Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Dispelling Carbon Capture's Scaling Myth
Pipelines needed to deploy CCS technology pose little impediment, according to an overlooked national lab study.
By Peter Fairley
PNNL estimates that CO2 pipeline build (red or blue) will look slim compared with natural-gas pipeline growth (yellow). [Larger image] Credit: PNNL
|
Critics of carbon capture and storage (CCS) often deride the scale of infrastructure required for CCS to make a meaningful dent in global carbon emissions--not just in equipment to capture emissions at power plants (and other "point" sources of CO2), but also in pipelines to move the captured CO2 to storage sites. But an overlooked recent study by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), based in Richland, WA, makes a convincing case that, at least where pipelines are concerned, the scale of CO2 infrastructure required is well within the realm of current industrial activities.
First, to the critics, who like to compare (unfavorably) CCS infrastructure to the heft of the oil industry: take Joseph Romm, who writes in his Climate Progress blog that "we need to put in place a dozen or so clean energy 'stabilization wedges' by mid-century to avoid catastrophic climate outcomes . . . For CCS to be even one of those would require a flow of CO2 into the ground equal to the current flow of oil out of the ground. That would require, by itself, re-creating the equivalent of the planet's entire oil delivery infrastructure, no mean feat." (Emphasis by Romm.)
The PNNL study determines that the feat is feasible not by taking issue with estimates such as Romm's, but rather by projecting a realistic implementation path for CCS technology. The research, presented by PNNL senior scientist Jim Dooley at November's 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, first projects how rapidly CCS could grow in the United States under aggressive climate policies. Then it compares the rate at which pipelines would need to be constructed with the speed with which natural-gas pipelines were built.
PNNL's conclusion: "The sheer scale of the required infrastructure should not be seen as representing a significant impediment to US deployment of CCS technologies."
Between 11,000 and 23,000 miles of dedicated CO2 pipeline would need to be laid in the United States before 2050, according to PNNL's estimates, in addition to the 3,900 miles already in place (which carry mostly naturally occurring CO2 used to stimulate production from aging oil wells). The graph above, from Dooley's presentation, breaks down the projected CO2 pipeline mileage by decade of installation (see red and blue bars) and shows just how puny it is relative to the U.S. natural-gas network (yellow bars).
MIT's 2007 Future of Coal report also favorably compared CCS infrastructure with natural-gas pipelines. The MIT report estimated that capturing all of the roughly 1.5 billion tons per year of CO2 generated by coal-burning power plants in the United States would generate a CO2 flow with just one-third of the volume of the natural gas flowing in the U.S. gas pipeline system.
That scale is certainly immense. But so is the challenge posed by climate change.
Peter Fairley, an independent journalist and editor of the Web journal Carbon-Nation, tracks energy innovation around the globe, from the solar-powered villages of Bolivia's Cordillera to China's mechanizing coalfields.
Comments
FriedmannSol...
01/08/2009
Posts:2
This is one case, however, where numbers are not that important.
Ignoring new coal plants, just existing coal plants will be used somehow for at least 30-40 years. Regardless of other energy strategies employed, capturing carbon will be done to some extent.
How expensive will it be? The earlier study indicated it would be on the order of the cost of the oil industry infrastructure. Fairley reports on a study that indicates that the earlier conclusion is clearly nonsense.
Look at it another way, since they use identical technologies, a CO2 pipeline industry and a natural gas pipeline industry would be identical in many ways.
One important difference is that many fewer CO2 pipelines would be necessary than natural gas pipelines. Natural gas pipelines must serve about 40,000 major origins and destinations (not counting local distribution and the opposite for gathering gas from many wells). There are only about 1000 coal plants and fewer appropriate destinations than that.
Another pet peeve of energy prognosticators is presuming one approach is the answer, so we must eliminate the others. This is nonsense.
Over the next few decades, we will have carbon capture, solar power will greatly expand in the southwest, wind energy will greatly expand, nuclear power will expand, our electricity grid will become smart, and we will use energy more efficiently.
gametheoryma...
01/08/2009
Posts:18
1. Use the natural gas pipeline infrastructure — Low value natural pipelines are available that could be dedicated to CO2, but the flow would be reversed. Coal plants near energy markets build some pipe to connect with such a pipeline and the CO2 flows to oil recovery areas, typically towards the Gulf Coast. Much, much less expensive.
2. Work with the natural gas pipeline industry — Even when existing pipelines are not available, new and replacement pipe continues to be built. Build a second pipeline in the same trench, but for a reversed flow. Much less expensive.
gametheoryma...
01/08/2009
Posts:18
These wires supply power to electric booster pumps that can be many miles apart.
www.electric-fluid-pipeline.com
shopa
01/08/2009
Posts:9