Carbon Capture and Storage Technology - Essay Example

PhD Research Proposal Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)-Environmental Health and Pollution Research aims A systematic and holistic approach to solving Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) risk assessment, management, communication and mitigation has been wholly or partially absent in the currently available literature on the subject. Therefore this study would seek to focus attention on related and human health aspects of CCS risk associated with its determination, assessment, management and communication processes in a multivariate dynamic setting where process related control technologies, impacts on humans and environment, regulatory frameworks, agreements/disagreements between insurers and developers of technologies and social dynamics related to CCS would be discussed. Here technical risk process chain involving such processes as gas oxyfuels against coal post combustion process; ships against pipeline transport; and aquifers against oil/gas storage facilities would be analyzed achieve a degree of comparison and standardization of process. Research problem/questions What are the various aspects that are to be included in a systemic and holistic approach to understanding the current CCS related implications for a realistic assessment of risk What hybrid technologies have been successfully integrated into the current CCS assessment and technical process chain analysis Do the existing correlations between and among CCS centric policy and strategy substantially support the outcomes elated to determination, management and communication of CCS risk in a holistic approach What environmental factors and implications have been articulated in the process of understanding risk management aspects and initiating control measures that are socially relevant and economically feasible How best to achieve a degree of compliance with regulatory frameworks and create common ground for developers, regulators and insurers Future scope of research This research effort might be expanded to include such far reaching dynamics related CCS as relative cost of technologies associated with CCS risk assessment, management and communication. In fact the current level of research does not adequately recognize the need for future developments in the sphere of relative cost reductions with newer and efficient technologies. For example there is a huge gap between socially and economically feasible technologies and their prices or costs, i.e. insurance premiums. Insurance companies have gone one step further by developing a highly advanced system of metrics in insuring CCS sites. This aspect has received much less attention in the current literature on the subject. Literature review Current literature on the subject of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is basically influenced by a characteristic paradigmatic bias in favor of quantitative assessment of risk as a purely scientific system of metrics that invariably seeks to address fears and concerns of a highly scientific community of researchers while the social scientist's predicament of understanding the holistic picture of CCS related outcomes is ignored (Veltman, Singh, & Hertwich , 2010). Thus this study focuses on such strategically significant CCS related issues as the technical risk mitigation process chain analysis for identification and delineation of risks and their variability impacts on the environment; determination and management of risk; risk mitigation related regulatory frameworks vs provision of incentives; and above all the viability of developing and sustaining technologies for constant engagement of technology providers, and insurers in a parallel and congruent risk management process (Jagger, 2009). According to Delbeke, Klaassen van Ierland and Zapfel the role of environmental policy making bodies in Europe and elsewhere has been enlarged to include a dynamic process of CCS impact assessment and the cost related outcomes of technologies that are being developed and adopted for the purpose. While these authors do not obviously make an effort to build a theoretical and conceptual framework of analysis on CCS policy relevance/irrelevance there is a far-sighted policy direction for the adequate design and implementation of a regime of controls that are focused on the technicalities and policy decisions of adopting holistic CCS approaches in diverse risk perception, assessment and mitigation settings. While social imperatives have been articulated with specific reference to economic and environmental outcomes of CCS technologies, there is very little or no germaneness of policy process to the different variability impacts of CCS on different constituent elements of the society and environment (Delbeke, Klaassen, Ierland and Zapfel, 2010). According to Veltman, Singh and Hertwich the current debate on the greenhouse gas emissions from Amine-based scrubbing solvents arising from the post-combustion process of CCS is essentially skewed because holistic mechanisms that have been purported to exist are of little use in identifying and addressing the far weighty correlations between human and environmental impact assessment and heterochthonous CCS process chain related technical solutions (Veltman, Singh & Hertwich, 2010). In other words the authors seem to advocate an autochthonous multivariate mechanism in risk assessment, management and mitigation processes. Rao and Rubin focus on the credibility deficit of functional dynamics of CCS technologies in controlling greenhouse gas/carbon emissions from power plants (Rao & Rubin 2002). Many such studies are focused on the risk factors associated with leakages of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the storage site to the earth's surface, the hydrosphere or/and the geosphere. Thus a common complaint made by these writers is the act that what's technically feasible in CCS isn't economically desirable. This argument again focuses on the viability of designing and executing CCS facilities without paying much attention to the outcomes related to technological expertise required for a particular process and the relative cost-efficiency related metrics that have been developed for regulatory frameworks (The International Energy Agency (IEA), 2007). In the absence of an agreement between CCS technology developers and insurance companies specialized in CCS risk insurance, there is very little that can be accomplished by way of CCS risk control, management or mitigation. As for risk assessment processes there is virtually no realistic system of metrics that would include all elements of impact. Methodology The methodology chapter of this study consists of primary and secondary research segments. The primary research segment consists of a survey to be administered to 10 interviewees and a questionnaire to be handed in to 30 odd participants/respondents at CCS policy design and implementation institutions located in the UK, as well industry groups and NGOs. The secondary research segment would consist of both internet based research and library centric research. A considerable amount of diverse literature on the subject of CCS would be studied and analyzed in order to arrive at the conclusions. A case study approach is planned in respect of Scottish Power's collaboration with Shell on a demonstration storage project. Ideally this case study will act as an evidence base for reviewing our findings against a real world project. Similarly there will be a considerable amount of effort to identify the path of the literature growth trajectory so that CCS related learning outcomes - correlations, regressions, variances and co-variances - would be delineated in a systemic manner to adequately address the implications tentatively referred to in the research problem/questions. The primary research material will be analyzed to produce supporting evidence pertaining to each of the boxes in the diagram below. Conclusion Recommendations REFERENCES 1. Delbeke, J., Klaassen, G., Ierland, T.V. & Zapfel, P., 2010. The Role of Environmental Economics in Recent Policy Making at the European Commission, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 4(1), pp24-43. 2. Jagger, M., 2009. CCS Risk Assessment [online] Available at: http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/SummerSchool/SS09%20presentations/17_Jagger.pdf [Accesses 08 November 2010]. 3. Rao, A.B & Rubin, E.S., 2002. A Technical, Economic, and Environmental Assessment of Amine-Based CO2Capture Technology for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Control. Environmental Science & Technology, 36(20), pp 4467-4475. 4. The International Energy Agency (IEA), 2007. NEAR-TERM OPPORTUNITIES FOR CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGE, Summary Report of the Issues Identification Workshop August 2006. [Online] Available at: < http://www.cslforum.net/publications/documents/CCSSummaryReportWorkshop.pdf> [Accessed 08 November 2010]. 5. Veltman, K., Singh, B. & Hertwich, E.G., 2010. Human and Environmental Impact Assessment of Postcombustion CO2Capture Focusing on Emissions from Amine-Based Scrubbing Solvents to Air, Environmental Science & Technology, 44(4), pp 1496-1502. Read More