Health, Safety and Environmental Risks of Underground Co2 Storage – Overview of Mechanisms and Current Knowledge

CO₂ capture and storage (CCS) in geological reservoirs may be part of a strategy to reduce global anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. Insight in the risks associated with underground CO₂ storage is needed to ensure that it can be applied as safe and effective greenhouse mitigation option. This paper aims to give an overview of the current (gaps in) knowledge of risks associated with underground CO₂ storage and research areas that need to be addressed to increase our understanding in those risks. Risks caused by a failure in surface installations are understood and can be minimised by risk abatement technologies and safety measures. The risks caused by underground CO₂ storage (CO₂ and CH₄ leakage, seismicity, ground movement and brine displacement) are less well understood. Main R&D objective is to determine the processes controlling leakage through/along wells, faults and fractures to assess leakage rates and to assess the effects on (marine) ecosystems. Although R&D activities currently being undertaken are working on these issues, it is expected that further demonstration projects and experimental work is needed to provide data for more thorough risk assessment.     

The public perception of carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: results from focus groups and a survey

Abstract

A series of meetings of two ‘Citizen Panels’ were held to explore public perceptions of off-shore carbon dioxide (CO₂) capture and storage (CCS). In addition, a face-to-face survey of 212 randomly selected individuals was conducted. We found that, on first hearing about CCS in the absence of any information on its purpose, the majority of people either do not have an opinion at all or have a somewhat negative perspective. However, when (even limited) information is provided on the role of CO₂ storage in reducing CO₂ emissions to the atmosphere, opinion shifts towards expressing slight support for the concept.

Support depends, however, upon concern about human-caused climate change, plus recognition of the need for major reductions in CO₂ emissions. It also depends upon CCS being seen as just one part of a wider strategy for achieving significant cuts in CO₂ emissions. A portfolio including renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency, and lifestyle change to reduce demand was generally favoured. CCS can be part of such a portfolio, but wind, wave, tidal, solar and energy efficiency were preferred. It was felt that uncertainties concerning the potential risks of CCS had to be better addressed and reduced; in particular the risks of accidents and leakage (including the potential environmental, ecosystem and human health impacts which might result from leakage).     

Uncertainty in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) deployment projections: a cross-model comparison exercise

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) can be a valuable CO₂ mitigation option, but what role CCS will play in the future is uncertain. In this paper we analyze the results of different integrated assessment models (IAMs) taking part in the 27th round of the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) with respect to the role of CCS in long term mitigation scenarios. Specifically we look into the use of CCS as a function of time, mitigation targets, availability of renewables and its use with different fuels. Furthermore, we explore the possibility to relate model results to general and CCS specific model assumptions. The results show a wide range of cumulative capture in the 2010–2100 period (600–3050 GtCO₂), but the fact that no model projects less than 600 GtCO₂ indicates that CCS is considered to be important by all these models. Interestingly, CCS storage rates are often projected to be still increasing in the second half of this century. Depending on the scenario, at least six out of eight, up to all models show higher storage rates in 2100 than in 2050. CCS shares in cumulative primary energy use are in most models increasing with the stringency of the target or under conservative availability of renewables. The strong variations of CCS deployment projection rates could not be related to the reported differences in the assumptions of the models by means of a cross-model comparison in this sample.     

Quality of geological CO2 storage to avoid jeopardizing climate targets

We explore allowable leakage for carbon capture and geological storage to be consistent with maximum global warming targets of 2.5 and 3 °C by 2100. Given plausible fossil fuel use and carbon capture and storage scenarios, and based on modeling of time-dependent leakage of CO₂, we employ a climate model to calculate the long-term temperature response of CO₂ emissions. We assume that half of the stored CO₂ is permanently trapped by fast mechanisms. If 40?% of global CO₂ emissions are stored in the second half of this century, the temperature effect of escaped CO₂ is too small to compromise a 2.5 °C target. If 80?% of CO₂ is captured, escaped CO₂ must peak 300?years or later for consistency with this climate target. Due to much more CO₂ stored for the 3 than the 2.5 °C target, quality of storage becomes more important. Thus for the 3 °C target escaped CO₂ must peak 400?years or later in the 40?% scenario, and 3000?years or later in the 80?% scenario. Consequently CO₂ escaped from geological storage can compromise the less stringent 3 °C target in the long-run if most of global CO₂ emissions have been stored. If less CO₂ is stored only a very high escape scenario can compromise the more stringent 2.5 °C target. For the two remaining combinations of storage scenarios and climate targets, leakage must be high to compromise these climate targets.     

