Talk:Carbon capture and storage/Archive 1

"Complete" CCS project?
this article currently says that there is not a "complete CCS project" anywhere. Sleipner, In Salah and Weyburn are complete projects doing all three processes. should we edit that to a few projects?
 * Here's what the IPCC report has to say on the subject

"The technical maturity of specific CCS system components varies greatly. Some technologies are extensively deployed in mature markets, primarily in the oil and gas industry, while others are still in the research, development or demonstration phase. Table TS.1 provides an overview of the current status of all CCS components. As of mid-2005, there have been three commercial projects linking CO2 capture and geological storage: the offshore Sleipner natural gas processing project in Norway, the Weyburn Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) project in Canada (which stores CO2 captured in the United States) and the In Salah natural gas project in Algeria. Each captures and stores 1–2 MtCO2 per year. It should be noted, however, that CCS has not yet been applied at a large (e.g., 500 MW) fossil-fuel power plant, and that the overall system may not be as mature as some of its components."

I guess they ought to be mentioned as complete CCS projects. However, none are considere projects exemplifying CCS in combination with a large-scale fossil fuel power plant, which is the application of main interest for CCS, so that should surely be mentioned too. Jens Nielsen 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with this edit. Factually, there are a few projects actively doing CCS today. I do not concur that CCS for power generation is the main application of interest. CCS is not exclusive to the domain of power generation. It is being actively done today at industrial gasification facilites making a wide array of products, and will be deployed at more in the near future, particularly for low-to-neutral carbon footprint fuels production in BCTL/CTL plants in the US. Sfj4076 (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Stephen F. Johnson

IPCC report
I've just done a major update on the article based on the recent IPCC report.
 * To do
 * - Add table with costs for different types of CCS
 * - Figure out a neat solution for references. Currently, all information comes from IPCC, 2005.
 * It seemed to me a bit lame to repeat [IPCC, 2005] all over the article.
 * - find some good illustrations to put in.

Jens Nielsen 09:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The link for the IPCC report is broken Rainmansweep (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

CO2 Hydrate Layer Suppression of CO2-water mixing
Anybody seen any work done on this? It was mentioned in the Nobel Intent reference I listed that the geologic survey penetrated a hydrate layer. I wonder if given enough time an unperturbed CO2-water boundry layer would form a protective CO2 hydrate, much in the way a reactive metal is oxidized by atmospheric O2. This could reduce the effective pH change. Then again, I'm not an expert on hydrate formation/stability. ScienceJunky 01:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC) well I found an answer in that IPCC document. Apparantly the hydrate layer does undergo some dissolution when fresh sea water is introduced...


 * Yes, a solid layer is formed -- see the reference I recently added to the article, "Deep-Sea Disposal Of Fossil-Fuel Co2: First Ocean Observations". --68.0.124.33 (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it safe?
I'm reminded of the Lake Nyos Limnic eruption disaster where CO2 leaked out and killed thousands. Is there any information on safety? 84.13.248.194 18:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is plenty in the IPCC report quoted. I suggest you read it and add some info on it here. Jens Nielsen 20:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we pump it into space?
A space elevator is in the works for transporting objects, would it be possible to pump carbon dioxide out of our atmosphere? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zbuckholz (talk • contribs) 08:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't think this is even remotely possible. First, a space elevator is very much science fiction. It's unclear if it will ever be realized - certainly not in the next 20 or so years. Secondly, to permanently get rid of the CO2, you would have to accelerate it beyond 11.2 km/s. That needs a lot of energy. Combine it with the cost of capturing it in the first place, and I doubt this is even energetically feasible. If you just transfer it to some orbit around Earth, this will decay and the gas will eventually fall back (doing interesting things to existing satellites and the high atmophere, no doubt). Finally, you would be changing the atmospheric composition of Earth forever, with unknown long-term consequences.--Stephan Schulz 09:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge CO2 sequestration
The stubby CO2 sequestration article should be merged into this bigger one, with a redirect from that title to here. However, although the "CO2" part of the title does not have much appeal, the "sequestration" word is key here, so we need to arrange things so that people searching for that word readily find the main article about this subject, whatever it is actually called.-69.87.200.226 10:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, when I searched "carbon sequestration" I got diverted to Carbon dioxide sink which is confusing since one is a man-made process and the other is generally natural. I should have been diverted to Carbon Capture and Storage. Zatoichi26 (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Klaus Lackner demonstration prototype
Klaus Lackner from Columbia University was featured yesterday on the 1jun07 Science Friday radio program. He claims to have a practical method for extracting CO2 from the wind, and is working on better ways to recycle the chemical. About one meter-squared of vertical surface would be needed in a windy spot to harvest the annual CO2 emissions of a US citizen, through large sheets spaced about 1 cm apart. It seems like his name and proposals should be integrated into the article, and perhaps links to some of the resources listed in the radio program link above.

