Carbon Capture and Storage - Literature review Example

Carbon capture and storage Name of the Student: Name of the Instructor: Name of the course: Code of the course: Submission date: Carbon capture and storage Introduction In a generic sense, carbon capture and storage (CCS) or sometimes referred to as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) can be perceived as the long-term isolation of anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) which are long-term in nature from the atmosphere (Hamerlinck et. al, 2010). This process has received extensive promotion from international climate conventions as well as support from governmental research and development (R&D) programs, for instance, in China which has experienced an increasing number of CCS pilot and demonstration projects (Lai, 2012). From a historical perspective, despite the fact that the injection of CO2 into the geological formations has been evident for the last several decades and for different purposes which include but not limited to enhanced oil recovery, the storage of CO2 in a long-term perspective has been viewed as a relatively new concept with the first commercial example being Weyburn in 2000. Nonetheless, CCS in the deep geological formations has in the recent past emerged as an imperative alternative which is geared towards the minimization of greenhouse emissions (Benson & Cole, 2008) as well as having other potentials as epitomized by Riahi et. al (2004). The major significance of carbon capture and storage approach is that if it is effectively formulated and implemented to the extent of a scale which is necessary to impact on the environment through the minimization of CO2 in the atmosphere, this is a great chance of requisitioning more than a billion metric tons of CO2 annually which is a 250 fold elevation above the amount which is requisitioned in the current times (Benson & Cole, 2008). This will have extensive positive impacts on the steps towards environmental conservation and a great stride towards achieving global objectives like the millennium development goals (in relation to the environment). Thus, despite the fact that carbon capture and storage technology is more embraced in the developed world, extensive efforts ought to be undertaken aimed at disseminating this technology to other parts of the world in order to achieve a holistic approach in dealing with the challenges of climate change in the modern word as well as in the future. Thus, the development of this process has been considered to be one of the most formidable interventions in the process of searching for the ways of minimizing the heightening threat of climate change around the globe (Herzog, 2001). This is founded on the fact that CSG aims at reducing or completely preventing the release of enormous quantities of carbon dioxide from various sources, for instance from fossil fuel which is used in the generation of power among other diverse industries into the atmosphere which is greatly credited for the increasing climate change in the contemporary world. Nonetheless, it is fundamental to note that the implementation of CCS technologies ought to be preceded by extensive societal support which is core in ensuring its success (Alphen et. al, 2007). Against this backdrop, this paper will explore the capture as well as the sequestration process. In addition, it will analyze the possible dangers associated with CCS and the safety practices when dealing with CCS. The Capture Process The processes of capturing and storing CO2 have increasingly gained attention among the members of the scientific community being an alternative mechanism of reducing the concentration of CO2 in ambient air (Pires et. al, 2011). In a generic overview,Hamerlinck et. al (2010) cited that this process entails the separation, collection and the eventual concentration of carbon dioxide from different energy sources which include the industrial power plant flue gas. This is succeeded by the compression and transportation of that CO2 mostly through pipeline to different locations which are designated for the storage purposes. Three rudimentary steps are engaged in the process of capturing CO2 from power production. These are flue gas separation, oxy-fuel combustion in power plants and lastly, pre-combustion separation (Herzog, 2001). These processes are also evidenced and expounded by Wall (2007). In the first process, the flue gas is usually bubbled through the solvent in a packed absorber column. Here, the solvent specially confiscates the CO2 from the flue gas. Eventually, this solvent is passed through a regenerator unit, a process which ensures that all the CO2 which was absorbed is stripped from the solvent by a steam which is counter flowing (100-120 degrees Celsius). Afterwards, the water vapor is condensed, a process which leaves behind an extremely concentrated CO2 stream which is compressed and piped to the storage sites. The sequestration processes In a basic sense, sequestration refers to the process of injecting the CO2 which is captured in the process analyzed above into deep reservoirs, for instance, saline reservoirs, depleted oil and gas fields and unmineable coal seams. Two basic methods are applicable in the sequestration processeswhich are conventional processes as well as non-conventional processes. These include Geological Sequestration (use of site such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs, unmineable coal seams, shale formations with high organic content and underground saline formations), ocean Sequestration and Terrestrial Sequestration. All these processes are endowed with diverse merits and demerits and it is the mandate of the agencies which are responsible with this with the sequestration processes to ensure that they put into utility the methods which pose the least detrimental impacts on the environment as well as the inhabitants of a particular region. Thus, this calls for a prerequisite of societal support as outlined by Alphen, et. al (2007) previously mentioned. Possible dangers associated with CCS Aspreviously mentioned, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an emergent technology which aims at the mitigation of the greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere from the fossil fuel-fired power plants (Kraeusel & Most, 2012). However, despite the imperative niche of this process in