Towards a Multi-Criteria Methodology for Assessment of Geological Carbon Storage Options

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) could achieve drastic cuts in the CO₂ emissions associated with fossil fuels in the near to medium term and has been promoted as a significant climate change mitigation option. As the profile of this family of technologies grows rapidly, there remain many uncertainties relating to its viability, effectiveness and desirability. In this paper we begin to map out some of the key issues associated with CCS, using a multi-criteria approach to explore how an (admittedly small) selection of stakeholders perceive alternative storage options and energy scenarios. We present five long-term scenarios describing alternative ways in which the UK energy system could develop and which deploy different levels of carbon storage. The key storage options considered are oil and gas fields (both disused and with enhanced oil recovery), traps in saline aquifers, saline aquifers outside traps and on-shore sites. The relative performance of the scenarios and the storage reservoirs included within them have been assessed against a set of socio-economic, technical and environmental criteria by a small selection of stakeholders to the carbon storage debate. Whilst we cannot make strong conclusions regarding precise stakeholder opinions at this stage due to the small size of the sample, the broad delineation of the arguments for and against CCS are evident. Multi-criteria assessment (MCA) appears to hold much potential as a useful tool for characterising and better understanding differences in stakeholder assessments of CCS and its implications, and for identifying options around which greater consensus on the desirability (or otherwise) of CCS as a mitigation strategy might emerge.     

Designing policy for deployment of CCS in industry

Attaining deep greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions in industry in order to support a stringent climate change control target will be difficult without recourse to CO₂ capture and storage (CCS). Using the insights from a long-term bottom-up energy systems model, and undertaking a sectoral assessment, we investigated the importance of CCS in the industrial sector. Under climate policy aimed at limiting atmospheric concentration of GHGs to 650 ppm CO₂e, costs could increase fivefold when CCS is excluded from the portfolio of mitigation option measures in the industry sector as compared to when CCS is excluded in the power sector. This effect is driven largely by the lack of alternatives for deep emission reductions in industry. Our main policy conclusion is that a broader recognition of CCS in industrial applications in both current policy discussions and research, development, and demonstration funding programmes is justified. In recognition of the heterogeneity of the many types of industrial production processes, the size and location of industrial CO₂ sources, the specific need for CCS-retrofitting, and the exposure of most industrial sectors to international trade, policies aimed at supporting CCS must distinguish between the different challenges faced by the power and industrial sectors.     

Disposal of carbon dioxide in permeable underground layers: A feasible option?

One way to reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions to the atmosphere is to recover it from an energy conversion process (e.g. from stack gases) and to store it in an aquifer (a permeable, mainly sandy, underground layer). The main goal of this study was a preliminary evaluation of this kind of storage.Allowing for a large uncertainty in the geological properties, we arrived at the following tentative results. The average cost of disposal is $1.4 per ton CO₂ stored. The enclosing layer of most aquifers seems impermeable enough to prevent the CO₂ from rising to the surface within at least 10 000 years. The main technical uncertainty is whether the water in the reservoir can be pushed aside fast enough to prevent an intolerable pressure build-up in the reservoir.The disposal of CO₂ in aquifers seems to be a feasible option in the light of existing geological knowledge. If it is a practical possibility, the opportunities are large and the costs appear to be relatively low. However, uncertainties remain in the technical sphere. These uncertainties have to be studied and dispelled before the disposal of CO₂ in aquifers can be said to be called technically feasible.     

Impacts of different diffusion scenarios for mitigation technology options and of model representations regarding renewables intermittency on evaluations of CO2 emissions reductions

This paper evaluated the impacts of climate change mitigation technology options on CO₂ emission reductions and the effects of model representations regarding renewable intermittency on the assessment of reduction by using a world energy systems model. First, different diffusion scenarios for carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), nuclear power, and wind power and solar PV are selected from EMF27 scenarios to analyze their impacts on CO₂ emission reductions. These technologies are important for reducing CO₂ intensity of electricity, and the impacts of their diffusion levels on mitigation costs are significant, according to the analyses. Availability of CCS in particular, among the three kinds of technologies, has a large impact on the marginal CO₂ abatement cost. In order to analyze effects of model representations regarding renewables intermittency, four different representations are assumed within the model. A simplistic model representation that does not take into consideration the intermittency of wind power and solar PV evaluates larger contributions of the energy sources than those evaluated by a model representation that takes intermittency into consideration. Appropriate consideration of renewables intermittency within global energy systems models will be important for realistic evaluations of climate change mitigation scenarios.     

