmark, China, and the UK.

Article body

Seismic[edit]

Seismic monitoring is a type of indirect monitoring. It is done by creating seismic waves either at the surface using a seismic vibrator, or inside a well using a spinning eccentric mass. These waves propagate through geological layers and reflect back, creating patterns that are recorded by seismic sensors placed on the surface or in boreholes. It can identify migration pathways of the CO₂ plume.

Examples of seismic monitoring of geological sequestration are the Sleipner sequestration project, the Frio CO₂ injection test and the CO2CRC Otway Project. Seismic monitoring can confirm the presence of CO₂ in a given region and map its lateral distribution, but is not sensitive to the concentration.

Zoback and Gorelick (2012) identified the need for further study into how low to moderate intensity seismic events can impact the seal integrity of any prospective reservoirs for geologic carbon storage. Induced seismicity due to wastewater injection is widely documented; however these discussions are typically not in the context of nearby CCS storage sites. This prompts the need for a greater understanding of the risks of local and regional seismic impacts of storage integrity over time.

Social acceptance[edit]

Multiple studies indicate that risk and benefit perception are the most essential components of social acceptance.

Risk perception is mostly related to the concerns on its safety issues in terms of hazards from its operations and the possibility of CO₂ leakage which may endanger communities, commodities, and the environment in the vicinity of the infrastructure. Other perceived risks relate to tourism and property values. CCS public perceptions appear among other controversial technologies to tackle climate change such as nuclear power, wind, and geoengineering

People who are already affected by climate change, such as drought, tend to be more supportive of CCS. Locally, communities are sensitive to economic factors, including job creation, tourism or related investment.

Experience is another relevant feature. Several field studies concluded that people already involved or used to industry are likely to accept the technology. In the same way, communities who have been negatively affected by any industrial activity are also less supportive of CCS.

Perception of CCS as a viable technology has a strong geographic component. Public perception of the risks and benefits of CSS can depend on the available information about pilot projects, trust in the government entities and developers involved, and awareness of successes and failures of CCS projects both locally and globally. All these considerations vary by country and by the host community.

If only considering technical feasibility, countries with no known viable storage sites may dismiss CCS as an option in national emissions reduction strategies. In contrast, countries with several, or an abundance of viable storage sites may consider CCS as essential to reducing emissions.

Few members of the public know about CCS. This can allow misconceptions that lead to less approval. No strong evidence links knowledge of CCS and public acceptance. However, one study found that communicating information about monitoring tends to have a negative impact on attitudes. Conversely, approval seems to be reinforced when CCS is compared to natural phenomena.

Connected to how public perception influences the success or failure of a CCS project is consideration for how decision-making processes are implemented equitably and meaningfully for impacted communities at all stages of the project. Public participation alone does not encompass all aspects of procedural justice needed for CCS projects to receive the "social license" to operate.

Due to the lack of knowledge, people rely on organizations that they trust.^{[citation needed]} In general, non-governmental organizations and researchers experience higher trust than stakeholders and governments. Opinions amongst NGOs are mixed. Moreover, the link between trust and acceptance is at best indirect. Instead, trust has an influence on the perception of risks and benefits.

CCS is embraced by the Shallow ecology worldview, which promotes the search for solutions to the effects of climate change in lieu of/in addition to addressing the causes. This involves the use of advancing technology and CCS acceptance is common among techno-optimists. CCS is an "end-of-pipe" solution that reduces atmospheric CO₂, instead of minimizing the use of fossil fuel.

On 21 January 2021, Elon Musk announced he was donating $100m for a prize for best carbon capture technology.

Political debate[edit]

CCS has been discussed by political actors at least since the start of the UNFCCC negotiations in the beginning of the 1990s, and remains a very divisive issue.^{[citation needed]}

Some environmental groups raised concerns over leakage given the long storage time required, comparing CCS to storing radioactive waste from nuclear power stations.

Other controversies arose from the use of CCS by policy makers as a tool to fight climate change.^{[citation needed]} In the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report in 2022, most pathways to keep the increase of global temperature below 2 °C include the use of negative emission technologies (NETs).

