Carbon Capture And Storage : A Means Of Limiting Anthropogenic Emissions Of Co2

CCS is s method that can be used to lower carbon dioxide emissions while enabling low-carbon electricity generation from power plants. CCS technologies are said to be able to reduce 80-90% of emissions form factories or plants that burn fossil fuels.

Socolow and Stephen W. Pacala in their article, “A Plan to Keep Carbon In Check (2006)" suggests that “today’s notoriously inefficient energy system can be replaced if the world gives unprecedented attention to energy efficiency.” Taking steps to institute policies and be cost-efficient will entail structural change, but in the end will be in the best interest for countries to aid in the adaptation of lower carbon products and economic competitiveness. They further state that governments need “to stimulate the commercialization of low-carbon technologies” so there is less demand for fossil fuels thereby increasing “competitive options” for the future. (Socolow & Pacala, 2006) Consequently, the emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is causing the rise of global temperatures. Utilizing technology specifically for carbon capture and storage is crucial so we can slowly begin our process of adapting to other energy resources. It is also important that all countries participate in policies that will reduce emissions in a cost-effective

Scientific American, in “Carbon dioxide: From nuisance to resource?” contends that in order to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released in the atmosphere scientists should figure out a way to recycle it. Scientific American continues this discussion by stating that a prize should be offered in 2020 to award a science team that comes up with the best way to capture the carbon dioxide and turn in into the building blocks to create something else. This author proposes this plan in order to ensure that the effects of global warming can be reduced, and that carbon dioxide will not continue to hurt the Earth. These educators urge scientists to discover a way to stop the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth.

This is not only a benefit to the environment, but it also benefits the shareholders as a more efficient company will turn a better profit. Suncor has made it a goal to improve energy efficiency by 10% by 2015. To do this is had focused on developing technologies to increase energy efficiency and recapture. Carbon capture and storage (CCS), Integrated CO2 Network (ICO2N) and CO2 Capture Project (CCP3) are all developed policy and technology projects that have been deployed throughout the Suncor organization. Suncor is also taking a leadership role in Carbon Management Canada (CMC). Suncor is revisiting future growth project designs to evaluate GHG reduction opportunities. Suncor is also participating in advanced research on GHG abatement technologies through CMC, ICO2N, CCP3 and other groups.

The removal of CO₂ may be a huge challenge and a spotlight has centered on removing CO₂ from the exhaust of fuel power plants, wherever it's gift in higher concentrations. Typically, that CO₂ is destined for carbon capture and storage (CCS), however an alternative choice is that, it’s doable to require CO₂ directly from exhaust gases and create new chemicals.

There are several research projects currently tackling this issue. Some have found methods to convert CO2 into methanol, or hydrocarbon fuel. But these are not very useful at this time. Other attempts have produced products that are either too expensive or not scalable.

What makes this project different from other Carbon capture and storage methods, is that the CO2 is mixed with water before it’s injected 800m into the ground. Dissoluting CO2 into water gets rid of its buoyancy and therefore prevents leakage, which is one of the biggest problems and risks associated with geologic carbon storage.

An article from Forbes goes into depth about the process of removing, transporting, and storing the carbon dioxide will work. The article talks about how CCS is much more expensive compared to other sustainable energy resources such as wind and solar. They argue that by adding the equipment needed for CCS to coal power plants, the efficiency of these plants will reduce. As a result, power companies must burn additional fuel to make up for the amount that would be lost in the capture of carbon. In fact, they also state how a new solar photovoltaic (PV) system or a wind farm is half the price of a new coal unit with CCS and has zero carbon emissions. Generally speaking, they don’t talk about how much space would be needed to produce an equal amount of electricity a coal power plant would be producing. A question that must be answered is will be CCS a worthwhile investment for producers of carbon dioxide to help remove CO2 from our atmosphere. When it comes to carbon dioxide every little bit removed will help our atmosphere. It the meantime, implementing CCS, even though it would be a costly investment will only be used for roughly the next century until the Earth runs out of fossil fuels. By doing so

The importance of CO2 capture and CO2 conversion is evidenced by the great research interest (~ 79,000 and ~ 52,000 publication record, respectively). However, the high operational and infrastructure cost is the

As of mid-2017 it has been recorded that a concentration 407 parts per million of Carbon Dioxide are present in the atmosphere. The current Carbon Dioxide concentration in our atmosphere is the highest recorded in the past 20 million years and it is due to human activities; mainly fossil fuel consumption and deforestation. This tremendous increase in malicious greenhouse gases in our atmosphere has started to have a noticeable impact on our earth. These being increases, and decreases in temperature throughout the planet and more constant and powerful natural disasters. These effects have mobilized the efforts of governments throughout different continents to start making significant change in the policies regarding climate change. carbon offsets, carbon trading and cap and trade are concepts being implemented throughout countries with the intention of limiting the amount of CO2 major industries are permitted of releasing. Although, these concepts were created with upright intent, the industries that such concepts were created for have found ways of corrupting these programs. This is because all three of the previous concepts have loopholes in which a company can purchase the right to release as much carbon dioxide as they are willing to spend for it. It is imperative to acknowledge that there are many defects with these concepts, therefore people need to understand and require for improved guidelines against major companies and their carbon dioxide footprints. Furthermore,

With regards to the capture efficiency of CCS technology, “Studies of CO2 capture from IGCC power plants typically assume an overall CO2 capture efficiency in the range of 75–92%” (Chen & Rubin, 2009, p. 918). Despite the possible incorporation of carbon capture technology with the possible high capture rates, IGCC technology is still in situations where “Dealing with air permit appeals will delay the construction and operation of these units” so bypassing environmental barriers is difficult (Neville, 2009, p. 7).

In 2015, for my Composition 1 Class, I wrote an essay called Global Warming: The Solution in Our Hands. There, I made a revision on the global warming, causes, and solutions. One of the solutions reviewed was capturing CO2 and its storage, for a long period of time, through industrial plants, underground geological formations, oceans, or other materials in Antarctica. An industrial response can contribute to a great solution. However, years later, I understand that the solution must come from each of us. A solution should be practical, viable, and applicable.

As we all known, there was a series of intense conversations between developed countries and developing countries about the carbon dioxide emission cup for each country. On one hand, BASIC countries, the representative of developing countries, held that they were developing and needed large amount of carbon dioxide emission in industrial development. On the other hand, the American and European Union, the representative of developed countries, argued that developing countries cannot take the risk of pollution in order to develop its own science and economy; therefore they should take a large part of responsibility of global climate change. The purposed changed of absolute emission for America is 4% but for China or Indian is 20% even 40% reduction for 2005-2020. From my perspective, this is too hard and tough for developing countries to complete. And developed countries should do better than 4% or 5%.

The best area for collaboration is the building of a carbon capture and storage system. On a smaller scale models this technology has managed to capture up to 90% of carbon dioxide emissions from coal powered plants. The CO2 is collected, transported and buried in used oil fields. The CCS project has not been demonstrated on full power plants due to its immense cost. Although it can be argued that this only defers the pollution problem, due to the immense cost of alternative energies it is a reasonable compromise. The

By using existing power plants for the execution of post-combustion capture methods, valuable resources from the power plants will be able to be used for operation, rather than purchasing new resources for the implementation. This will save some of the cost associated with running such methods. Moreover, it is predicted that the continued development of materials for post-combustion methods will in turn increase the efficiency and reduces the CO2 emissions of the methods.