Most of us know that Carbon Dioxide, commonly referred to as CO2, has a natural presence in our ecosystem. It would also be fairly safe to assume that almost all of us are aware that this same natural atmospheric gas is one of the world’s most threatening Greenhouse Gases (GHG’s), as it has the ability to reside in the Earth’s atmosphere for a critically substantial period of time. The fact of the matter is that CO2 is a by-product of our lives as we know it and at a minimum, as demand for CO2 producing goods and services continues to rise; scientists have been faced with the challenge of addressing new coping mechanisms to curb the harmful effects of this by-product. One particular development that has gained favor with many is the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology.
One of the most important insinuations with respect to the growth of the CCS technology is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) most recently proposed greenhouse gas emissions performance standard, which was first released in April 2012. However, after much consideration, discussion and over 2.5 million comments in regards to the proposed rule, they decided to withdraw the proposal and re-evaluate their position.
When the EPA’s most recent proposal dated January 8, 2014 hit the airwaves, they had separated steam generating facilities from stationary combustion turbines but their message with respect to the value of CCS was clear, as CCS technology remained in the limelight of the proposal.
The new strategy is based around a healthy combination of carbon emissions limitations and CCS technology and even applauds CCS as “the best system of emission reduction” (according to the Federal Register – when referencing the proposed standard for fossil fuel-burning electric utility steam generating units).
This ovation for CCS seems to be the filtering into the marketplace as well. According to the US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 2014 Annual Energy Outlook forecast, a study was conducted, indicating that power plants with Carbon Capture and Storage elements have experienced a shift in their favor, as new coal-fired power plants without the technology (amongst other types of utility generating plants) have experienced roughly a 3 percent increase in the cost of investment. That said, utilizing CCS technology is obviously going to be more expensive that not utilizing it, but according to the Federal Register, CCS technology is actually economically competitive when compared to some of the choice fossil fuel-free generation methods, including nuclear and biomass generation.
So at this point you’re probably wondering how it works, right?
To give you a very high-level overview, there are 4 major elements of the Carbon Capture and storage technology, including CO2 capture, compression, transportation and storage of the gas. As for the actual CO2 capture, there are three approaches to harvesting the CO2 itself; it can be captured in its pre-combustion state, post-combustion state, or by combusting the material using oxygen instead of air, the latter of which produces concentrated CO2.
Once the CO2 is captured and compressed, it is transported to where it is destined to be stored. Oftentimes, these generation sites and storage locations are very close to one another in order to reduce transportation costs. Some of the more common variables that affect the price of product transportation in these pipelines include the availability of the lines themselves, capital and operating costs, and the size of the pipes themselves.
At this stage in the process, the product must be stored. The principal storage method is something often referred to as “geologic sequestration”, which roughly translates to “the earth taking possession of”. The science of geologic sequestration is all based upon the study of natural earth forms including CO2 sinks and natural gas “wells”, although the EPA currently recognizes that there is much more to be learned about site selection, feasibility, and even alternative storage technologies.
According to the Federal Register, people have been capturing CO2 for just short of a century, using a variety of methods, but the cost of harvesting the gas is one of the industry’s biggest challenges, contributing to anywhere from 70 – 90 percent of the total project costs. However, we can see that progress has already been made in the market to reduce the cost and as with any new product, as the technology matures it will inevitably become less expensive.
Obviously, under this emissions standard proposal, you can see that there is a primary focus on carbon emission reductions, with a substantial portion that focuses on enforcing the application of partial Carbon Capture and storage technology. Feasibility studies are being conducted to improve both the economic and geologic practicality of it. The final ruling on this proposal in set for January 2015, so be sure to check back with us for an update on the proposal status.
If you are look for products to help manage you own carbon emissions, be sure to visit our website on top vendors of carbon management software.
Learn more about this proposal at the Federal Register’s website.
– Bailey McGalliard
