Carbon capture and storage

It is therefore considered to be necessary to introduce carbon capture and storage (CCS) to mitigate anthropogenic CO2 emissions as a midterm solution until a full transition to energy supply by renewables can be realized. 

Several post-combustion technologies are under development, such as amine scrubbing, membrane separation, adsorption. Among these technologies, an interesting option is the cryogenic CO2 separation as reported in the following section. 

---

Carbon capture and storage technology is the most promising technology to significantly decrease C02 emissions. Nevertheless, it may be possible to use C02 as a raw material for other industrial uses. In this chapter, authors explain both ways to decrease C02 emissions. 

S. Rackley, Carbon Capture and Storage, Gulf Professional Publishing, Houston, USA 2009. 

PiresJ.C.M., Martins F.G., et al. Recent developments on carbon capture and storage ... 

Goel Carbon capture and storage technology for sustainable energy. 2009 Jawahar-lal Nehru University, New Delhi, India. 

In order for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to reduce global warming gases, the electrolysis process will need to become more efficient, and the electric power will need to be produced from a higher percentage of low-to zero-carbon sources (renewables or coal with carbon capture and storage). 

These plants would need to use carbon capture equipment or their estimated carbon emissions could equal the fossil fuel emissions from the past 250 years. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an important research area but widespread commercial use may be years away. 

When investigating the entire regulatory framework of carbon capture and storage, it becomes quickly evident that the extent of legislation and regulation decreases drastically along the chain from capture to transport to storage. 

When judging the public impact of carbon-capture and storage activities, it should be taken in mind, that apparently only very few people are aware of the extraordinary challenge imposed by the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 60% to 80% within the next five decades. This finding of Shackley et al. (2004) clearly reveals the need for a bottom-up information policy to prepare the grounds for any new mitigation option. 

When investigating the processes and policies that could raise the potential acceptance of carbon capture and storage, Shackley et al. (2004) found that more certainty about risks would be helpful. The main concerns about risks connected with carbon capture and storage were possible leakage, ecosystems and environmental impacts, the untested nature of the technology and human health impacts. 

Shackley, S., McLachlan, C. and Bough, C. (2004). The Public Perceptions of Carbon Capture and Storage. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Working Paper 44. www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working papers/working papers. shtml wp44. 

Among liquid fuels (XTL), only biomass-derived hydrocarbons (BTL) are a relevant option from the perspective of lowering GHG emissions not so other fossil-based liquids (CTL, GTL). Even if CTL fuel supply paths were upgraded by carbon capture and storage, the resulting specific CCF-equivalent emissions would only be reduced to the level of conventional gasoline or diesel energy chains. 

BMWA, 2003 IE/IPTS, 2005) while the electrical efficiency in these power stations is decreased by 6% to 8%, owing to CCS. Carbon capture and storage in hydrogen production results in about 2% less electrical efficiency (mainly caused by the compression of the C02 Chiesa et al., 2005). 

---