CO2 storage: time for the transition to a CO2-neutral society
In our previous blog about the KLM flight on hydrogen we already discussed CO2 storage in the production of blue hydrogen. Follow the Money, a journalistic truth-finding platform that exposes the truth by following money flows, also recently published a piece about it. CO2 storage is something that will probably become very important in the coming decades for achieving the climate targets, but there still turn out to be many misconceptions about it.
01CO2 storage in practice
CO2 storage has been applied since the 1970s. CO2 was injected into gas and oil reservoirs so that the yield of the fields could be increased. Many decades have since passed and the techniques are used on a wider scale. It is also applied, for example, at the Sleipner gas extraction platform: here Statoil stores CO2 that is released during natural gas production. Norway has long been a pioneer when it comes to CO2 storage.
CO2 storage in the Netherlands
At the moment, the Dutch government has no plans for CO2 storage on land, but is looking mainly in the direction of the sea. Up to 1.600 megatonnes can be stored there. It mainly provides for incentive schemes for Dutch industry, including via an extension of the SDE+ (Stimulering Duurzame Energieproductie). An example of such a project is the Porthos project (Port of Rotterdam CO2 Transport Hub and Offshore Storage). In this project, the CO2 from Rotterdam industry will be taken via an undersea pipeline to a platform 20 km off the coast. 3 kilometres beneath the North Sea there is an empty reservoir, a former gas field, of porous sandstone. Approximately 2,5 million tonnes of CO2 per year will be stored here. Once the reservoir is completely full, it will be sealed again.
The choice of storage at sea is not surprising. In practice, many people turn out to be suspicious of CO2 storage. For example, SNR (Shell Nederland Raffinaderij) had a project running until November 2010 to bring CO2 to an empty natural gas field in Barendrecht and inject it there. This was supposed to make the production of blue hydrogen possible. Locally there was a great deal of protest. The fear was that something would go wrong and that all the CO2 would be released like a big bomb and take the residents' breath away. Due to a complete lack of local support, the project was eventually halted. Since then, the CO2 simply goes into the atmosphere and everyone feels very safe again.
It is true that there are risks associated with CO2 storage. CO2 displaces oxygen and is suffocating, while it has a high mass density. As a result, CO2 stays close to the earth's surface and has a suffocating effect. Few questions are raised about the safety of underground reservoirs; they have already proven their effectiveness. The transport pipelines, however, are feared. The Dutch government, on the other hand, stresses that licences are only granted when the strictest safety requirements have been met.
Criticism from environmental organisations
However, local residents are not alone in their criticism of CO2 storage. Environmental organisations such as Greenpeace have also been critical. It denounces the fact that the government has to build CO2 discharge pipelines with taxpayers' money and that citizens thus subsidise the use of fossil fuel by industry. The organisation also does not consider it wise to once again place the responsibility on future generations. They will always have to keep making sure that the CO2 stays nicely and safely in place. In addition, the organisation warns that the Netherlands could well become the rubbish dump of Europe, especially now that both Belgium and Germany have already indicated that they want to dump their CO2 with us. Greenpeace believes that the money would be better spent on more sustainable alternatives, such as the production of green hydrogen.
02CO2 storage has both advantages and disadvantages
CO2 storage has both advantages and disadvantages in any case. The advantages are clear: it makes a direct contribution to climate change and it gives other technologies time to mature. In other words: it mainly buys the time we need to quickly arrive at a solution to the climate problem.
However, this is offset by quite a few disadvantages. For example, CO2 storage leads to higher energy consumption, it involves high costs and investments that do not flow to other green developments, the technique is currently not yet profitable and there are liability issues. Finally, CO2 could cause compounds to be formed with other rocks, causing new minerals to form. This could cause ground uplift in built-up areas.
For the consumer, too, CO2 storage would mean considerably more expensive energy rates. CO2 capture alone would cause price increases of 35 to 85%, while the taxpayer also has to finance infrastructural investments.
Finally, CO2 storage is always a temporary solution. Estimates of the total available area differ greatly and range from decades to hundreds of years of CO2 emissions, depending on which storage zones are considered economically and practically feasible.
Alternatives are in their infancy
Opponents of CO2 storage often refer to alternatives. For example, afforestation is a cheaper way to store CO2. Trees are a natural form of CO2 storage: during their lives they store CO2, which they release again when we burn them. According to them, afforestation and stopping burning is much more cost-effective. In practice, this runs into practical objections. The places on earth where there is still room for large-scale afforestation do not have the most reliable regimes and are also precisely the places where large-scale deforestation is now taking place.
