Abstract

The global warming is directly related to the increased greenhouse gas emissions from both natural and anthropogenic origins. There has been a drastic rise in the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution primarily due to the intensifying consumption of fossil fuels. With the need to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate global warming certain strategies relating to carbon capturing and sequestration are indispensable. This paper comprehensively describes several physicochemical, biological and geological routes for carbon capture and sequestration. The trend of the increase in greenhouse gases over the years is illustrated along with the global statistics for fossil fuels usage and biofuels production. The physicochemical carbon capturing technologies discussed include absorption, adsorption, membrane separation and cryogenic distillation. The algal and bacterial systems, dedicated energy crops and coalbed methanogenesis have been vividly explained as the biological routes for carbon sequestration. The geological carbon sequestering route centers on biochar application and oceanic carbon storage. A systematic survey has been made on the origin and impact of greenhouse gases along with the potential for sequestration based on some fast-track and long-term sequestration technologies.

Abstract

Author(s): Oldenburg, Curtis M.; Birkholzer, Jens T. | Abstract: The Cap-and-Trade and Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) programs being administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) include Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) as a potential means to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, there is currently no universal standard approach that quantifies GHG emissions reductions for CCS and that is suitable for the quantitative needs of the Cap-and-Trade and LCFS programs. CCS involves emissions related to the capture (e.g., arising from increased energy needed to separate carbon dioxide (CO2) from a flue gas and compress it for transport), transport (e.g., by pipeline), and storage of CO2 (e.g., due to leakage to the atmosphere from geologic CO2 storage sites). In this project, we reviewed and compared monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) protocols for CCS from around the world by focusing on protocols specific to the geologic storage part of CCS. In addition to presenting the review of these protocols, we highlight in this report those storage-related MVA protocols that we believe are particularly appropriate for CCS in California. We find that none of the existing protocols is completely appropriate for California, but various elements of all of them could be adopted and/or augmented to develop a rigorous, defensible, and practical surface leakage MVA protocol for California. The key features of a suitable surface leakage MVA plan for California are that it: (1) informs and validates the leakage risk assessment, (2) specifies use of the most effective monitoring strategies while still being flexible enough to accommodate special or site-specific conditions, (3) allow quantification of stored CO2, and (4) offer defensible estimates of uncertainty in monitored properties. California’s surface leakage MVA protocol needs to be applicable to the main CO2 storage opportunities (in California and in other states with entities participating in California’s Cap-and-Trade or LCFS programs), specifically CO2-enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR), CO2 injection into depleted gas reservoirs (with or without CO2-enhanced gas recovery (CO2-EGR)), as well as deep saline storage. Regarding the elements of an effective surface leakage MVA protocol, our recommendations for California are that: (1) both CO2 and methane (CH4) surface leakage should be monitored, especially for enhanced recovery scenarios, (2) emissions from all sources not directly related to injection and geologic storage (e.g., from capture, pipeline transport, etc.) should be monitored and reported under a plan separate from the surface leakage MVA plan that is included as another component of the quantification methodology (QM), (3) the primary objective of the surface leakage MVA plan should be to quantify surface leakage of CO2 and CH4 and its uncertainty, with consideration of best-practices and state-of-the-art approaches to monitoring including attribution assessment, (4) effort should be made to monitor CO2 storage and migration in the subsurface to anticipate future surface leakage monitoring needs, (5) detailed descriptions of specific monitoring technologies and approaches should be provided in the MVA plan, (6) the main purpose of the CO2 injection project (CO2-EOR, CO2-EGR, or pure geologic carbon sequestration (GCS)) needs to be stated up front, (7) approaches to dealing with missing data and quantifying uncertainty need to be described, and (8) post-injection monitoring should go on for a period consistent with or longer than that prescribed by the U.S. EPA. Document type: Report

Abstract

This report was written to satisfy a milestone of the Enhanced Coal Bed Methane Recovery and CO2 Sequestration task of the Big Sky Carbon Sequestration project. The report begins to assess the costs associated with separating the CO2 from flue gas and then injecting it into an unminable coal seam. The technical challenges and costs associated with CO2 separation from flue gas and transportation of the separated CO2 from the point source to an appropriate sequestration target was analyzed. The report includes the selection of a specific coal-fired power plant for the application of CO2 separation technology. An appropriate CO2 separation technology was identified from existing commercial technologies. The report also includes a process design for the chosen technology tailored to the selected power plant that used to obtain accurate costs of separating the CO2 from the flue gas. In addition, an analysis of the costs for compression and transportation of the CO2 from the point-source to an appropriate coal bed sequestration site was included in the report. Document type: Report