The Hill Times, April 13, 2009
Carbon capture and storage 'being oversold as a panacea'
But critics and experts say there are geological risks, it's a waste of taxpayers' money and the 'economics are deadly.'
By Bea Vongdouangchanh
Carbon capture and storage of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions is still 12 to 20 years from being commercialized, but it's being oversold as a panacea and a silver bullet, however, it's a waste of taxpayers' money, there are geological risks to storing carbon dioxide underground and the economics "are deadly," say experts and critics who believe the federal government should be investing in other environmental solutions such as renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Jack Century, a Calgary-based retired petroleum, minerals and environmental geologist with more than 50 years of experience in the industry, told The Hill Times last week that carbon capture and storage (CCS) procedures—burying greenhouse gas emissions—could cause induced earthquakes or "micro seismicity" which risk CO2 leakage. He said injecting any gas or liquid into the ground without very carefully studying the geology could become a hazard.
"If you're not careful, you can inject it higher than the natural pressures in the reservoir you're injecting into," he said, noting that if the reservoir is over a fault line or very close to one, it could cause an earthquake. "It isn't just earthquakes that are a problem, but it's when you start injecting fluids into the earth and you don't know what you're doing, you can start small seismic events, we call them micro seismicity and they can cause fractures, and the fractures themselves can interfere with the reservoir and violate the integrity of the reservoir and cause leakage. It doesn't become a hazard in terms of earthquakes but it becomes a hazard in terms of escaping liquids and you don't know where they're going to go."
In his book, Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent, author Andrew Nikiforuk says safety issues surrounding CCS has not fully been examined. "Lofty plans to bury 50 per cent of Canada's carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 is a pipe dream," Mr. Nikiforuk said. "The Canadian government wants to hide tar sands pollution deep under the Prairies, in salty aquifers near cities such as Regina and Edmonton. But the drilling of 350,000 oil and gas well sites has made Western Canada one of the most perforated landscapes on Earth. ... Even CCS proponents admit that carbon dioxide injected deep underground could find its way back to the surface after an earthquake or via groundwater channels."
Mr. Nikiforuk is a fierce critic of CCS, saying, "Creating an energy intensive burial system to hide a problem that could be solved by conserving fossil fuels is morally bankrupt. CCS is a last-ditch survival effort that defies economics and shirks logic."
The International Panel on Climate Change estimates that storing one tonne of carbon ranges from U.S.$25 to $115 and the Canadian Library of Parliament estimated in 2006 that it would take 30 per cent more energy produced at coal-fired power plants or oil sands project to capture storage. In addition, Mr. Nikiforuk said in his book that it would cost $10- to $16-billion to inject 20 megatons of carbon into the ground, which is equivalent to the annual tailpipe exhaust of four million vehicles. "The economics of CCS are deadly," he said.
NDP MP Linda Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona, Alta.) said "it's a waste of taxpayer money" to invest in CCS. "If it's not a proven technology to safe-keep it, then the public should not be bearing the liability," she said last week. "I'm 100 per cent opposed as is my party, as is a lot of people in Alberta, against spending taxpayer money on this. ... What we should be doing is doing what the U.S. is doing. Even though they're putting in money to CCS, they're putting a lot of money into the development and deployment of renewable technologies and major retrofits."
At a Feb. 10 Natural Resources Committee meeting, Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt (Halton, Ont.) reiterated the Conservative government's $1-billion investment to clean energy in the recent 2009 budget.
"The $1-billion clean energy fund to support further development of key technologies such as carbon capture and storage, or CCS. CCS shows great promise in allowing Canada to benefit from its strategic petroleum resources while achieving significant reductions in GHG emissions, the kind of technology Canada needs and the world wants," she said.
Natural Resources deputy minister Cassie Doyle told the committee at the same meeting that of the $1-billion, close to $850-million would go toward clean energy "and that is to include carbon capture and sequestration." She said the government is now looking at options to invest the funds which "are earmarked for demonstration or deployment. Then $150-million is for further upstream research and development in the area of clean energy. At this point all we can say is that all options are on the table. We are actively putting together a proposal to be considered in terms of defining that fund, and that will be made public shortly."
Mr. Century said last week, however, that CCS is being "oversold as a panacea, as a silver bullet," when it should be considered a smaller part of an overall GHG reduction strategy. "It's been overblown," he said. "It can contribute in a small way. It's one of many things that can be done. But the fact it's been used as a major method to get rid of the emissions that Alberta's producing from tar sands and coal and everybody else is a real ... it's been oversold. It's not fair to tell the public that this will solve our problems. It's wrong. I think governments are beginning to understand this. There needs to be a lot of homework done in every case they're looking at. It's a very complex subject."