Carbon dioxide sequestration: how much and when?

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) sequestration has been proposed as a key component in technological portfolios for managing anthropogenic climate change, since it may provide a faster and cheaper route to significant reductions in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations than abating CO₂ production. However, CO₂ sequestration is not a perfect substitute for CO₂ abatement because CO₂ may leak back into the atmosphere (thus imposing future climate change impacts) and because CO₂ sequestration requires energy (thus producing more CO₂ and depleting fossil fuel resources earlier). Here we use analytical and numerical models to assess the economic efficiency of CO₂ sequestration and analyze the optimal timing and extent of CO₂ sequestration. The economic efficiency factor of CO₂ sequestration can be expressed as the ratio of the marginal net benefits of sequestering CO₂ and avoiding CO₂ emissions. We derive an analytical solution for this efficiency factor for a simplified case in which we account for CO₂ leakage, discounting, the additional fossil fuel requirement of CO₂ sequestration, and the growth rate of carbon taxes. In this analytical model, the economic efficiency of CO₂ sequestration decreases as the CO₂ tax growth rate, leakage rates and energy requirements for CO₂ sequestration increase. Increasing discount rates increases the economic efficiency factor. In this simple model, short-term sequestration methods, such as afforestation, can even have negative economic efficiencies. We use a more realistic integrated-assessment model to additionally account for potentially important effects such as learning-by-doing and socio-economic inertia on optimal strategies. We measure the economic efficiency of CO₂ sequestration by the ratio of the marginal costs of CO₂ sequestration and CO₂ abatement along optimal trajectories. We show that the positive impacts of investments in CO₂ sequestration through the reduction of future marginal CO₂ sequestration costs and the alleviation of future inertia constraints can initially exceed the marginal sequestration costs. As a result, the economic efficiencies of CO₂ sequestration can exceed 100% and an optimal strategy will subsidize CO₂ sequestration that is initially more expensive than CO₂ abatement. The potential economic value of a feasible and acceptable CO₂ sequestration technology is equivalent – in the adopted utilitarian model – to a one-time investment of several percent of present gross world product. It is optimal in the chosen economic framework to sequester substantial CO₂ quantities into reservoirs with small or zero leakage, given published estimates of marginal costs and climate change impacts. The optimal CO₂ trajectories in the case of sequestration from air can approach the pre-industrial level, constituting geoengineering. Our analysis is silent on important questions (e.g., the effects of model and parametric uncertainty, the potential learning about these uncertainties, or ethical dimension of such geoengineering strategies), which need to be addressed before our findings can be translated into policy-relevant recommendations.     

CO2地下埋存分布状况及环境影响的监测

CO₂的地质埋存处理是减缓温室效应的现实选择之一。要保证埋存的有效性、安全性和持久性,需要对钻井（主要包括注入井和废弃井）、CO₂地下分布运移状况以及因CO₂渗漏所造成的环境影响等方面实施严格的监测管理。通过对以上各方面文献的查阅和综合分析,系统阐述了世界范围内目前CO₂地质埋存过程中所采用的各项主要监测技术。     

The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies

This article presents the synthesis of results from the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum Study 27, an inter-comparison of 18 energy-economy and integrated assessment models. The study investigated the importance of individual mitigation options such as energy intensity improvements, carbon capture and storage (CCS), nuclear power, solar and wind power and bioenergy for climate mitigation. Limiting the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration to 450 or 550 ppm CO₂ equivalent by 2100 would require a decarbonization of the global energy system in the 21^st century. Robust characteristics of the energy transformation are increased energy intensity improvements and the electrification of energy end use coupled with a fast decarbonization of the electricity sector. Non-electric energy end use is hardest to decarbonize, particularly in the transport sector. Technology is a key element of climate mitigation. Versatile technologies such as CCS and bioenergy are found to be most important, due in part to their combined ability to produce negative emissions. The importance of individual low-carbon electricity technologies is more limited due to the many alternatives in the sector. The scale of the energy transformation is larger for the 450 ppm than for the 550 ppm CO₂e target. As a result, the achievability and the costs of the 450 ppm target are more sensitive to variations in technology availability.     