the minimization of climate change which is a robust challenge in the contemporary world, this process is also endowed with possible dangers. Some of these inherent risks in CCS form the foundation of undertakings by projects like European iNTeg-Risk which aim at enhancing the management of new risks which are associated with new technologies in the wider European industry whose outcomes are projected to diffuse into other regions around the globe (Wilday et. al, 2011). Amid other risks, one of the most noted risk in carbon capture and storage technology is the possibility of carbon leakage from the underground carbon storage sites. This has been pointed out by majority of the anti-CCS individuals and collectives who have argued that the safe and permanent process of storing carbon in the underground reservoirs as advocated by the CCS proponents is not guaranteed. On the other hand, these anti-CCS individuals and collectiveshave also pointed out that even the slightest leakage rates of this carbon stored under the CCS technology undermines and nullifies any climate enhancement efforts. In addition, they have also pointed other risks like public health as well as safety risks which are associated with this technology. The above risk among others have led to the inference by diverse proponents that investment in the carbon capture and storage is not an ideal mechanism of reducing the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere and thus, other alternative which are more sustainable in terms of fitting into the long-term execution of sustainable energy systems as well as being cost effective ought to be sought (Lund & Mathiesen, 2012). Safety practices when dealing with CCS Different approaches have been proposed for dealing with the problem of carbon leakage analyzed above in the carbon capture and storage projects. However, the most prudent strategy which has been proposed is the implementation of a strong monitoring, verification and accounting (MVA) tools (Plasynski et. al, 2011). This model is integral in aspects like site characterization, leak detection, CO2 flow rate and injection pressure monitoring, tracking of CO2 plume, analysis of the cap-rock integrity as well as in the monitoring processes immediately and long after the injection activity (Plasynski et. al, 2011). Robust monitoring, verification and accounting is fundamental based on the fact that it ensures that even the slightest carbon leak is detected early and effective interventions taken to ensure that the leak is stopped and alternative injection sites identified. This is imperative in creation of the long-term viability of this technology in the efforts to yield sustainable environmental conservation efforts. Conclusion From the preceding discourse, it is apparent that CCS has been evident for the last several decades and for different purposes. In addition, this the utility of this technology as a strong intervention in curtailing the trends towards climatic change at the global level has received acclamation from different agencies and governments worldwide. The most rudimentary processes in this technology include CO2 capturing which entails three steps as well as sequestration which can either be conventional or non-conventional. Nonetheless, it is plausible to point out that carbon capture and storage technology is confronted by some probable risks, central to them being carbon leakage which has formed the argument of majority of the anti-CCS individuals and agencies. However, the utility of robust monitoring, verification and accounting (MVA) tools has been pointed out as a paramount strategy in curbing the emergence or recurrence of this risk. References Alphen, K.V. et. al. (2007). Societal acceptance of carbon capture and storage technologies. Energy policy, 35 (8), 4368-4380. Retrieved November, 19 2012 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421507000985 Benson, S.M. & Cole, D.R. (2008). CO2 Sequestration in Deep Sedimentary Formations. Retrieved November, 19 2012 from http://elements.geoscienceworld.org/content/4/5/325.abstract Hamerlinck, J.D. et. al (2010). Cyberinfrastructure for collaborative geologic carbon sequestration research: A conceptual model. Retrieved November, 19 2012 from http://rmg.geoscienceworld.org/content/45/2/163.abstract Herzog, H.J. (2001).What Future for Carbon Capture and Sequestration? American Chemical Society, 35 (7), 148-153. Kraeusel, J. & Most, D. (2012). Carbon Capture and Storage on its way to large-scale deployment: Social acceptance and willingness to pay in Germany. Energy Policy, 49, 642-651. Retrieved November, 19 2012 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512005873 Lai, X. et. al. (2012). Carboncapture and sequestration (CCS) technological innovation system in China: Structure, function evaluation and policy implication. Energy Policy, 50, 635-646. Retrieved November, 19 2012 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512006611 Lund, H. & Mathiesen, B.V. (2012). The role of Carbon Capture and Storage in a future sustainable energy system. Energy, 44(1), 469-476. Retrieved November, 19 2012 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544212004525 Pires, J.C.M. et. al (2011). Recent developments on carboncapture and storage: An overview. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 89(9), 1446-1460. Retrieved November, 19 2012 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263876211000554 Plasynski, S.I. et. al (2011).The critical role of monitoring, verification, and accounting for geologic carbon dioxide storage projects. Retrieved November, 19 2012 from http://eg.geoscienceworld.org/content/18/1/19.abstract Riahi, K. et. al. (2004). Prospects for carboncapture and sequestration technologies assuming their technological learning. 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, July-August, 2004. Retrieved November, 19 2012 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544204001732 Wall, T.F. (2007). Combustion processes for carbon capture. Retrieved November, 19 2012 from http://www.combustioninstitute.org/documents/Wall.pdf Wilday, J. et. al (2011). Addressing emerging risks using carbon capture and storage as an example. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 89 (6), 463-471. Retrieved November, 19 2012 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582011000668 Read More