Talk:Carbon capture and storage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A member of the Guild of Copy Editors reviewed a version of this article for copy editing. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining!
 

Copy-edit[edit]

I stopped by this article as part of the March 2011 GOCE backlog elimination drive. I did what I could for a copy-edit, but there seems to be quite a few issues.

  • I think consensus needs to be reached as far as language and measurement. It starts out in one (United States) but towards the middle, it shifts to British usage, and then back again. Any thoughts?
  • The section on current projects sorely needs attention. Some of the dating is vague, and other parts of it are outright outdated.
  • I think it would be good to bring in an expert on this one. While I can try my best copy-editing, this article could use a good look-over by someone in the field.
  • Additional in-line citations would be helpful towards the end of the article. I tried to place cite needed tags when I remembered.

I think the other tags explain themselves. After the issues are cleared up, please replace the copy-edit tag, or go directly to WP:GOCE and place a request there. If there is anything else I can do, please let me know! -Pax85 (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Resource: NYT Utility Shelves Ambitious Plan to Limit Carbon by Matthew L. Wald and John M. Broder.[edit]

Resource: Utility Shelves Ambitious Plan to Limit Carbon by Matthew L. Wald and John M. Broder in NYT published: July 13, 2011. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

First sentences ...

A major American utility is shelving the nation’s most prominent effort to capture carbon dioxide from an existing coal-burning power plant, dealing a severe blow to efforts to rein in emissions responsible for global warming. American Electric Power has decided to table plans to build a full-scale carbon-capture plant at Mountaineer, a 31-year-old coal-fired plant in West Virginia, where the company has successfully captured and buried carbon dioxide in a small pilot program for two years.

The West Virginia project was one of the most advanced and successful in the world. “While the coal industry’s commitment and ability to develop this technology on a large scale was always uncertain, the continued pollution from old-style, coal-fired power plants will certainly be damaging to the environment without the installation of carbon capture and other pollution control updates,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, co-author of the House climate bill. “A.E.P., the American coal industry and the Republicans who blocked help for this technology have done our economy and energy workers a disservice by likely ceding the development of carbon-capture technology to countries like China.” (See American Clean Energy and Security Act)

But all such efforts collapsed last year with the Republican takeover of ther House and the continuing softness in the economy, which killed any appetite for far-reaching environmental measures. A senior Obama administration official said that the A.E.P. decision was a direct result of the political stalemate. “This is what happens when you don’t get a climate bill,” the official said, insisting on anonymity to discuss a corporate decision that had not yet been publicly announced. ... But with the demise of the Mountaineer project, the United States, the largest historic emitter of global warming gases, now appears to have made little progress solving the problem.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What about FutureGen? 99.181.135.85 (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

COA conveyor belt[edit]

I don't understand this phrase and couldn't find any coherent references that defined it. Unless someone can explain it, it should be removed or (prefereably) replaced by a phrase more likely to be understood. Wcoole (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - I removed it. See #Removed reference to COA, below. --Chriswaterguy talk 00:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Energy requirements for sequestration[edit]

No mention is made of the energy requirements for sequestration.

An example is here:

https://bioenergykdf.net/sites/default/files/zpdfzholderz/NREL_Data/The%20Net%20Energy%20and%20Global%20Warming%20Potential%20of%20Biomass%20Power%20Compared%20to%20Coal-Fired%20Electricity%20with%20CO2%20Sequestration%20-%20A%20Life%20Cycle%20Approach.pdf

For a power plant with an output capacity of 600 megawatts:

After adding CO2 capture and compression, the capacity of the coal-fired power plant is reduced to 457 MW

In other words, 25% of the plant's output capacity would need to be diverted to the carbon sequestration processes. - Ac44ck (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

BE BOLD! Add it SmartSE (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


The way I understand it, the accumulative nature of starage costs makes it sort of impossible. E.g. would the electricity consumer in ten yers time not have to support the monitoring of storage facilities of ten years and in 12 years, he'd have to fund - all through the electricity price - 12 years worth of storage? That would be completely unviable and only talking about price increase at the point of generation is not enough. Someone wrote in a forum once that this CO2 could be a valuable, sought after resource, but did not explain, and the forum was closed before I could ask for an explanation. If it is a resource, why then is the taxpayer milked for research funds? It is an enigma but we need to look at the LONGTERM costs of storage, if this so far unworkable idea is to be pursued. 144.136.192.15 (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