Initial public reactions to carbon capture and storage (CCS): differentiating general and local views

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered a potential climate change mitigation option, but public opposition may hamper its implementation. A quasi-experimental approach is used to examine whether ‘not in my back yard’ (NIMBY) sentiments can be anticipated at the initial stage when CO₂ storage locations have been selected and communicated to the public. Furthermore, the psychological structure of initial reactions to CO₂ storage plans is studied to ascertain the differences between people living in the direct vicinity of a proposed CO₂ storage location (i.e. onsite residents) and people who do not (i.e. offsite residents). The results indicate that initial reactions to local CCS plans are not necessarily dominated by NIMBY sentiments. For onsite residents as well as offsite residents, trust in government affects their judgements of the risks and benefits associated with CCS, which in turn affects their inclination to protest against CCS plans. Onsite residents’ inclination to protest is affected by their perceptions of local safety risks, but this is less of a concern for offsite residents. The inclination to protest against CCS is unrelated to concern about climate change.     

CO2地下埋存分布状况及环境影响的监测

 CO₂的地质埋存处理是减缓温室效应的现实选择之一。要保证埋存的有效性、安全性和持久性,需要对钻井（主要包括注入井和废弃井）、CO₂地下分布运移状况以及因CO₂渗漏所造成的环境影响等方面实施严格的监测管理。通过对以上各方面文献的查阅和综合分析,系统阐述了世界范围内目前CO₂地质埋存过程中所采用的各项主要监测技术。     

Show some enthusiasm, but not too much: carbon capture and storage development prospects in China

China is the world's largest carbon dioxide (CO₂) emitter and its energy system is dominated by coal. For China to dramatically reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the next few decades, it must either replace most of its uses of coal with energy supplies from renewables and nuclear power or install demonstration-size and then scaled-up carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Currently, China is pushing ahead with increased investment in renewables and nuclear power and with demonstration CCS projects. This strategy is consistent with a country that seeks to be ready in case global pressures prompt it to launch an aggressive GHG reduction effort while also not going so fast that it reduces the likelihood of receiving substantial financial support from wealthier countries, as it feels it is entitled to as a developing country. At such a time, given the magnitude of the coal resource in China, and the country's lack of other energy resources, it is likely the Chinese will make a substantial effort to develop CCS before taking the much more difficult step of trying to phase-out almost all use of coal in the span of just a few decades in a country that is so dependent on this domestically abundant and economically affordable resource.     

Carbon capture and storage policy in the United States: A new coalition endeavors to change existing policy

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is considered by some to be a promising technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and advocates are seeking policies to facilitate its deployment. Unlike many countries, which approach the development of policies for geologic storage (GS) of carbon dioxide (CO₂) with nearly a blank slate, the U.S. already has a mature policy regime devoted to the injection of CO₂ into deep geologic formations. However, the existing governance of CO₂ injection is designed to manage enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and policy changes would be needed to manage the risks and benefits of CO₂ injection for the purpose of avoiding GHG emissions. We review GS policy developments at both the U.S. federal and state levels, including original research on state GS policy development. By applying advocacy coalition framework theory, we identify two competing coalitions defined by their beliefs about the primary purpose of CO₂ injection: energy supply or greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions. The established energy coalition is the beneficiary of the current policy regime. Their vision of GS policy is protective: to minimize harm to fossil energy industries if climate policy were to be enacted. In contrast, the newly formed climate coalition seeks to change existing GS policy to support their proactive vision: to maximize GHG reductions using CCS when climate policy is enacted. We explore where and at what scale legislation emerges and examine which institutions gain prominence as drivers of policy change. Through a detailed textual analysis of the content of state GS legislation, we find that the energy coalition has had greater success than the climate coalition in shaping state laws to align with its policy preferences. It has enshrined its view of the purpose of CO₂ injection in state legislation, delegated authority for GS to state agencies aligned with the existing policy regime, and protected the EOR status quo, while creating new opportunities for EOR operators to profit from the storage of CO₂ The climate coalition's objective of proactively putting GS policy in place has been furthered, and important progress has been made on commonly held concerns, such as the resolution of property rights issues, but the net result is policy change that does not significantly revise the existing policy regime.     

