Wow – really? Has OPEC suddenly gotten behind climate change efforts? Well, sort of. They just announced a strong environmental focus as part of a two-day summit – with research into supporting climate concerns being central. They are putting their eggs into “carbon capture and sequestration” – $750 million to be exact. While that’s a tiny fraction of Opec’s ~$500-750 billion in annual revenues – it’s a start.
But despite the quote below (in bold) – the technology for CCS doesn’t actually exist on a commercial scale. There are some test projects in the works – but even the industry’s best hopes don’t see widespread usage for several decades on coal plants. CCS is theoretical, unproven, incredibly expensive, and with massive environmental and social dangers. So dangerous in fact – that CCS proponents have openly stated that it won’t move forward unless the Federal government assume all liability for accidents or leaks (in high concentrations C02 is very deadly). Check out RAN’s fact sheet on the myths of “clean coal” and CCS.
But here’s the kicker. It’s one thing to capture carbon from a single big point-source, like a coal smokestack. But despite the major technological, economical, and logistical barriers for even that – it’s completely ridiculous to think we can do that for millions of small point-sources, like a tail-pipe of an oil/gas-powered car. Much less capturing it, storing it, and then transporting it to a safe geological storage site.
So why is OPEC putting money into this? Well, because they aren’t actually thinking of how to safely capture emissions from their oil – they want to use captured emissions from other sources (like coal) and pump them into their oilfields. THIS is a proven technique to extract even more oil out of an existing field. Many “retired” fields still have oil remaining, there just isn’t an easy or economical way to pump that last bit out. But pumping some compressed C02 into that field can force more oil to bubble out – and voila! OPEC is making more money, oil addiction continues – and our climate still gets hotter.
While OPEC hasn’t yet released details on what exactly their CCS program will entail, I’ll bet money this is their plan. This is potentially one of the most blatant attempts at greenwash in recent history – but what else would we expect from OPEC?
-Matt
OPEC to put carbon capture at heart of new green agenda
RIYADH (AFP) — OPEC leaders are set to make carbon capture and storage the centerpiece of their new-found green agenda by urging greater use of the emerging technique to curb carbon emissions, Algeria’s energy minister said Friday.
Chakib Khelil, reading from a draft declaration expected to be approved at the end of an OPEC summit, said point three would be “energy and environment: carbon storage could reduce the impact of fossil fuels on climate change and developed countries have the technology on this.”
Earlier a source told AFP that the joint communique to be issued by OPEC leaders on Sunday would include a “big announcement on the environment.”
At a conference in Spain, UN experts meanwhile agreed Friday on a draft report that warns global warming may have far-reaching and irreversible consequences.
The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) encapsulates a massive overview of the global-warming problem, with the goal of guiding policymakers for the next five years.
Carbon capture technology, with which oil producer Norway, a non-OPEC member, is leading the way, consists of trapping carbon dioxide and storing it long-term underground.
The technology is based on removing harmful gases from major industrial activities, mainly power generation, and then storing it or injecting it into mature oilfields.
It has won support from the United States and the oil industry because it potentially offers a partial solution to the climate change problem without reducing dependence on oil or curbing consumption.
But it is only in the development stage and requires massive investment to make it commercially viable.
Three pilot projects are operating in Algeria, Canada and the North Sea off the Norwegian coast.
Some have also pointed to other drawbacks, notably that the underground storage chamber could rupture which would then release a huge bubble of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, worsening global warming at a stroke.
Nevertheless, the UN’s top climate change official said Thursday here that a commitment to carbon capture would be “very constructive outcome of the deliberations at the heads of state level” at the OPEC summit.
OPEC organisers have set “providing petroleum, promoting prosperity and protecting the environment” as the three headline themes of the two-day summit, with the emphasis on the environment coming as a surprise to many observers.
Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Nuaimi, who chaired a debate about energy and the environment on Thursday with the UN’s top climate change official, said the host country was concerned and ready to act on global warming.
Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), praised the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries for its attitude to the issue.
“I think the debate here points to a constructive willingness to participate in international dialogue about climate change,” he said.
He added that cartel members had shown “recognition that oil is a major contributor to the greenhouse effect, but also a willingness to talk about how oil can be produced and brought to market in a cleaner way.”
The OPEC summit is only the third in the organisation’s 47-year history.
Foreign, finance and oil ministers from the 12 member countries were gathering here on Friday to finalise the declaration.
Carbon sequestration is popular with a wide variety of folks. I have heard the IPCC, Sen Obama, even the IEER has sequestration as their backup plan. This shows how large of scale the issue is. If you actually have stop using fossil fuels, you are talking about 80% of the world’s energy supply. The energy storage technologies needed for renewables is also in a poor state of development and most folks still don’t want nuclear. Perhaps we need some out of the box thinking?
The Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates that, between 2004 and 2012, China, India, and the United States will build over 850 coal power plants which will put more than five times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the Kyoto protocol aims to reduce. Over 550 of those plants will be built in China. Coal provides about 70 percent of China’s energy, and China builds roughly one new coal-fired power plant every week. China’s total coal-related emissions are projected to increase by 232% between 2004 and 2030.
Matt, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one of the most important technologies we can be investing in. Can you find reputable sources (energy experts, not RAN) who say we can solve the climate challenge w/out CCS?
First off -the EIA doesn’t account for the power of social movements that can change the course of our society, or even the realities of climate change. It looks at historical energy usage and largely industry-framed projections. So while their predictions shouldn’t be ignored -they are not set-in-stone realities.
And the reason why renewables and energy storage options are limited is because the fossil fuel industry is making sure that the billions of research dollars available are going towards fantasies like “clean coal” – rather than making clean energy take hold. 20 years ago – we had mainframe computers than occupied an entire room and costs millions to build. Now we have more powerful machines that fit in our pocket and are “economically disposable” to many people. Why? Because we prioritized that research and development and widely deployed those options. We could have started that process 20 years ago with solar – let’s not make that same mistake today.
Teryn – can you find me reputable sources (environmental experts or a concerned citizen – not energy companies or politicians) that think we can solve the climate challenge, have clean water, clear air, healthy communities, and a just economy with coal?
Here’s the REALITIES of Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
-It doesn’t yet exist on a commercial scale. Optimistic estimates from the industry themselves (who aren’t exactly objective, honest, and certainly overly-optimistic) hope to begin commercial scale deployment of CCS for coal by “2020 or 2025″ (CEO of Arch Coal). That doesn’t mean widespread deployment on every single power plant – it means the hopeful start of deployment. Meanwhile – we are way past tipping points for our climate. We can’t wait until 2020 or 2025. Or ignore the destruction of coal extraction.
-The biggest study to date of CCS is from MIT. They forecast that if with widespread CCS deployment of coal power plants – that in 2050 global carbon dioxide emissions from all energy sources would be only slightly higher than today. Slightly higher? What about 80% reductions by 2050?
-It isn’t economically feasible. The pipeline needs for CCS from every coal plant in the country to appropriate sequestration sites is mind-boggling. Costs are very hard to predict, but estimates for carbon capture and storage would raise costs of coal-fired generation by up to $.06-$10/kWh (USD), without even figuring in transportation, liability or permanent storage. This makes the cost of coal higher than current clean options – and clean options will decrease in price with widespread deployment.
-Why risk it? We’re still sitting on lots of nuclear waste that we can’t safely dispose of. Why do the same thing with C02? Why create such massive waste streams in the first place? And we’re talking BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of tons of C02 – the US alone produces about 2 billion tons a year at coal power plants. In a freak accident in Cameroon – a small 1.6 million ton C02 leak instantly killed 1700 people. Do the math – and realize WHY the industry will take no responsibility for the safety of CCS. Because it isn’t safe.
Why let another 20 years go by crossing our fingers for another “technological” breakthrough to fix everything for us. We’ve been doing that, and largely ignoring the solutions we know work. Meanwhile – our climate is at it’s limit. How many warnings are we going to get before we start reducing our emissions NOW?
In the 1990s, over 200 GW of gas turbines were installed in the US. The coal industry was not able to block it and was frozen for over a decade. Only the outstripping of North American gas supplies stopped the trend.
This example shows that a cheap, easy to install, technology can be quickly brought on line. The issue is that there is no readily available cheap source of carbon free power (energy storage is expensive too). It is not a conspiracy of the coal companies, but a result of our current level of mastery of chemistry and physics. If a cheap superconductor, or a new way to do fusion, etc. were to be found tomorrow, it would greatly help. Otherwise, we face the tough choices (i.e., sequester CO2, more nuclear, cut back standards of living, etc.) as we already have over 6.5 billion people on our planet.
Matt, this is a very important conversation, one that I think happens far too seldomly in the youth climate movement. It’s important that we ask the hard questions and put the necessary research and thought into our energy policy strategy. I won’t be able to offer my thoughts in a complete format here — for more, see the study I co-authored this summer to be published in January by the Harvard Law and Policy Review, “Fast, Clean, Cheap: Cutting Global Warming’s Gordian Knot.” http://www.thebreakthrough.org/ideas.shtml
1) The IPCC did a major special report on CCS in 2005 with a lot of positive assesments. If you’re interested, you can download it at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/special-reports.htm
I’m sure you’re familiar with Socolow & Pacala’s wedge approach. If not, see: Robert H. Socolow and Stephen W. Pacala. “A Plan to Keep Carbon in Check,” Scientific American, September 2006.
The IEA has some of the world’s top energy experts, and their major 2006 report “Energy Technology Perspectives” is seen as one of the most authoritative studies on energy tech: International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives, 2006.