In addition, the CO2 can also be used in greenhouses (something that already happens now, for example at greenhouse horticulturists in Lansingerland) or in algae cultivation. Algae can be used as an energy source and use CO2 as food. This creates a closed carbon cycle. In addition, CO2 can be converted into CO to make hydrogen from it, or it can be converted into methanol. There are also quite a few alternative technologies that are in full development, including the use of modified bacteria that use CO2 to make useful raw materials. Many of these alternatives are still only in their infancy and additional research is needed. That is why experts consider CO2 storage a better solution in the short term.
Probably no other option
Despite the risks and the disadvantages that certainly exist, experts agree that CO2 storage will become an indispensable part of climate policy this century. They point out that CO2 reduction could have been a solution, but only if we had intervened faster and harder. On the other hand, focusing on CO2 storage distracts from the main goal, CO2 reduction, but there is no other way now. Instead of a reduction in annual CO2 emissions since 2000, emissions have risen by no less than 40%. As a result, the chance has been lost to keep climate change manageable in the short term without undesirable interventions such as CO2 storage.
According to the same experts, the question is therefore mainly when we will do CO2 storage. Now and at the source? Or at the end of this century, when we have to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere? Experts already stress that it must not become an either-or story, either CO2 storage or CO2 reduction. They stress that with CO2 storage we are merely buying time to continue with CO2 reduction. In the coming years, more and more political parties will probably form a clear opinion on CO2 storage. Care is needed here too, because there is a real chance that some parties will advocate CO2 storage only to postpone the implementation of an expensive and effective climate policy.
CO2 storage: the answer to the climate problem? ➜ EnergieAanbieding.nl
CO2 storage will play an increasingly important role in achieving the climate targets. In the long term, however, CO2 reduction remains the main goal.
03Frequently asked questions about CO2 storage
CO2 storage can be a good way to prevent the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Yet it has not yet been rolled out on a large scale, and there are various reasons for that. This FAQ discusses these and other matters that are inextricably linked to CO2 storage.
No, CO2 storage cannot replace CO2 reduction. CO2 storage is only a temporary ‘solution’. At a certain point, the storage options will also be exhausted. In addition, even the most favourable forecasts assume a maximum of 45% CO2 capture of global CO2 emissions in 2050, provided that we start investing heavily now. This is not enough to achieve our climate ambitions. CO2 storage and CO2 reduction will therefore have to be applied side by side.
Can CO2 storage be an alternative to CO2 reduction?
This remains uncertain. To some extent, it is possible to limit the costs by devising more efficient techniques. According to some studies, this could even result in a decrease of 20 to 30%. In the long term, however, the costs of CO2 transport will rise sharply. This is because new storage locations will constantly have to be tapped and one will probably start with the easiest (and therefore cheapest) storage sites to reach.
Will the costs of CO2 storage fall in the long term?
In theory, yes. It is true that a natural exchange takes place between the atmosphere and the oceans. The ocean is therefore a so-called second carbon sink, alongside forests. When the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rises, the CO2 concentration in the oceans also increases. The CO2 then dissolves in the upper water layers and is later mixed with deeper ocean layers. This is a natural way of CO2 storage, just like forest management. Its importance should not be underestimated: oceans absorb some 7 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. In theory, we could also inject the CO2 directly into the low ocean layers, whereby liquid CO2 lakes form on the seabed. The consequences for marine life (life has even been found in the Mariana Trench) are, however, disastrous. In addition, ocean acidification occurs and the ocean will also release the CO2 again in the long term. In other words: such solutions are not desirable if better alternatives exist, such as afforestation, CO2 reduction and underground CO2 storage.
Can CO2 not simply be injected into ocean water?
Studies into doing this on a large scale, for example on the basis of modified organisms, are still in full swing. In theory it is possible, for example, on the basis of serpentine, but it is considered unrealistic to do this on a large scale. That is why people are increasingly looking in the direction of olivine. Another, well-known and simpler way of applying this is by means of BECCS (Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture Storage). Here, plants are planted that are able to quickly absorb large quantities of CO2. These plants are then burned in a biomass power station, where they generate energy, and CO2 storage takes place. By repeating this, CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. This could form an alternative to large-scale afforestation, but it would also be many times more expensive. Moreover, a large land area is still needed even then.
Can CO2 also be removed from the atmosphere?
Captured CO2 can be used as a raw material. CO2 can, for example, be a raw material for the production of synthetic hydrocarbons that can be used as fuel. Other applications are also possible. For example, the CO2 from the waste-to-energy plant in Hengelo is used for the production of sodium bicarbonate (baking powder). However, CO2 emissions are so gigantic that CO2 reduction and CO2 storage remain necessary.
Can the CO2 not simply be reused?
Work out the monthly amount with your usage and feed-in.