Several environmental groups agreed that although CCS could be used to reduce carbon emissions, it should not be the government's sole focus. Instead, groups such as the Sierra Club of Canada and the Pembina Institute, said the government should be stepping up its investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency.
"We're really reluctant to support any investment in CCS until there's some broad strategy," Sierra Club of Canada executive director Stephen Hazell said last week. "From our perspective, our federal government sees CCS as the silver bullet that's going to allow them to expand production of the tar sands and not have to do anything significant about it in the meantime. We're not going to see any reductions in any emissions from any tar sands facility for at least 10 years. It's way off into the future and we've got to start acting now. If we're at all interested in preventing catastrophic climate change, we have to start doing stuff now."
Clare Demerse, climate change policy analyst with the Pembina Institute, said that with the limited amount of public money to invest in environmental programs, the government should be looking toward creating a cap and trade system which would put a price on carbon and allow the energy industry to pay for the CCS technology themselves.
"It's true that this technology will not be effective everywhere. It can only work in places where it's matched with the right geology. Co2 is a very dangerous gas, and there have been stories about natural leaks of carbon dioxide that have caused death, so its very important that this technology is monitored and regulated very closely," she said, adding that CCS is "very expensive" which means governments will not pay for CCS projects entirely.
"The limited public money that's available, we believe, should be focused on the more sustainable solutions, so energy efficiency, renewable energy. The best way to pay for the CCS is to put in place a cap and trade system."
Liberal MP Geoff Regan (Halifax West, N.S.), his party's natural resources critic, said that CCS is still an "early stage technology" which "consumes large amounts of energy," but "it makes sense to support this technology" because it does have the potential to reduce carbon. "But we also need to support other methods of lessening our carbon footprint through renewables, or cap and trade. I don't see much evidence that the government has any kind of comprehensive plan," he said.
At the House committee meeting, Ms. Raitt said that the government has invested $3-billion since 2007 in renewable energy and "clean energy potential" projects. "In the energy sector the focus is green. I've already spoken about emissions-free electricity and the importance of moving in 2020 towards 90 per cent emissions-free electricity," she said. "As for clean energy potential, the kinds of things we've been investing in are really definitional in that sense. If we take a look at it, it's energy efficiency, because as I indicated, the best energy is the one that you conserve; it's the most efficient way of dealing with it."
Mr. Nikiforuk writes, however that in the last 15 years and three prime ministers, the government has already spent more than $7-billion on a variety of climate change plans to no effect. "Each one has failed to meet its targets or commitments, let alone to curtail carbon dioxide emissions that have risen 27 per cent since 1990, the highest increase of any industrial nation on the planet," he said, adding that CCS will "likely meet a similar fate."
Just before the House recessed, NDP MP Bruce Hyer's (Thunder Bay-Superior North, Ont.) private member's Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, was passed at second reading and sent to the Environment Committee. The bill, which was reintroduced from the last Parliament, forces the Canadian government to adopt a regulatory regime to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050 and gives the Environment Commissioner a mandate to review the government's progress on meeting the target. While it says the government can take any necessary measure to reduce the greenhouse gases, the bill suggests a cap and trade system, something Mr. Hazell said is where the government should be going now.
"Right now, in Canada we've got nothing. Basically the Turning the Corner initiative has been deep-sixed. The rest of government policy is waiting for [U.S. President Barack] Obama to decide. The only significant initiative happening right now is this Climate Change Accountability Act, which would mandate deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions," he said. "This is an important bill."
Conservative MP Mark Warawa (Langley, B.C.), Parliamentary secretary to the Environment minister, said during second reading debate of the bill that the NDP's plan was "unrealistic" and the NDP are simply "grandstanding" rather than working to find "real solutions" to climate change. "Our government has been clear on the need to strike a balance between environmental and economic progress. Our approach to addressing climate change will achieve that balance," he said. "We are committed to stopping the increase in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and then dramatically reducing them."
Mr. Warawa outlined the government's targets, which have yet to be written in regulations, even though they were expected last year. The government has committed to reducing carbon by 70 per cent below 2006 levels. The government also states that by 2020, 90 per cent of Canadian electricity will come from non-emitting sources.
All three opposition parties voted to send the bill to the Environment Committee, while Conservative MPs voted against, 141 to 128. Ms. Duncan said she's "hopeful" the bill will pass before Canada goes to the UN climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark this December.
The Hill Times
http://www.hilltimes.com/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=2009/apr...