Some environmental activists and politicians have criticized CCS as a false solution to the climate crisis. They cite the role of the fossil fuel industry in origins of the technology and in lobbying for CCS focused legislation and argue that it would allow the industry to "greenwash" itself by funding and engaging in things such as tree planting campaigns without significantly cutting their carbon emissions.

Carbon emission status-quo[edit]

Opponents claimed that CCS could legitimize the continued use of fossil fuels, as well as obviate commitments on emission reduction.^{[citation needed]}

Some examples such as in Norway shows that CCS and other carbon removal technologies gained traction because it allowed the country to pursue its interests regarding the petroleum industry. Norway was a pioneer in emission mitigation, and established a CO₂ tax in 1991.

Maintaining the use of fossil fuels as the energy status quo extends beyond the climate impacts of their emissions. Implementing CCS to capture carbon emissions from an industrial point source can also enable the negative environmental or social impacts "upstream" of a storage site. This is particularly evident where energy resources lie in or near areas home to indigenous communities, such as the regions overlying the Bakken Formation or the Athabasca Oil Sands. Power imbalances persist between the extractive industry corporations, state, provincial, or federal governments, and the "host" communities. As a result, the impacted populations are often displaced or criminalized when seeking to defend their ancestral lands from ecological harm (see Resource Extraction in Environmental Justice). In some circumstances, promoting and implementing CCS projects for industrial operations that refine, distribute, or convert raw energy resources from these lands can be viewed as investing in displacement processes, delegitimizing indigenous rights, and furthering ecological harm.

Another aspect of CCS that concerns many project opponents is that projects only remove carbon dioxide from flue gas. Particulate matter and other toxic gas emissions would continue, which is of particular concern in places in the US where industries are in poor and/or minority communities. In many cases, CCS would not markedly improve the public or environmental health of these communities.

Because CCS is an "end of pipe" technology, part of the key to its viability as a climate change solution stems from wholistically evaluating the sustainability of the energy resource pipeline tied to a project. Within the US, although the federal government may fully or partially fund CCS pilot projects, local or community jurisdictions would likely administer CCS project siting and construction.

The communities targeted for hosting CCS projects may meet the geologic and technical siting criteria; however, non-technical social characterizations are equally important factors in the success of an individual project and the global deployment of this technology. Failing to provide meaningful engagement with local communities can drive resistance to CCS projects and enable feelings of mistrust and injustice from project developers and supporting government entities.

References

Alexander, C., Stanley, A., 2022, The colonialism of carbon capture and storage in Alberta's Tar Sands, Nature and Space, Vol. 5(4), 2112-2131, https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486211052875.

Drugmand, Dana (2023-11-06). "The Carbon Capture Sector's Community-Involvement Rhetoric Doesn't Match Reality". DeSmog. Retrieved 2024-03-11.

Kainiemi, L., Toikka, A., Jarvinen, M., 2013, Stakeholder perceptions on carbon capture and storage technologies in Finland- economic, technological, political, and societal uncertainties, Energy Procedia, Vol. 37, p. 7353-7360, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.675.

Malin, S. Ryder, S., Lyra, M.G., 2019, Environmental justice and natural resource extraction: intersections of power, equity and access, Environmental Sociology, Vol. 5, Issue 2, p. 109-116, https://doi.org/10.1080.2351042.2019.1608420.

McLaren, D.P., 2012, Procedural justice in carbon capture and storage, Energy & Environment, Vol. 23, No. 2 & 3, p. 345-365, https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.23.2-3.345

Oltra, C., Upham, P., Reisch, H., Boso, A., Brunsting, S., Dustchke, E., Lis, A., 2012, Public Responses to CO₂ Storage sites: lessons from five European cases, Energy & Environment, Vol. 23, No. 2 & 3, p. 227 - 248, https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.23.2-3.227.

Tcvetkov, P., Cherepovitsyn, A., Fedoseev, S., 2019, Public perception of carbon capture and storage: A state-of-the-art overview, Heliyon, Vol. 5-12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02845.

White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, 2021, Executive Order 12898 Revisions: Interim Final Recommendations, Council on Environmental Quality, https://legacy-assets.eenews.net/open_files/assets/2021/05/17/document_ew_01.pdf.

Zoback, M.D., Gorelick, S.M., 2012, Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the US, DOI: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1202473109.