Carbon capture and storage has a vital role to play in European efforts to combat climate change, says Chris Davies MEP. But the technology needs urgent political and financial support.
Why would anyone want to bury carbon dioxide (CO2)? The idea seemed crazy when I first heard of it a decade or so ago. Proponents of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology will argue that it's better to bury CO2 than release it into the atmosphere if the object is to combat global warming. But surely it would be better not to create the problem in the first place?
This was the thought I had in my mind when, as a Member of the European Parliament with a special interest in environmental matters, I walked into the British Foreign Office in 2007 for a discussion about climate change. I left the building a couple of hours later with changed perceptions.
The man who made the difference was John Ashton, founder of the non-profit making E3G group that promotes sustainable development and, at the time, the special representative on climate change for the UK's Foreign Secretary. John emphasised the need for much improved energy efficiency and welcomed the rapid growth in the application of renewable electricity technology, but what struck home most forcefully (and I paraphrase him) was his "get real" message.
The storage method is the same that has kept oil and natural gas securely under the ground for millions of years.
China, he pointed out, was completing as many as two new coal-fired power stations every week, and each of them could be expected to operate for at least 30 years. Coal was cheap, and was being used in increasing quantities by developing nations despite being the principal source of CO2 emissions. Whatever the potential of renewables, we couldn't ignore the reality that coal was likely to play a significant role in global electricity provision throughout much of the 21st century. CCS had a role to play in combating global warming, he insisted.
The technology requires CO2 to be separated from other gases in a power plant's waste stream. It must then be transported to a storage site, probably by pipeline. Finally, it has to be injected into secure rock formations perhaps two or more kilometres underground where it will remain, quite probably forever. This storage method is the same that has kept oil and natural gas securely under the ground for millions of years. The processes require the application of known industrial methods, most of which have been used for half a century or more.
Slow progress in Europe
Convinced that CCS had a role to play in combating global warming, I took a lead in steering legislation through the European Parliament in 2008 that laid down rules for the safe storage of CO2, preparing the way for the technology's widespread adoption. Seven years later, they have yet to be put to the test.
Europe should have become a world leader in the development of the technology. As early as March 2007, European leaders issued a declaration calling for up to 12 CCS demonstration projects to be in operation by 2015. But no plan of action was prepared and fine words did not result in fine deeds. The basic assumption made was that electricity generators would take the initiative to develop CCS, investing large sums principally in order to avoid the cost of having to buy allowances to emit CO2 issued under the EU's emissions trading system.
Imagine it. It was expected that generating companies would build capture plants at their power stations costing maybe €1 billion ($1.1 billion) each, identify storage sites, apply for permits, construct pipelines over hundreds of kilometres, and inject the CO2 into rock - all on a pioneering basis, without the certainty of financial assistance from governmental bodies, no requirements placed upon their competitors to do the same, and the knowledge that the entire operation would certainly be loss-making.
With hindsight, the original EU business model for CCS development was mad.
With hindsight, the original EU business model for CCS development was mad and none of us should have bought into it. When the cost of the CO2 allowances fell to negligible levels even the small stimulus that existed was gone, and the EU had no plan B.
Today, three projects in the UK and the Netherlands are at an advanced stage of design, but construction of not a single plant has been approved since European leaders issued their brave declaration eight years ago.
EU leaders at meetings in Brussels pay lip service to the need for CCS, but back in their own countries the majority show either indifference or outright hostility towards its development. Privately they seem to have bought into the criticisms of CCS and claims that the technology is 'unproven', 'unsafe', 'over-costly' and 'will perpetuate the use of fossil fuels'. It's worth taking a moment to consider these points.
Pioneers 'prove' the technology
If there was any doubt that the technology needed 'proving' then the opening of the CO2 capture plant at the Boundary Dam coal power station in Canada last year should have put them to rest, and there are 22 carbon capture projects in operation or under construction around the world.
It's hard to accept that CCS is 'unsafe' given that carbon dioxide is an inert gas that gets put into the beer we drink and is in the air we breathe out. Dealing with it will rarely pose risks on the scale of many other industrial processes. In the US, some 60 million tonnes of CO2 annually is now being injected into rock, often into the same rock that formerly held methane gas for millions of years. The evidence is that it stays where it is put.