CCTS[edit]

CCS is also known as Carbon Capture, Transport, and Storage (CCTS) — maybe that should be added. Robbiemorrison (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Major Update[edit]

We have been working on a major update to the information on this page as it is slightly out of date as has been mentioned by other users. We propose to make the changes over the next few days, so please have a look once we have made the revisions and send us comments, we will of course consider all additional edits. We will attempt to keep this page more updated in the future.

The IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG) is an international collaborative research programme established in 1991 as an Implementing Agreement under the International Energy Agency (IEA).

IEAGHG studies and evaluates technologies that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions derived from the use of fossil fuels. The Programme aims to provide its members with definitive information on the role that technology can take in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

IEAGHG takes pride in being an informed but unbiased source of technical information on greenhouse gas mitigation.

The programme’s main activities are:

To evaluate technologies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To help facilitate the implementation of potential mitigation options. To disseminate the data and results from evaluation studies. To help facilitate international collaborative research, development and demonstration activities (R,D&D).

For more information, or comments and questions, email Toby Aiken, Communications Manager, IEAGHG, at toby.aiken@ieaghg.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by IEAGHG (talkcontribs) 14:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Can somone revert the page to the version of 3 july 2012 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carbon_capture_and_storage&oldid=500531992) You can integrate the updates since then, but too much info seems to have been removed. 06:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.116.161 (talk)
I would agree that too much material has been removed, more than 60k in fact, and scores of references. Removal of reliably sourced info is something that is frowned upon on WP. I have added multiple cleanup tags, as a lot of work needs to be done to bring this new version in line with WP format. I'm all for an update, but not a sloppy major re-write like this. Maybe we need to revert to the old version? Johnfos (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Added this line[edit]

Use CO2 can be used for several purposes. For example, it can be converted to CO and then made into syngas. The option of using it for this purpose is being considered by certain companies as Shell (the moment the price of CO2-emissionrights reaches 40 euro per ton). According to Richard Van de Sanden of the Dutch Institute For Fundamental Energy Research[1], the convertion of CO2 into syngas costs about 60 euro per ton. 91.182.177.243 (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Major Update continued[edit]

Following feedback after the major edit completed on the 11th of July, and the unsigned comment of the 16th of July, I have ammended the article to incorporate the relevant information from the original article, while still omitting that which is now out of date and incorrect. Hopefully all agree this is now a good article, with no oversights and inaccuracies. If there are any further comments or suggestions please contact toby.aiken@ieaghg.org Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IEAGHG (talkcontribs) 13:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Following on from comments in the sections above, I have reverted the page to the version of 3 July 2012 per Talk. Have also added an update tag. Please just edit the page in the usual way. Johnfos (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The revert made by the user above has removed ALL updated and relevant information - can someone please revert this to the page as I updated it on the 20th of July? The information now displayed is out of date, and the update I made on the 20th of July incorporated the relevant data from the original article with the new and updated elements that were required. IEAGHG (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Not likely, please discuss specific concerns here and proceed by editing in small steps and seeking consensus here rather than doing a major rewrite. Also please read WP:COI as your username and comment above indicate a connection to some references you were using. Vsmith (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
We were initially trying to update the article because a) the information was very out of date, and most of the references were either incorrect, or broken links, and b) numerous comments on this page were suggesting the information needed updating. Unfortunately, as this is a developing technology option for the mitigation of CO2 emissions, the need for updates will be reasonably frequent, but as nothing has been done for a while, the majority needs replacing with more coherent and cohesive information, hence our attempt to update the article. Yes, our username is IEAGHG, and there is a reference in the article to our organisation, (which was already in the initial article) and if you look at our website, you will see we are a not-for-profit organisation charged with evaluating technology options to mitigate the effects of climate change, and CCS is one of the main technologies we evaluate. Does this mean that we are not able to contribute to this article? We are relatively new to this, and were trying to help but it seems that we may be unable to? Some clarification would be appreciated. I have read the WP:COI and it does not really apply in this situation as our interests are the dissemination of the facts, we do not stand to gain or profit in any way from sharing our data and updating the information.IEAGHG (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
You are free to edit the article. However, if you proceed in small steps and explain with edit summaries or here, you are likely to be more successful. Also, please drop the "we" stuff as your username is for one individual and not for a group. In your editing strive for objectivity and avoid over referencing your organization - best to use multiple WP:reliable sources (as you may have done, haven't looked closely). Vsmith (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
You are free to edit and I believe that you are making valuable contributions. I would just to recommend avoiding massive changes by single edit and instead of it to proceed by small and explained steps as recommended above by Vsmith. Editing section-by-section or even paragraph-by-paragraph seems in this case more appropriate for avoiding potential confusion and misunderstandings. Also removing of reliable sources should be better explained. Otherwise, welcome to Wikipedia and your input is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggested edit[edit]

