First, from Greenpeace's points of view[1],
'The technology (CCS) is highly speculate, risky and unlikely to be technically feasible in the next twenty years.'
The reason being,
- CCS cannot deliver in time to avoid dangerous climate change.The earliest commercial CCS equipped power plant is not expected before 2030, whilst climate scientists suggest that we should cut global greenhouse gas emission by at least 50% by 2050, compared to 1990 level to avoid climate crisis.
- CCS waste energy. Capturing and storing carbon are pricey and need lots of energy. In addition, power plants with capture technology will need more freshwater than those without.
- Storing carbon underground is risky. There is always a risk of leakage after injecting carbon into geological sites. Even as low as 1% of continuous leakage will undermine the mitigation efforts. Not to mention CO2 leakage can have a potential threat to ecology systems and health.
- Funding CCS is at expense of real solutions like renewable energy. Moreover, according to Greenpeace's Energy [R]evolution [2], using renewable energy combined with energy efficiency is sufficient to cut global emission by almost 50% and at the same time deliver half the world's energy need by 2050.
On the other hand, R. Stuart Haszeldine, a professor of University of Edinburgh, has published a review article[3] and proposed urgent action is required to overcome hurdles of CCS developments, providing that CCS plays a role in mitigating climate change. Here are some of his viewpoints which are not necessary against Greenpeace's.
- CCS pilots and experiments are already operating, and can be increased to cost-effective commercial size by 2020. This depends on not only a pricing carbon market but also additional policy levers to provide revenue to realize large investments and enforce developments .
- Technical challenges from carbon capture to transport and storage can be progressively resolved, but the road to rapid commercial deployment is less certain. For example, all three kinds of carbon capture technologies(i.e., precombustion, postcombustion and oxyfuel combustion) have different pros and cons. It will be much slower to replicate each other with competitions between three types rather than only one type of capture is dominant.
- CCS can be responsive on a renewable electricity grid. For instance, at extreme period of no wind, which is not rare, then backup fossil fuel generation will be needed.
What do you think?
Actually, I worked in an environmental consultant company in Taiwan before my current studies at UCL climate change program, and last year I had participated in organization of a CCS seminar and press conference which announced the commencement of Taiwan CCS projects. In other words, I used to have some positive recognition of CCS. Nonetheless, after I read the reports above-mentioned, I start to think about whether CCS is a real mitigation for tackling climate change. Moreover, simply look at the following quotation from Haszeldine's report [3],
'Several commercial developments(CCS) seen likely to operate before 2015 in the U.S; Alberta, Canada; Queensland, Australia; U.K., and Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.'
I just sensed some unusual relationship between these nations CCS developments and their fossil fuel
industrial giants...
References
1.False hope: Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate, 2007, Greenpeace International.http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/reports/false-hope-why-carbon-capture/
2.The Energy [R]evolution, 2012, Greenpeace International, Greenpeace International and European Renewable Energy Council. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Climate-Reports/Energy-Revolution-2012/
3. Carbon Capture and Storage: how green can black be, 2009, R.Stuart Haszeldine, Science, vol 325.
No comments:
Post a Comment