Of course, there is a cost involved in introducing CCS, but it's part of the price that must be paid for avoiding global warming. Studies suggest that CCS-equipped power plants could quickly become competitive with offshore wind or solar generation. Costs will fall with experience and as scientific advances raise levels of efficiency. Pipelines built to serve a cluster of different CO2 sources in the same locality will help share and reduce costs further.
In the US, some 60 million tonnes of CO2 annually is now being injected into rock.
Some environmentalists attack the use of fossil fuels for power generation with a zealotry others reserve for Holy Wars. But if the objective is to counter climate change, and if the problems associated with the burning of coal and gas can be addressed, then what's the issue? A modern coal power station is equipped to prevent sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions; why can't we remove the CO2 as well if it's economic to do so?
Maybe the failure of most EU leaders to commit to CCS stems from a belief that it will not be needed. But, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), despite dramatic growth, renewable sources (including hydropower) will be providing only 25% of world electricity by 2040.
Coal power still growing
Coal is here to stay for a good while yet. The EIA estimates that total world energy electricity generation from coal will grow over the next 25 years by as much as 73%. This is scary for everyone concerned about CO2 emissions, given that climate scientists say that we are burning too much coal even now. As new power plants are built, whether coal or gas, investment will be locked into fossil fuel use for many decades to come.
In any case, concentrating on electricity generation overlooks the fact that more than 20% of the world's CO2 emissions come from industrial sources, particularly cement manufacturing, oil refining, iron and steel production and some chemical plants. The options for achieving a dramatic reduction in these levels without CCS are limited. This goes some way to explain why the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came to the conclusion last year that the global cost of achieving the big cuts in CO2 emissions needed to avoid dangerous warming could more than double if full use is not made of CCS technology.
More than 20% of the world's CO2 emissions come from industrial sources.
The potential is certainly recognised by the US Department of Energy. Officials predict a big uptake in the use of CCS, with American, Chinese and Japanese companies competing worldwide to supply equipment worth hundreds of billions of dollars. I'm surprised that European business doesn't seem more interested in grabbing a slice of the pie, but in some ways it's typical of the problem.
For all the academic studies that have demonstrated the practicality of deploying CCS, the technology has had too few cheerleaders. Supportive governmental voices in Europe have mostly been limited to the British, French and Dutch. Suppliers of coal and gas, and industrial emitters of CO2, have mostly kept their heads low, fearing perhaps that to suggest the need for CCS development will be to bring forward the time when regulatory measures are introduced to make it compulsory.
Carrots and sticks
Yet, if European leaders seek to meet their commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by 80-95% by 2050, they are going to have to experience their own 'get real' moment. At present, most EU member states are giving thought only to the medium-term target of a 40% reduction by 2030. Perhaps only when they start making plans for the longer term will they come to appreciate that there is a role for CCS, if only to address the issue of emissions from industrial sources. But the identification of suitable storage sites and the building of pipeline networks takes time, so a start needs to made sooner rather than later.
Money will oil the wheels and make the difference. Renewable electricity has been stimulated by generous financial subsidies; investment in CCS will need to be supported by something of the same. The UK's carrot-and-stick approach for CCS development in the power sector is the most advanced in Europe and, in theory at least, provides a model for the future. The 'stick' is a regulatory instrument (emissions performance standard) that outlaws the building of coal power stations with wholly unabated CO2 emissions. The 'carrot' comes in the shape of both capital and operating subsidies (contracts-for-difference) intended to stimulate CCS investment.
Over the years the European Commission has gone through the motions of supporting CCS but rarely with much show of enthusiasm. It just may be that new Climate and Energy Commissioner, Miguel Arias Canete, is the man who will make the difference. His statements since taking office have been unambiguous in their recognition that the technology has an important role to play in helping the European Union achieve its climate objectives. His levers of power are limited but his ability to shape the agenda is immense.
Fresh thinking is needed. A sense of urgency must be injected into the process. Heads need to be knocked together to resolve difficulties and ensure that decisions are taken. With political will progress could be quickly made. If CCS is at last to have a champion in Europe, who better than the European Commissioner?
For further information on global CCS developments, see http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/