Carbon Capture & Sequestration… Didn’t your Mom Ever Tell You Not to Sweep the Dirt Under the Rug?

Geologists, engineers and various other scientists are in a hot debate about the feasibility of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), which is basically pumping carbon deep underground and, well, leaving it there. Yes, they want to sweep the issue under the rug and hope the adverse affects outweigh the alternative of leaving the carbon in the atmosphere.

According to the Carbon Capture and Storage Information Center, there are 3 main steps for sequestering (or storing) carbon, along with 3 methods of doing so. The steps for sequestration include capture and separation, transportation, and injection and storage. A few of the main techniques in capturing and separating carbon include pre-combustion capture, post-combustion capture, oxy-fuel combustion capture and industrial separation, which I won’t even try explaining due to their technological complexities. The main idea is that each has advantages and disadvantages depending on the type of plant it is extracted from.  

As far as transportation goes, some people might be wondering why the carbon needs to be moved if it will just be pumped into the ground anyway. However, carbon must be pumped strategically into certain geological formations such as subterranean oceans or gas reservoirs. Therefore, it must first be transported via pipeline or ship which obviously requires a huge infrastructure in place to operate efficiently.

The final step of carbon capture and sequestration, injection and storage, is composed of 3 methods which include gaseous storage in very deep and porous geological formations, liquid storage in subterranean oceans, and solid storage in the form of charcoal or stable carbonates which is produced after the carbon dioxide reacts with metal oxides (as shown in the image below). The most substantial drawback for this technology is the fear of leakage – either gaseous leaks back into the atmosphere, or liquid and solid leaks into oceans which could dramatically raise ocean acidification levels. Factors such as changes in pressure, chemical state and shifting tectonic plates are just a few ways in which a major leak could occur.

But let us assume for a minute that scientists and geologists were absolutely, 100% sure those fears could be erased, and carbon capture and sequestration should take place without worry of leakage… there is an even larger problem we have not yet taken into account. Money. According to the IPPC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, a coal-fired power plant would need to increase fuel by 25%-40% in order to meet the energy needs of capturing and sequestering their carbon emissions. This means electricity and other energy costs would most definitely increase significantly and even more carbon would need storing. Not to mention the cost of research and development, and building all of those pipelines and reservoirs.

Even after considering all the short-term costs, we will not discover the true long-term costs for hundreds of years, when all of the sequestered carbon begins to resurface or we run out of room in the subterranean storage areas. In my opinion, it is simply too risky of an investment to undertake at the time being, but it may become a reality if other solutions are not found (and implemented!) very soon.