Envisioning carbon capture and storage: expanded possibilities due to air capture,leakage insurance,and C-14 monitoring

In order to meet the challenge of climate change while allowing for continued economic development, the world will have to adopt a net zero carbon energy infrastructure. Due to the world’s large stock of low-cost fossil fuels, there is strong motivation to explore the opportunities for capturing the CO₂ that is produced in the combustion of fossil fuels and keeping it out of the atmosphere. Three distinct sets of technologies are needed to allow for climate neutral use of fossil fuels: (1) capture of CO₂ at concentrated sources like electric power plants, future hydrogen production plants and steel and cement plants; (2) capture of CO₂ from the air; and (3) the safe and permanent storage of CO₂ away from the atmosphere. A strong regime of carbon accounting is also necessary to gain the public’s trust in the safety and permanence of CO₂ storage. This paper begins with an extensive overview of carbon capture and storage technologies, and then presents a vision for the potential implementation of carbon capture and storage, drawing upon new ideas such as air capture technology, leakage insurance, and monitoring using a radioactive isotope such as C-14. These innovations, which may provide a partial solution for managing the risks associated with long-term carbon storage, are not well developed in the existing literature and deserve greater study.     

The promise of carbon capture and storage: evaluating the capture-readiness of new EU fossil fuel power plants

To what degree are recently built and planned power plants in the EU ‘capture-ready’ for carbon capture and storage (CCS)? Survey results show that most recently built fossil fuel power plants have not been designed as capture-ready. For 20 planned coal-fired plants, 13 were said to be capture-ready (65%). For 31 planned gas-fired power plants, only 2 were indicated to be capture-ready (6%). Recently built or planned power plants are expected to cover a large share of fossil fuel capacity by 2030 and thereby have a large impact on the possibility to implement CCS after 2020. It is estimated that around 15–30% of fossil fuel capacity by 2030 can be capture-ready or have CO₂ capture implemented from the start. If CCS is implemented at these plants, 14–28% of baseline CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel power generation in 2030 could be mitigated, equivalent to 220–410 MtCO₂. A key reason indicated by utilities for building a capture-ready plant is (expected) national or EU policies. In addition, financial incentives and expected high CO₂ prices are important. The implementation of a long-term regulatory framework for CCS with clear definitions of ‘capture- readiness’ and policy requirements will be important challenges.     

Carbon dioxide capture and storage: a status report

Abstract

Fossil fuel combustion is the largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As a result of combustion, essentially all of the fuel carbon is emitted to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO₂), along with small amounts of methane and, in some cases, nitrous oxide. It has been axiomatic that reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions requires reducing fossil-fuel use. However, that relationship may no longer be as highly coupled in the future. There is an emerging understanding that CO₂ capture and storage (CCS) technology offers a way of using fossil fuels while reducing CO₂ emissions by 85% or more. While CCS is not the ‘silver bullet’ that in and of itself will solve the climate change problem, it is a powerful addition to the portfolio of technologies that will be needed to address climate change. The goal of this Commentary is to describe CCS technology in simple terms: how it might be used, how it might fit into longer term mitigation strategies, and finally, the policy issues that its emergence creates. All of these topics are discussed in much greater detail in the recently published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (SRCCS) (IPCC, 2005).     

Zero is the only acceptable leakage rate for geologically stored CO 2 : an editorial comment

Leakage is one of the main concerns of all parties involved with the development of Carbon Capture and Storage. From an economic point of view, van der Zwaan and Gerlagh (2009) suggest that CCS remains a valuable option even with CO₂ leakage rate as high as of a few % per year. But what is valuable is, ultimately, determined by social preferences and parameters that are beyond economic modeling. Examining the point of view of four stakeholder groups: industry, policy-makers, environmental NGOs and the general public, we conclude that there is a social agreement today: zero is the only acceptable carbon leakage rate.     

A review of climate geoengineering proposals

Climate geoengineering proposals seek to rectify the current radiative imbalance via either (1) reducing incoming solar radiation (solar radiation management) or (2) removing CO₂ from the atmosphere and transferring it to long-lived reservoirs (carbon dioxide removal). For each option, we discuss its effectiveness and potential side effects, also considering lifetime of effect, development and deployment timescale, reversibility, and failure risks. We present a detailed review that builds on earlier work by including the most recent literature, and is more extensive than previous comparative frameworks. Solar radiation management propsals are most effective but short-lived, whilst carbon dioxide removal measures gain effectiveness the longer they are pursued. Solar radiation management could restore the global radiative balance, but must be maintained to avoid abrupt warming, meanwhile ocean acidification and residual regional climate changes would still occur. Carbon dioxide removal involves less risk, and offers a way to return to a pre-industrial CO₂ level and climate on a millennial timescale, but is potentially limited by the CO₂ storage capacity of geological reservoirs. Geoengineering could complement mitigation, but it is not an alternative to it. We expand on the possible combinations of mitigation, carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management that might be used to avoid dangerous climate change.