CCS stands for carbon capture and storage, or CCS, is a technique to store and transport carbon dioxide for thousands of years. Carbon capture and storage is also called carbon sequestration.
Table of Contents
- EOR Uses CO2 Capture And Storage
- Cost Of CCS
- CCS Efficiency Requires A Leap Forward
- Potential for Tackling Climate Change
- Regenerative Agriculture
Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) uses CO2 to reduce the carbon content of oil, a practice that can help the United States achieve its climate goals.
The process involves injecting CO2 into oil fields through 4,500 miles of pipelines, as well as using Wireline Services to monitor the injection process and optimize the recovery of oil. In the United States, CO2 EOR is responsible for five percent of crude oil production.
CO2 EOR has been in existence for many years. The use of CO2 has been regulated by existing oil and gas regulations. However, new developments have increased confidence that CO2 EOR can be a legitimate means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has the potential to bolster oil production. The technology could enable domestic oil production, and the geographical distribution of CO2 EOR operations could be expanded.
However, the economic costs of reducing emissions from large point sources must be lower than the cost of the associated storage.
The National Petroleum Council (NPC) is currently conducting a study on CCUS. This report is expected to provide an overview of the project-associated costs of CO 2 -EOR projects.
CO2 EOR has been used successfully in conventional oil reservoirs. Some stranded oil is not amenable to CO2 EOR technologies.
The technology must be scaled up to meet climate goals. The “next generation” of CO2 EOR technology requires 30 billion tonnes of CO2, or 35 years’ worth of CO2 emissions from 140 gigawatts of coal-fired power.
In the United States, over 85 percent of the CO2 used in EOR operations comes from terrestrial sources. These sources include natural underground reservoirs. The remaining 15 percent of CO2 comes from anthropogenic sources.
Although CO2 capture and storage is a promising technology, there are several caveats. CO 2 supply has not always met demand.
The price of CO2 for EOR projects is typically tied to the price of oil. Many companies do not make the price of CO2 public. However, this information could be useful to regulators.
CO2 storage is a key aspect of CO2 EOR. It is estimated that a large fraction of the CO2 injected during EOR stays in the formation.
Generally, the cost of carbon capture and storage (CCS) depends on the source of the CO2 and the volume of the CO2 injected or stored.
The cost also depends on the location of the CO2 storage site and the transportation distance between the source and the site. Some CO2 streams are available for capture and storage at lower costs than others.
Currently, there is no comprehensive study of the cost of CCS for non-power applications. However, the literature provides a fairly wide range of cost estimates.
Generally, the cost of capture is estimated to be around 22-25 US$/tCO2. This is compared to the cost of producing a synthetic fuel using CO2 and hydrogen at about 2.7 US$/GJ.
The cost of storage is also quite varied. Depending on the volume of CO2 injected or stored, costs can range from less than $10/tCO2 to more than $500/tCO2.
The cost of CCS can be divided into three components: capture, transport and storage. Capture is the most expensive component, and depends on the source of the CO2 and whether it is diluted or pure.
Capture is usually more expensive for natural gas-fired plants than for coal-fired plants. The cost of capture for gas-fired plants is $76 per ton, while the cost of capture for coal-fired plants is $47.36 per ton.
Transport costs range from around $0.5-$14/tCO2 for onshore pipelines. Depending on the CO2 source and the distance to the storage site, costs range from around $52-$60 per ton.
Using offshore storage resources may reduce the cost of transport. The cost of storage can be more expensive if the CO2 is stored in saline reservoirs.
There are also several other ways to store CO2. Using plastic or concrete is one of the longer-term methods for sequestration. Using chemical reactions to produce products is another. Chemical reactions can cost from -$80 to $300 per tonne.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a promising technology for addressing climate change. However, the technology is not yet mature and has large uncertainties. The costs of CCUS are expected to decrease over time, but the technology has not yet been fully developed.
Several recent developments in the US signal a renewed push to commercialize CCS technology.
In particular, several pieces of legislation are currently under consideration that seek to increase funding for DOE’s CCUS program and to fix 48A tax credit for efficient coal-fired power plants.
Several CCS projects are already in operation, and several more are in the early stages of development. One project, the Petra Nova coal-fired plant in Texas, has demonstrated CCS application at scale.
The US has long been a leader in supporting carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The country has more CO2 pipelines than any other nation in the world, and a few dozen projects have achieved over 95% efficiency.
The main barrier to large scale deployment is the relatively high capital cost of these technologies.
After 90 percent efficiency, capturing CO2 becomes more difficult. Larger equipment and more energy are required. This is an engineering problem. However, there are some low-cost applications in industry today.
The process is used to capture carbon dioxide that is released by industrial facilities. The captured gas is then transported via pipeline, truck, or ship to a permanent underground storage facility.
The captured gas can be stored in a geologic reservoir, deep saline aquifer, or in an oil field. It is important to note that the IEA estimates that if more CCUS facilities are built worldwide, the amount of CO2 captured could double.
For example, the United States would need to build more than 1000 capture facilities nationwide to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
Several large commercial carbon capture facilities already operate, including facilities in the United States, Germany, Brazil, and China. These facilities have the capacity to capture 25 million tons of CO2 annually.
In fact, the United States has 13 commercial-scale carbon capture facilities. This represents half of the 26 commercial-scale projects worldwide. The technology has the potential to capture nearly all CO2 emissions from industrial facilities.
In the United States, coal-fired power plants, cement factories, and automobile manufacturing plants are among the most prominent sources of fossil fuel-related CO2 emissions.
According to the Tyndall Centre study, which was commissioned by Global Witness, the benefits of using fossil fuel-related CCS as a climate solution have not been proven.
However, the study found that BECCS is a promising technology that could be effective in mitigating CO2 emissions. In addition, BECCS could help achieve net zero or negative emissions.
In addition to BECCS, other potential mitigation solutions include regenerative agriculture. Regenerative agriculture is a growing movement that works to return carbon to the soil. Currently, cities are leading the way in implementing regenerative agriculture.
The feedstock for regenerative agriculture is varied and can include sewage sludge, forest residues, and agricultural wastes. It is estimated that by the end of the century, 100-200 GtCO2 can be removed from the atmosphere by regenerative agriculture.
The World Resources Institute (WRI) has begun examining the carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) issue. It has gathered more than 80 stakeholders to formulate Guidelines for Carbon Dioxide Transport and Community Engagement in CCS Projects.
The future of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) looks very promising. With the growing awareness of climate change, more and more countries are beginning to recognize that CCS is an important part of reducing carbon emissions.
We can expect to see increased investment in CCS technologies over the next few years, with governments and organizations working together to develop and implement the most efficient and cost-effective solutions.