Hi, I note from the discussion above that there have been changes that have been reverted, and I would like to undertake to edit the article in the manner suggested; small changes, fully described here. My first edit will be a simple copy edit - there is a mix of terminology which would benefit from unification. There are different teminologies used by different regions in the world, and as such, this is possibly always going to be subject to changes by other users. Can I suggest that any users who want to edit the article stick to European, IEA terminology? This is fairly standard and the notable exceptions are the USA which uses some different terms, but the European terms are recognised around the world and are probably more realistic to use in this article. I will leave this comment on this talk page for a week or so, and then begin my copy edit. I will then highlight each change that i want to make before proceeding any further. Thank you! Tobyieaghg (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The commented-out list of external links contains this comment "the following external links doesn't provide any info on wiki standards". I don't understand that sentence, but some of the commented out links are authorities on this matter. Ash (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Carbon capture and storage terminology/CO2CS[edit]

This edit by Treesolution is grammatically wrong, "supported" by a source that does not mention the term CCS at all, and commits a classical etymological fallacy. It's also factually wrong. CCS is a well-defined term. It does not "remove two life giving gases" . O2 is removed by the original reaction that burns fossil fuel with atmospheric oxygen, not by the subsequent capture of the resulting CO2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In case you've missed it, I have tried explaining at User talk:Treesolution. SmartSE (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In practice[edit]

Perhaps we can add a new headline "In practice" ? In this, we can mention which companies are looking into integrating the measure in practice on the local fossil fuel power plants. Some companies such as StatOil have allready commenced on looking at the option of putting it into commercial, wide-scale use. See http://www04.abb.com/GLOBAL/SEITP/seitp202.nsf/c71c66c1f02e6575c125711f004660e6/9ebcbfaedaedfa36c12576f1004a49de/$FILE/StatoilHydro+CCS.pdf and the documentary: Public Enemy n°1: Carbon 91.182.66.142 (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Oxygen cycle?[edit]

The statement in the first paragraph in the "Capture" section -- that "capturing and scrubbing the CO2 from the air, and then storing the CO2, could slow down the oxygen cycle in the biosphere" -- makes no sense to me. I believe it's just plain wrong. The citation that's given is support of it is a good paper on air capture by Klaus Lackner, but the paper makes no mention of any impact on the oxygen cycle. Agnostic Engineer (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I too believe that is just plain wrong, and it's clearly not supported by the source cited, so I deleted it. 71.212.235.120 (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ocean storage[edit]

A larger section on "Ocean Storage" was apparently gutted at some point, and reduced to the sentence now there asserting that "such practices have been made illegal under specific regulations, and ocean storage is no longer considered feasible." Considered by whom? The actual situation is quite a bit more complex. Also, the citation that is given, "Scientific Facts on CO2 Capture and Storage" at GreenFacts.org, does not really support the statement. At the bottom of section 6 of that page, "Could CO2 be stored in the deep ocean?", there is an appended Note from the editor stating that "Because of its environmental implications, CO2 storage in oceans is generally no longer considered as an acceptable option." The source for that GreenFacts section (but not the editor's note) is the 2005 IPCC Technical Summary on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Section 6 of the latter does contain the following paragraph, under "legal aspects and public perception":

The global and regional treaties on the law of the sea and marine environment, such as the OSPAR and the London
Convention discussed earlier in Section 5 for geological storage sites, also affect ocean storage, as they concern the
‘maritime area’. Both Conventions distinguish between the storage method employed and the purpose of storage to
determine the legal status of ocean storage of CO2. As yet, however, no decision has been made about the legal status of
intentional ocean storage.