"Global Research Technologies, LLC (GRT), a technology research and development company, and Klaus Lackner from Columbia University have achieved the successful demonstration of a bold new technology to capture carbon from the air. The "air extraction" prototype has successfully demonstrated that indeed carbon dioxide (CO2) can be captured from the atmosphere. This is GRT’s first step toward a commercially viable air capture device."  -69.87.200.226 10:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Mineral storage: enthalpy change
The enthalpy changes given in the table - in kj/mol (sic) - are for reaction of the oxide with CO2. However, none of the basic elements is present in the earth's crust as the oxide - they exist as silicates or aluminosilicates, which are substantially less basic and so give a lower enthalpy of reaction. Thus the table overestimates the effectiveness of the capture reaction. In view of the fact that the reactant minerals can't be simply defined, there is no point in having an enthalpy column here. . . .LinguisticDemographer 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

material cut from Carbon dioxide
This was in the main carbon dioxide article, but should be here instead. Please incorporate whatever isn't in this article already. Calliopejen1 04:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Methods of carbon dioxide extraction/separation include:


 * 1) Aqueous solutions
 * 2) * Amine extraction
 * 3) * High pH solutions
 * 4) ** For example, carbon dioxide reacts with dissolved CaO, to form calcite (CaCO3)
 * 5) Adsorption
 * 6) * Molecular sieves
 * 7) * Activated carbon
 * 8) * Metal-organic frameworks (MOF's)
 * 9) Solid reactants
 * 10) * Serpentine, olivine, quicklime
 * 11) Membrane gas separation
 * 12) Regenerative Carbon Dioxide Removal System (RCRS)
 * 13) * The RCRS on the Space Shuttle Orbiter uses a two-bed system that provides continuous removal of CO2 without expendable products. Regenerable systems allow a shuttle mission a longer stay in space without having to replenish its sorbent canisters. Older lithium hydroxide (LiOH)-based systems, which are non-regenerable, are being replaced by regenerable metal-oxide-based systems. A metal-oxide-based system primarily consists of a metal oxide sorbent canister and a regenerator assembly. This system works by removing carbon dioxide using a sorbent material and then regenerating the sorbent material. The metal-oxide sorbent is regenerated by pumping air heated to around 200 °C at 7.5 standard cubic feet per minute through its canister for 10 hours.
 * 14) Algae Bioreactor Technology
 * 15) *Originally developed at MIT using power plant flue gas to support bio diesel feed stock, they use algae to process out the CO2. Commercial studies have been performed on over 2000 MW of power plants in the United States since 2001. As of March 2007, this is the only commercially installed technology for CO2 mitigation on active power plants. The largest test site for an Algae bioreactor system is connected directly to the smokestack of the Arizona Public Service Redhawk 1,040 megawatt power plant, producing renewable biofuels as a process by product. At commercial scale, this organic process holds the potential to "scrub" CO2 without the considerable solid and fluid waste issues associated with other technologies
 * 16) Underground geological storage.
 * 17) Deep ocean storage.  At sufficiently high pressure, around 500 m depth, carbon dioxide forms a solid hydrate with water.
 * 18) Terra preta - Charcoal enhanced soils
 * 19) *Amazon soils that are valued today for their rich agricultural abilities are found to contain charcoal that was put into the soils by Amazonians thousands of years ago. Plant and organic material converted to charcoal can be used to enhance soils and keep CO2 out of the atmosphere for thousands of years.  Oak Ridge National Laboratory has found a way to further enhance charcoal's agricultural benefits and capture more CO2 by combining ammonia and fossil fuel exhaust to form ammonium bicarbonate in the charcoal lattices.  The work by Oak Ridge National Laboratory is currently being commercialized by a corporation called EPRIDA, Inc.