The IEA has also been doing an annual study of CCS. The 2007 report can be found at http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1979. To quote:
“Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is a critical technology to significantly reduce CO2 emissions. In a global CO2 emissions stabilisation scenario, CCS in power generation, industry and fuel transformation could account for 20% of CO2 savings (6.5 Gt of CO2 captured and stored annually in 2050).2 Accelerating investment in R&D and demonstration projects will be needed if CCS is to make a significant contribution. CCS along with other mitigation measures could significantly reduce the costs of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations and increase the flexibility to achieve that goal.”
Jae Edmonds is also big:
Edmonds, JA, Wise, MA, Dooley, JJ, Kim, SH, Smith, SJ Runci, PJ, Clarke, LE Malone, EL, Stokes, GM. “Global Energy Technology Strategy: Addressing Climate Change,” Global Energy Technology Strategy Program, May 2007.
2) You’re absolute right, we should have prioritized that research and development and widely deployed those options. And we should do it today with a $300-500 billion public investment into clean energy. The only way the developing world will be able to massively deploy renewables is if they’re as cheap as coal. And the quickest way to bring down the real price of clean energy is with a massive and strategic investment & innovation project.
Unfortunately, we didn’t prioritize those investments, and solar is still at least 5 times as expensive as coal (per kWh). Whether we like it or not, China is going to build those coal plants (and already is at a rate of 1 per week), and they’re going to exist for the next half century. We all recognize the problems with coal extraction, and CCS is no permanent solution. But it’s a tool we’re going to need — vitally — if we’re going to get anywhere near 80% emissions reductions.
otherwise — The up-coming Bali talks about the successor to Kyoto are absolutely critical. The angels and the devils will be in the details of how carbon sequestration will be defined. This will determine the flows of 100s of millions (maybe billions) of dollars of carbon credits for years to come.
There is hope that this is the year that rainforest countries might finally (and deservingly) receive some economic rewards for avoiding or reducing deforestation. There is also hope that carbon credits may be offered for long-term soil amendments that promise to save rainforests, feed people and reduce global warming. The new definitions could produce a new kind of tipping point.
Technology and economy have always driven the relationship between humans and nature. But now, with so many people, the relationship between technology and economy also holds the future of the human race and the planet. There can be much much good — what we view as progress. And there can be problems — terrible ones. Much depends on the positive feedback loops. Global warming means there will be more food grown in Canada and it’s thawing permafrost will release even more greenhouse gases.
The question is not really about having technology or profits or progress (or not), but whether a particular techno-economic approach gives us new and larger problems or new and larger solutions? A positive feedback loop for solutions? Hmmmm, I hope that got your attention. Is such a thing possible? I believe the answer is YES and it takes the form of an ancient-future soil technology called Terra Preta do Indio (Portuguese for Indian Black Earth).
Recent research emerging from the Amazon basin is locating large deposits of an extremely fertile and resilent soil called terra preta. It appears to be human-made, ancient indians adding charcoal to the soil to produce the result — carbon dating says much of it is 2500 to 4000 years old. Terra preta soil is so productive — up to 800% increased plant growth — that it could have easily supported an agriculture capable of feeding millions of people living in great cities in the central Amazon basin. Hmmmm (again). This is the legend of El Dorado.
But do we have to embrace a mythic vision, a conquistador’s dream of gold? Is there some solid science involved? Might there actually be a modern soil technolgy whereby faster growing plants would draw more CO2 out of the atmosphere and the unused plant waste turned into charcoal to be returned to the soil — resulting in increased crop yields, more carbon capture and long term sequestration, more food and fuel for increasing populations, and a new era of abundance. In other words, might there be a positive feedback loop for healing ourselves and the earth? A technologically and economically supported relationship for bringing human beings and nature into a mutually supportive marriage? A sustainable relationship of abundance?
The data are not in but the soil research is being conducted and the hopes are great. But we will need more than new agricultural technology. Right now the overwhelming economic opportunities are located in creating fuel. What can incentivize devoting a portion of the charcoal that can be produced from agricultural waste to amendments for renewing the soil?
THE CARBON EXCHANGE CAN PRODUCE THE NEEDED ECONOMIC TIPPING POINT.
Those who have no choice about polluting ways can fund those who have a choice but incur lost opportunities for short-term profits if they do the right thing. We can leave the blame-game and help each other. What a concept!
Please check out the following links to discover more about this exciting possibility.
The ABC 11 minute video about the the modern version of terra preta called “Agrichar”. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s2012892.htm
Kelpie Wilson’s lay person’s introduction to terra preta. http://www.biochar-international.org/images/Joyful_Liiving_Terra_Preta_Sept-Oct_0207.pdf
Research confirms that char added to soil boosts crop productivity. http://biopact.com/2007/06/research-confirms-biochar-in-soils.html
The BBC documentary, “The Secret of El Dorado”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/eldorado.shtml
Ken Salazar has introduced a bill in the US Senate that would fund research on agrichar. http://biopact.com/2007/10/towards-carbon-negative-bioenergy-us.html
I report the story unfolding from Brazil here. http://lougold.blogspot.com/
Lou Gold
An American in Brazil