That was in 2005. A more recent article on the status of ocean storage was featured on a web page of Pacific Standard Magazine. According to that article, the 1972 London Convention, which regulates dumping of wastes at sea, was ammended in 2006 to "allow disposal of carbon dioxide under the seabed, but not in ocean water itself." It then goes on to say "But advocates of sequestration in — rather than under — the sea insist that their idea is not dead." There is still interest in that approach in Japan, because it lacks suitable geology for land-based storage.

Green Peace has strongly opposed ocean storage of CO2. Actually, they oppose all forms of CCS, but they have focused on ocean storage, and have been successful in blocking planned tests near Hawaii and Norway. Their opposition is not based on credible concerns about ecological damage, since 95% of all CO2 released into the atmosphere will eventually end up in the deep oceans anyway. Rather, they fear that if CCS is shown to be viable, it will be used as an excuse to continue burningfossil fuels. That will hinder adoption of wind and solar energy. The concern is valid, but it carries a presumption that blocking CCS will actually result in less consumption of fossil fuels. Agnostic Engineer (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Ocean storage merits more than a one-sentence blurb. Plazak (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
At a minimum, the ocean storage section should mention storage by injection into porous seafloor sediments. This is specifically allowed under the amended London Convention, and I believe that it is being used in at least one of the active test projects. It might be considered a form of geological sequestration, but differs from land-based forms (saline aquifers and capped sandstone reservoirs) as well as injection into depleted off-shore gas fields (e.g., Sleipner) in the seqestration mechanism. The sediments into which the CO2 is injected must be deep enough to be below the ocean thermocline. They are therefore cold and wet. CO2 injected into the body of the sediment layer may diffuse upward, but before it can reach the ocean floor, the temperature will become low enough to form solid CO2 hydrate. The hydrate layer caps the reservoir and, together with the sediment in which it's embedded, blocks diffusion into the ocean.
Sorry, but I don't have a handy reference for that. I may try to find one later. Agnostic Engineer (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know whether that particular process you described has been tested or is just speculative at this point. 71.212.241.124 (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The article should not be restricted to what is (presently) allowed. The concept and pros and cons of ocean storage should be presented, along with a note on regulatory status. Plazak (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Point vs. diffuse sources, and capture vs. reuse[edit]

This article largely follows the 2005 IPCC Technical Summary Report on CO2 capture and storage -- which is fine. But the IPCC report only covers capture from point sources, and it only covers capture technologies in which there was major interest at the time. It does not cover technologies for capture of CO2 from the atmosphere (including photosynthesis), nor does it cover CO2 recycling (capture and utilization). Some information on those topics has gotten into the article, but it is spotty and tends to conflict with the bulk of the article's focus on what might be called "conventional" point source CCS.

Since the article is already quite long, I recommend that its introduction be rewritten to make it clear that it applies to CCS from point sources, and then direct separate articles dealing with capture from the atmosphere and recycling / utilization as alternative mitigation strategies. The whole of section 5 could then be removed from this article, beefed up, and placed in its own article.

The introduction currently defines CCS as associated with large point sources. That may be the most common usage, but the term itself is broader. I've seen "ACCS" for "air carbon capture and storage" used for approaches for capturing carbon from diffuse sources, and perhaps that could be the title for one of the new articles. Agnostic Engineer (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed reference to COA[edit]

I removed the reference to a "COA conveyor belt system". The original was "A COA conveyor belt system or ship could also be utilized for transport. These methods are currently used for transporting CO
2
for other applications." - No references were used and the only mentions of a "COA conveyor belt" I could find were copied from this article.

Please add back if there's a reference to back it up.

I'm doing work for the Global CCS Institute, but I don't believe there's a COI in the minor changes I made. (I also expanded the sentence about using ships.) --Chriswaterguy talk 00:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ NWT magazine, 6, 2012