Leaks will not sink carbon capture and storage

September 4, 2017, Princeton University

The case for carbon capture and storage—a promising method for reducing greenhouse gases—received a boost recently from a Princeton University study that indicated the procedure would not be prone to significant leakage or high costs related to fixing leaks.

In a paper published July 26 in the journal Climatic Change, the researchers concluded that levels of leakage based on simulations at hypothetical subsurface dioxide storage locations, even in a worst-case scenario, would not make the cost of the technology prohibitive in the global energy system.

In carbon capture and storage, , which is released from burning oil and gas, is captured at a source such as a power plant. The gas is compressed into a dense fluid and injected a kilometer or more below the land surface for permanent storage. While the technology is not yet being used in large scale, advocates believe it is a promising strategy for while fossil fuels are still being used. A chief worry, however, is whether the gas could leak and return to the atmosphere.

To reach their conclusion, the researchers mathematically simulated the geophysical impacts of carbon storage, which include projections of leaks, in combination with the of stopping leaks and paying associated fines and penalties.

Hang Deng, a former doctoral student at Princeton and the paper's lead author, explained that carbon capture and storage has been researched for years, with many studies focusing on the efficacy of the process and the potential for leakage. But the Princeton team wanted to understand both the level of leakage and the economic implications of any escaping gases.

"That link was not there before, and that is really what has motivated our study," said Deng, who graduated in 2015 and is now a postdoctoral researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. "I think this is really the first attempt trying to make this link and using the scientific findings (regarding geologic CO2 storage) to inform mitigation efforts."

Catherine Peters, an author and chair of Princeton's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, said the researchers wanted to answer two questions: Would the technology lead to significant leaks, and would the leaks have an economic impact on commercial adoption of the technology? The answer to both, she said, was no.

"Prior to this study, that question had not been answered," Peters said.

The study was done with modeling based on both the geophysical aspects of carbon capture and storage, such as flow through subsurface geological formations, and economic modeling of the market, using an integrated assessment model.

"We studied the most worst-case scenarios," Peters said. "And even with the extreme worst-case scenarios, we still found that the CO2 will be reliably trapped underground when you put it there."

Deng said there were different types of impacts that were quantified. These included groundwater contamination and escape into the atmosphere. Another was the possibility that leaked CO2 may interfere with subsurface operations such as natural gas storage. In the modeling, however, the monetized risks of those impacts were negligible.

That finding is highly important for the future of climate change mitigation, Peters said. "For more than a decade, people have been pointing to leakage as a potential barrier for widespread adoption of and ," she said.

Deng's research was also unique in other ways.

"At Princeton, we are giving students a unique opportunity to conduct research that combines different fields," Peters said. "This is an unusual study in that we have a geophysics model and an economics model together."

That cross-disciplinary work is encouraged by Princeton's Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy (STEP), which is based in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Deng, who was awarded a competitive STEP fellowship, chose to work with Peters on the engineering and geophysical modeling and with Michael Oppenheimer, the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs and the Princeton Environmental Institute, on the economic modeling and the policy analysis.

"It's because of that fellowship and this resourceful, industrious student that we were able to come up with this unique finding, because if you had studied just one or the other, we would not have learned what we learned," Peters said.

This type of study across multiple disciplines is becoming increasingly critical when it comes to solving thorny issues such as , Peters said.

Explore further: Video: Developing carbon management solutions

More information: Hang Deng et al. Leakage risks of geologic CO2 storage and the impacts on the global energy system and climate change mitigation, Climatic Change (2017). DOI: 10.1007/s10584-017-2035-8

Related Stories

Video: Developing carbon management solutions

July 20, 2017

Global consumption of fossil fuels is causing atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to rise to levels that threaten human and environmental sustainability. These gases warm the planet and negatively impact ...

Recommended for you

Slow flow for glaciers thinning in Asia

December 11, 2018

Providing water for drinking, irrigation and power, glaciers in the world's highest mountains are a lifeline for more than a billion people. As climate change takes a grip and glaciers lose mass, one might think that, lubricated ...

Increased snowfall in Antarctica buffers sea-level rise

December 11, 2018

A team of scientists from NASA and British Antarctic Survey (BAS), describes how analysis of 53 ice cores collected from across Antarctica reveals snowfall increased during the 20th century and mitigated sea-level rise by ...

2 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NoStrings
not rated yet Sep 05, 2017
Right. And the price of coal is about $42 to the power plant (for less wholesale). And the most optimistic cost of capture is $49 per ton of CO2. And CO2 produced weighs 3.6 times the weight of coal. So this is $176 per ton of coal burned. Typically much more.

An people pretend to seriously discuss this as an option?
Caliban
not rated yet Sep 05, 2017
Right. And the price of coal is about $42 to the power plant (for less wholesale). And the most optimistic cost of capture is $49 per ton of CO2. And CO2 produced weighs 3.6 times the weight of coal. So this is $176 per ton of coal burned. Typically much more.

An people pretend to seriously discuss this as an option?


Agreed.

At best, these capture'n'store schemes are a boondoggle.

At worst, they are a technology that will be prone to unknown and quite possibly catastrophic effects, simply because of the lack of granular-level imaging of geologic strata.

Either way, they constitute an enabler of bizazusual, which will make an appropriate response to AGW subject to delay, or even to be completely abandoned.

This should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it.

Therefore, the funding for this "research" --any and all of it that is Public, anyway-- should be spent elsewhere.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.