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.

How Energy Efficiency Decreases Carbon Output

Now that we’ve decided climate change is real, the next important point of discussion is how we (as consumers) can decrease our carbon footprint.  In a broad sense, we simply need to increase our energy efficiency. For the typical person in our society, energy efficiency can be improved in the workplace, automobile and home. 

Regarding energy efficiency in the workplace, most major changes depend on decisions made by the business and/or building owner (to no surprise).  There are many types of technologies in today’s market which aim to decrease energy use in commercial and industrial settings, most of which do not require individual employees to change habitual actions. However, small changes controlled by the individuals – such as turning off lights, shutting down computers instead of hibernating, turning heat or AC levels down, etcetera – can also make a difference, as long as the entire workforce is committed to making the necessary changes. As many people might guess, the issue of free riding is a very prevalent excuse used by many employees who simply have no incentive to be more energy efficient. After all, there probably aren’t any employers who give out bonuses to their employees for using less electricity.

As for energy efficiency in your automobile, the issue of free riding is replaced by financial hardship. Most people argue they simply cannot emit less carbon in the transportation department because they cannot afford to buy a different car, such as a fancy new hybrid. However, there are of course many other ways to use less gas and consequently emit less carbon.  I would like to pause here for a hot minute and acknowledge that most readers have probably heard everything I have said thus far dozens of times… but the point I will make in the next sentence cannot be repeated enough in my opinion. Use public transportation. One more time for effect – use public transportation! There are buses, metros and trains running all over most cities with lots of empty seats and standing space.  If you are absolutely against public transportation, then start an email chain or Facebook group with your coworkers to start an energy efficiency carpool. On a slightly different note, try to walk or ride a bike to the grocery store, gym, school, bars, etc. as often as possible.

The last area – and by far the most opportunistic – is energy efficiency in the home. The reason I say it’s the most opportunistic area is because homeowners and renters have very little accountability to use less energy. The only consequence to using more energy than needed is a slightly higher monthly electricity bill. Many people would argue they are environmentally aware and consciously use less electricity or gas in order to decrease their footprint. However true this may be, there are very few people who are actually decreasing their consumption to their full potential.  The main problem is that most people have no idea how to go about doing this – they would need a computer system hooked up to their breaker panel and configured to their specific utility rate structure to maximize their saving potential. Fortunately there are such technologies which are sprouting up in the youthful Home Energy Monitor market.  Learn why consuming electricity at different times of the day DOES make a difference to your carbon footprint and your monthly bill in the Home Energy blog.

Home Energy Management is making a big difference to slow the effects of climate change. But if you want to lead a truly Green lifestyle, you will need to fully commit to making changes in the workplace, in your car, and especially in your home.

Tom Friedman Greenbuild 2011 Keynote Implores Us to Keep Forging Ahead on Energy Efficiency Despite Lack of Political Support

At last week's Greenbuild 2011 Expo in Toronto, New York Times Columnist Thomas Friedman expressed disenchantment with the lack of political leadership regarding climate change and energy efficiency, but lauded the folks in the cleantech industry for moving forward anyway. He pointed out that, to meet the challenges ahead, we must, "think about how we bring more imagination to every thing we do around this industry to work within these constraints."

Check out the full article including a link to an abridged video of Friedman's keynote at Clean Technica.

The Obligatory Introduction: Is Climate Change Real?

My personal opinion is yes, which is why I plan on using this blog to highlight scientific evidence supporting this “theory.” However, it is also my opinion that there are many misconceptions surrounding the original misnomer of “global warming,” since many people have yet to grasp the concept that climate change is causing not only a rise in temperatures, but also elevated precipitation, less predictable seasonal changes, and other weather related extremes.

A common argument for those opposed to climate change is that the Earth is simply going through another ice age-type cycle, which in the past is attributed to changes in the amount of solar energy our planet receives, caused by small variations in Earth’s orbit. As far as scientists can tell, there have been about 7 of these periods, the latest one ending around 7,000 years ago. They have also gathered evidence to show that Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) emissions during these periods has risen and fallen in similar cyclical trends. However, and most importantly, the amount of CO₂ we have in the atmosphere today is much higher than ever measured before by a very significant margin. The graph published by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) below shows just how large that margin is.

 

Although many people already know why CO₂ is bad for the Earth’s temperature and climate, I will clarify for arguments sake. CO₂ and other gases (many of which are referred to as fossil fuels) have the ability to catalyze the transfer of infrared energy throughout the atmosphere. In response, increased levels of greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to warm.

So where exactly are we seeing climate change in effect today? They can be loosely grouped into 8 different categories as follows: a rise in sea level, a warming trend in the oceans, a decline in Arctic sea ice, an increase in the number of extreme events, a rise in ocean acidification, glacial retreat, shrinking ice sheets, and of course, a rise in global temperature.

Here are some numbers from NASA to consider before my next post:

·         6.7 inches = the rise in sea level over the past century, which is nearly double the century before that.

·         152 kilometers³ = the number of miles of ice lost in Antarctica between 2002 and 2005.

·          7 = how many continents contain glaciers, most of which are melting and retreating.

·         30% = the increase in ocean acidification since the Industrial Revolution.

·         0.3 = the increase in degrees Fahrenheit of ocean surface temperatures over the past 40 years.

·         0.74^O C (or 1.33^O F) = The rise in global temperature since the late 19^th century.