Germans say no to underground CO2 storage
October 6th, 2009
Photo via Flickr: Rennett Stowe
I admit I have only a layperson’s knowledge of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, but I don’t think it takes a mining engineer to see the hubris in Swedish energy company Vattenfall AB’s designs to store millions of tons of CO2 below the homes of thousands of German villagers. No wonder the locals are fighting tooth and nail to halt the plan, reports today’s Wall Street Journal.
We don’t have to shut down coal-fired power plants, say proponents of CCS (i.e., large energy companies). We’ll just take all those greenhouse gases, and instead of releasing them into the atmosphere, we’ll pump them into the earth’s crust. The technology’s never been tested on a commercial scale before, but scientists are totally confident that the gas won’t leak into your home while you sleep and suffocate you, like the CO2 eruption from Lake Nyos. Or that a future earthquake won’t somehow disrupt those “safely stored” deposits. Or that the process of sequestering those gases itself won’t trigger seismic activity.
In our rush to slow down global warming, we have to make sure that we don’t put blind faith in technologies that could themselves have catastrophic consequences.
–Jennifer Grayson
Do this now: Invest in clean energy solutions like solar, wind, and second-generation biofuels. The sooner we move away from coal-fired power plants, the less likely we’ll be facing CCS in our own backyard.
Related posts:
Senate to reveal draft climate bill tomorrow
How to prepare for global warming
Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed
October 7th, 2009 at 3:42 am
Dear Ms. Johnson,
CCS isn’t just about coal-fired power plants – despite the US debate focusing entirely on this application – it is also about capturing the CO2 from gas-powered plants and heavy industry, like steel and cement factories.
It’s a technology that recognizes the reality that fossil fuels will be with us for a while longer, and that only a portfolio of solutions to combat climate change will do. These naturally include renewables and greater energy efficiency, but CCS will be a necessity, not an option.
The lack of awareness and understanding that surround CCS are perfectly understandable, but some of the elements that together make up the technology are over 50 years old. Meanwhile, the earth has been storing CO2, alongside gas and oil, for millions of years.
May I kindly suggest you visit the following website in order to peruse the facts about CCS, and the realities of safely storing CO2, in the hopes of better informing the discussion:
http://www.zeroemissionsplatform.eu
October 7th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Thanks so much for the link. CCS is a complex technology, and this site clearly explains the process — I found it very helpful. After reading through all the information, though, I still can’t help but feel that the billions of dollars spend developing and deploying CCS would be better invested in truly clean solutions for gas-powered plants and heavy industry. You say that some of the elements that make up the technology are over 50 years old, but I’m worried about 1,000 years from now. How can we possibly ensure that the injection sites will be monitored in perpetuity, or that 200 years down the road there won’t be some disastrous, unforeseen effect on our planet? Much of geological science is still a guessing game (no one has uncovered the key to predicting earthquakes, after all).
I’m sure your argument will be that we may not have 1,000 years if global warming continues unchecked, and that CCS is a necessary stop-gap measure. But considering that In Europe, you have only enough storage for 60 years worth of current CO2 emissions, I say let’s not gamble on an unproven technology.