Suggest Renaming this article
I suggest this article is renamed as Carbon capture, storage and Conversion. Converting CO2 to hydrocarbons is in a sense equivalent to storage but has the added benefit of reuse thereby reducing CO2 emissions twice.81.132.9.192 (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Converting CO2 to hydrocarbons in no sense equivalent to storage. Rather the opposite. This is a big problem in the general understanding of the carbon cycle and greenhouse gas emissions and this article, via the inclusion of Reuse, is adding to this confusion. I agree with renaming, if reuse is to be kept here, but prefer that the Reuse topic be removed or moved to a more suitable article, like carbon offsets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphriz (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Questionable objectivity
Can some information be provided on the main technological hurdles to be overcome? I feel that this would provide more objectivity, as without outlining the difficulties the reader is lead to assume that there are none.

One section I find particularly misleading is "CO2 capture", in which one sentence reads: "The technology is well understood and is currently used in other industrial applications. This implies that there are no technological barriers to capturing CO2 in this way. The efficiency, cost, and barriers to using this method on a large scale need to be stated. At least provide a reference! --Bvvad (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there are worse objectivity issues in other places on this page. The technology (industrial carbon capture) is extremely well understoond within certain applications such as gasifiction. Processes such as rectisol or selexol must generally be used in industrial gasification operations before the syngas can be used for any purpose (whether fuels, chemicals, or power generation). These processes strip out various pollutants, including CO2, sulfur, and other elements, generally in a purified form. They are widely deployed and fully proven, and usually add no significant incremental cost above the basic required capital investment for the industrial facility if it did not include carbon capture. The biggest cost potentially is compression up to a liquid pressure, but this is arguably not a cost associated with capture, but instead part of the sequestration process.

There are hurdles in retrofitting existing conventional coal facilities. Carbon capture from flue gasses in conventional coal generation is problematic cost-wise, and as far a I know, not proven at scale. But for new development, the technology is fully proven and running as it relates to gasification. Sfj4076 (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Stephen F. Johnson

There seems to be gatekeepers on this page only showing one side of the technology. The side that will give them contracts? Every time someone shows the long term environmental impact of this technology it gets deleted. This text was deleted "A very important argument against geological storage comes from the fact that CO2 is formed by the combustion of carbon and oxygen from the atmosphere. Trapping CO2 would actually trap also the oxygen used for its formation for millions of years, thus eventually depleting the atmosphere of its oxygen. Only processes where the oxygen is stripped from the carbon should be acceptable and plants do this very efficiently while providing us with foods." The section of the negative impact does not show the reality of this not so sound idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.22.255 (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

CCS will never move enough volume to even make a dent in atmospheric oxygen levels. Virtually all atmoshperic oxygen is produced as a result of photosynthesis. Wikipedia lists oxygen as the most abundant element by mass in the earth's crust. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen Sfj4076 (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you try to remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere plants will not grow. Photosynthesis needs atmospheric CO2 to produce oxygen. Combustion needs oxygen. Do the math. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.199.11 (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

CCS is not a solution: it is only a futil remedy and should not be extensible in a large scale !!
If I understood well, climate change is because of some changes on the atmosphere gases' proportion which are produced by human beings. So, human industrial process transform coal or hydrocarbons into CO2 by mean of exothermic oxidation reactions. At this point, the easy answer to the question on solving the issue could be: Ok, let's recover an earlier gases' proportion by mean of getting rid of the CO2 that we have produced. By the way, this elimination is not real but only a temporary storage that could have leakages with non-measurable consequences. My point is that, burying CO2 is not the solution because with the carbon we are undergrounding O2 as well, the oxigen that living beings need as part of their own oxidation reactions in order to provide them energy as well. We can not forget that perhaps we can artificially keep a ratio between O2 and C02 in the atmosphere, but not for the remaining gases in the way that CCS is foreseen: N2, which is in 78% in atmosphere will become in a larger ratio whether CCS processes would develop at industrial scale. This should have some effects too. --Olvapanomix (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Pablo A. Simon--Olvapanomix (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge
It has recently been proposed to merge the article.

I oppose this move because the subjects are clearly different, though of course there are overlaps.

