The case for carbon sequestration

An excellent article here from Business Week on carbon sequestration. Many consider the technology…

by Alex Shimo on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 5:58pm - 16 Comments

An excellent article here from Business Week on carbon sequestration. Many consider the technology essential, if not a much-needed saviour for our warming planet. According to Emerging Energy Research (EER), it could offset our carbon dioxide emissions by 15 per cent by 2030. Indeed Alberta’s plans – a 14 per cent cut of emissions levels by 2050 from their 2005 levels – relies on this technology to be up and working quickly – in the next 5-10 years.

What’s needed to kick start the technology is a massive investment of funds, according to the EER. At the moment, the biggest investors are the EU, with $11.6 billion in research, then the US at $6 billion, then Canada at $2.7 billion. Much of the investment has been done by the oil companies themselves, but governments are also heavy investors. Last July, Stelmach announced a $2 billion fund for the new technology. And this week, Obama signed onto $3.4 billion for carbon capture and sequestration projects.

Still, for carbon sequestration to really deliver, it’s going to take massive investments – $30 to $70 billion per year by 2030, according to the EER. Of course, oil and gas companies are already heavily committed and are the key players in this developing industry. There are huge profits to be made in carbon sequestration, especially if there is a market on carbon dioxide gas, when companies will be able to trade the right to pollute. What’s needed now is a cap and trade system so companies know that any investments they make will have definite payoffs, beyond helping the planet. Obama has pledged to make this a reality in his presidency, and it cannot come quickly enough.

Bookmark and Share
  • Greg

    I am holding out for cold fusion, myself.

  • Critical Reasoning

    Thanks for the interesting link, Alexandra. I may be grasping at straws here, but there could be some Athabasca carbon sequestration projects announced in the next few months that will be receiving some of Canada’s stimulus funds.

    • Wayne

      Hey Critical last July News from Alberta = it established a $2-billion fund for carbon capture and storage projects that hold the promise of a future filled with fossil fuels minus the greenhouse gases associated with them. -> add another fill up from the feds and the yanks and maybe just maybe now some serious headway might just be made on this file.

      • Critical Reasoning

        Wayne, good point – we’ll have to wait a few months, but I think you may be right about Alberta’s CCS fund being topped up by the feds, and maybe some US technological cooperation as well.

        • Wayne

          I also heard rumours that the yanks want to use the same technology to look at using in their shale and coal deposits (apparently their shale deposits are their oil sands) and Obama is very excited about them – he might get away with greenies still enthusiastically supporting him … but in the meantime … it will be drill baby drill especially once the price goes back up as invariably it will .. quite the tightrope there but so far he is doing a bang up job.

  • http://macleans.ca kc

    Hate to be the cynic in the crowd here, but CS seems to be a solution only an engineer could love. This route is going to be followed because there’s money to be made, presumably lots more money than say – energy conservation. Don’t really mean to be a pooper – if it works i for one wont complain – but is it the most sensible solution or merely the most profitable? It’s an inherent weakness in our capilatist system that better, more realistic solutions are often pushed aside because of the bottom line. In other words it’s a bit of a myth that the market solution is always the best solution.
    Why is it, often as not when you say to an engineer :’”power” he says” Dam” or “NP station”; and if you say: “too much carbon” they reply, “put it underground”. If you say : “make do with less”, they give you a pitying smile and mumble something about – “dream on” and “it’ll never work”!

    • Mike T.

      Indeed, it seems like a huge expense for a cumbersome quasi-solution. Finding ways to use 15% less energy by 2030 would be much better and probably easier and cheaper. bigcitylib follows this concept at his blog, and from his sources it doesn’t look like it works very well, either.

      • Critical Reasoning

        Flue gas desulfurization was a huge expense too… but it worked. Power plants and smelters spent billions on retrofits and scrubbers. The result: we no longer have the acid rain problem that was such a big issue in the 1980s.

        CCS offers the possibility of a similar technological solution to an environmental problem. Since there is only so much we can do to decrease our energy consumption, CCS is worth a shot.

        • Dot

          Not even close in comparing the two technologies req’d.

          • Critical Reasoning

            Well, obviously. I was making a general point about technological solutions to environmental problems. I wasn’t claiming that CCS is similar to FGD.

          • Dot

            Well, we irradicated small pox as well using technology – still not a valid comparison.

  • Dot

    The Current had a two part story on the state of the oil sands development today. CCS briefly addressed (~15:00 of part 3) – worth listening to the whole thing if you have a few minutes. Iris Evans is trying hard…

    http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2009/200902/20090218.html

    • Critical Reasoning

      I’ll check it out. Thanks for the link.

  • Wayne

    So what else is new : every time you see What is needed is (pause for effect) … will almost always be followed by a Massive Investment in Funds.

  • Alan Pater

    And the other 85%? Can we get rid of that in the next 10 years as well?

  • Dot

    National Geographic March 2009 article, video and photo essay on Oil Sands
    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/kunzig-text

From Macleans