Document information
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Geological Storage of CO2
Correspondence: (Login to view email address)
- Imperial College London
PDF (2.4 MB)
- Document Type:
- Presentation
- Date:
- Received 12 February 2008 14:05 UTC; Posted 12 February 2008
- Subjects:
- Earth and Environment
- Abstract:
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the collection of carbon dioxide (CO2) from industrial point sources such as power plants and its injection underground. Much of the technology necessary to capture and inject CO2 into the subsurface already exists and CCS will be an integral part of any strategy to combat anthropogenic climate change until we, as a society, are able to move away from our dependence on fossil fuels.
There are three options for geological storage of CO2: deep saline aquifers, depleted oil reservoirs and unmineable coal beds. It is the purpose of this presentation to provide a general survey of each of these options. For each geological formation I review (1) The ways in which CO2 could escape into the atmosphere. (2) Current scientific knowledge and uncertainties about the behaviour of CO2 after it is underground -particularly the interactions of water, oil or gas initially present in the geological formation with injected CO2. (3) The overall advantages and disadvantages of each option in terms of technical challenges and cost.
- Collection:
- Second Nature Lecture Series
- Presented at:
- Second Nature Climate Change Special Series, 04 December 2007
Discussion
- Votes:
-
2 votes
- Comments:
-
1 comment
- (Login to share with a colleague)
Additional information
- License:
- This document is licensed to the public under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
- How to cite this document:
-
LaForce, Tara. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Geological Storage of CO2. Available from Nature Precedings <http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npre.2008.1590.1> (2008)
- Version info:
-
Other versions of this document in Nature Precedings
None.
Other versions of this document elsewhere on the web
None known.
Noah Gray on 13 February 2008 22:38 UTC
Regardless of the solution, there need to be more economic incentives to force companies to adopt CCS. Or should I say “disincentives” (putting a price on carbon emissions in the first place).
But placing the politics aside for a moment, what do you think the massive restructuring (some might say scrapping) of plans for FutureGen in Mattoon, IL, USA means with regards to the readiness of coal-based CCS plants in the short-term? Are the problems mainly cost? Or is the science still just not in place yet? The US DOE seems pretty vague on all of this and I read quotes that the data needed to satisfy the scientific concerns are more than only one plant (FutureGen) could deliver, hence the restructuring.
It is disappointing that the US government is not moving more quickly regarding more widespread adoption or testing of CCS, however the West Texas plant in operation seems to be quite successful as a US venture into CCS (although this sequestration is not coal-based, if I understand correctly). Now all we need to do is scale that type of success up by a few orders of magnitude in order to make a dent in the proposed rise in emissions over the next 100 years…