CCS specifically refers to a climate mitigation idea to be applied industrially. Carbon dioxide sinks is a more general concept, and carbon sinks as such are independent of human activities. However, there is much content on the sinks page that should be removed because the information is on this CCS page. Jens Nielsen 10:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jens and oppose merging this page. This page represents an important international initiative and conceptual approach to mitigation of global warming. Carbon dioxide sinks is a component of the carbon dioxide cycle and is distinct from any human activity designed to alter the CO2 budget. --B Carey 06:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just want to reiterate what others have said; CCS and carbon sinks should not be merged. The CCS article has a lot of information specifically about industrial application that wouldn't be appropriate in the carbon sinks article. Jhamon 04:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I oppose merging this page, because not only captured CO2 can be sequestered, it can also applied to carbon dioxide scrubbing.Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Carbon Air Capture
First Successful Demonstration of Carbon Dioxide Air Capture Technology Achieved by Columbia University Scientist and Private Company --Stbalbach 14:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Any numbers on how much energy is required to extract the CO2 from the air? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.138.109 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_air_capture --Sam.carana (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone deleted the Carbon_air_capture page content (without even discussing this first), to redirect visitors to this page under the pretence that the page was redundant. I disagree and I suggest to reintstate the orginal page at Carbon_air_capture. This page here at Carbon_capture_and_storage is under review, there are suggestions to split it up. As to this page at Carbon_capture_and_storage, it's incoherent and confusing. Instead, it could briefly explain CCS, but then it should point to two further pages, one for Carbon_capture and one for Carbon_storage_and_reuse. Similarly, the page on Carbon_capture should briefly explain what it is (trees do it, after all), and then point to two further pages, i.e. Carbon_air_capture and Carbon_capture_from_point_of_emission. --Sam.carana (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps 'twas a bit hasty... Seemed the article was a bit promotional for the U. of Calgary prof. - basically sourced to his websites and the Discovery channel show. It seemed that the subject could and should be included in the CCS page under Air capture proposals section as the concept is discussed in the lead. The CCS page needs work, but I don't see any recent discussion regarding splitting that article. Kieth's tower concept could be briefly summarized in the CCS article - w/out the long quotes. Sorry 'bout that, Vsmith (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Split re-done I've expanded the section and it makes the original article too long.  I've also improved it to take account of the concerns above.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why bother separating out the CO2 before storage?
One question I haven't seen addressed anywhere, but which would seem like an obvious thing that readers might wonder, is why is it necessary to use energy to separate out CO2 before pumping it underground? I understand that pure CO2 has uses which make it more cost effective (e.g. forcing out oil), but if the CO2 wasn't separated out, the whole process would require less energy and hence might be cost effective in and of itself. Why not pump the full exhaust from coal plants underground? Scott Teresi (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This depends on the source you are capturing from. In the case of gasification based facilities, it is necessary to separate the carbon as part of the syngas cleanup process so that the primary element that you want for downstream processes (fuels, chemcials, power generation, ETC) which is purified syngas (hydrogen and carbon monoxide) are not contaminated by high levels of co2, sulfur, mercury, or other pollutants, many of which can act as catalyst poisons, or create unfavorable operating conditions or environmental footprints.

In the case of conventional coal fired facilities, I think the biggest issue is the sheer volume of the combustion gasses. Because unlike gasification processes, conventional coal fired facilities us an open system with a furnace and boiler, as opposed to a closed system (which is much more like a chemical plant), and because you are doing a complete combustion as opposed to a gasification reaction (which is really more a molecular re-aranging), when you go through the full combustion process, a much greater volume of gasses are created, and generally there is a huge volume of nitrogen in those gasses.

If you are going to sequester, doing so usually takes a whole lot of energy, as the CO2 must usually be compressed into a liquid state at very high pressure. This makes it take up much less physical volume, and puts it in a form where it can be trapped effectively in geologic formations.

Doing this compression takes energy. Lots of energy.

Adding a very great volume of nitrogen to that means that there is that much more material to be compressed, at a much greater consumption of energy in compression (and I am sure adds other complexities of chemistry that are over my head).

That is why the co2 must be separated from other flue gasses (in the case of conventional [non-gasification based] coal fired power gneration) prior to storage. In the case of gasification, you generally already have to do it anyway as part of the process to get the sulfur out. Sfj4076 (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Stephen F. Johnson

Reinstated table based on Greenpeace report
After notifyig deleter on their talk page and not having a reply I reinstated the table sourced to a Greenpeace report. The deletion was done without discussion other than that one Greenpeace report doesn't make it a fact. While this may be true and while a request for additional references or editing with references supporting an alternative view would be the usual way to dispute the assertions, the deletion without reason other than a dislike of the source doesn't seem acceptable process. I note that the report has 174 end notes and a 2 page bibliography, so on its surface would seem to be worthy of consideration as a serious treatise on the subject. The authors include 4 PhD's although it is noted some authors have a background of activism. As Wikipedia does not disqualify reports by pro-industry or industry funded authors, so there is no reason to disqualify a report from an NGO which is at the very least superficially credible. dinghy (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's pure opinion, mind you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uradbean (talk • contribs) 22:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Up date needed on oxy-fuel and mineral sequestration.
Data and costing of oxy-fuel technology, Oxygen production costs and Carbonate production are out of date given that several companies are commercialising technology this year, 2008. All are technologies not expected before 2025 in IPCC 6 as far as I an tell.

Firstly Clean energy systems are at prototype with a cheap Oxy-fuel technology that has a capacity of 30-50MW. See http://www.cleanenergysystems.com/ The oxy-fuel combustion page also needs an update due to this and the new 60-90% efficient solid carbon fuel cell recently developed. http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/ChemTech/Volume/2008/07/hybrid_fuel_cells.asp Note: This is an inherently new oxy-fuel technology because oxygen not air could be supplied to the device.

Secondly 'free' oxygen will be available from electrolytic hydrogen production for vehicle fleets and industrial chemistry. Assuming no-ones stupid enough to dump it back in the atmosphere unused. It needs to be noted and a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cars added.

Also carbon sciences has a working mineral CO2 sequestering technology. http://www.carbonsciences.com On their site there's a link to the National energy Technology Lab/ DOE paper on carbonate production. http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/6c1.pdf Carbonate production takes days not years, so time and space can be traded for the projected energy cost. The page as it currently is gives the impression that the process takes years.

Lastly there is no assessment of whether the energy needed to do carbon capture and mineral sequestration is high temperature or low temperature. If it is mostly the latter then the heat from the cooling steam might be used. (No-ones discussing this at all) Gathall (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Edited the "example CCS projects" section, deleted incorrect and improperly located info
I just deleted the following from the "example CCS projects" section: --- There is no commercial scale CCS project capturing carbon dioxide from a coal fired power plant and storing it anywhere in the world.

None are expected before 2020. The IPCC suggests that to mitigate climate change and global warming, all Annexe 1 (developed) countries need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gas by 25 to 40% by 2020. CCS is not able to assist in these reductions.

---

The first sentence does not refer to an example of what actually is out there (an example) but instead tells the reader what is NOT out there. In my opinion it does not belong in this section, as CCS and coal power generation, though commonly discussed in the same sentence, are not linked. In point of fact, the majority of the active CCS projects out there today are based on industrial gasification or gas processing facilities, which though they have elements that effectively are power plants, and could, if retooled, function as such, are primarily focused on other functions, primarily related to natural gas processing or synthetic natural gas manufacture.

The second sentence offers the opinion of the IPCC on a matter that has nothing at all to do with current and future example CCS projects, and which is quite factually incorrect. Any carbon emissions avoided at an industrial level make a contribution towards achieving reductions on overall carbon output, and are in fact doing so today. Many additional projects that will employ this technology in the future are on the drawing board. Ther are in fact proposed IGCC+CCS projects under development in the US, most of which ARE slated to occur prior to 2020. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfj4076 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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

It should be mentioned in the first sentences of the article next to "carbon control and sequestrian" Skyeyu (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Carbon Capture of CO2 by remediation of raw cellulose biomattter from oxgen.
Because of the molecular structures of Cellulose and Lignin it is possible to re-mediate CO2 molecules underground at a higher molecular density than by pressurization of CO2 gas. This method would exceed all current proposed methods due to the cellulose chains which are highly stable molecules in general. The proposed method would be to micro-pulverize cellulose matter and inject it into underground cavities with a water transport and return the water back for re-injection. This method would be used to stabilize abandon mine and cavities to start. If the cellulose injection were to match the current burn rate of fossil fuels, and since the cellulose density is much higher than individual CO2 molecules, it has been calculated that the break even point of reversal would be reached in 37 years. Since attention to Cellulose would highlight this molecules potential, and that being both the top biological formed molecule and the 5 molecule on earth and that it contains 85% the BTU value of Gasoline, this molecule represents the highest energy potential over all other energy sources on the planet combined. I am asking to add a detailed description of this proposed process, and am working on funding the research on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlturner (talk • contribs) 05:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sequester This
The article starts with “Not to be confused with Carbon capture and utilization.” But I’m still confused.

What is Carbon capture?

What is Carbon storage?

What is Carbon sequestration?

Why is it limited to'' “large point sources, such as fossil fuel power plants”. ''

What removes carbon, but isn’t capture, storage or sequestration? Does increasing all plant-life count? Does increasing any animal-life count? What about plankton, or bacteria, or mould? Would dumping used-plastic at a tectonic fault line count?

Also, the Sequestration section of this article rivals the length of the Carbon Sequestration article. And, I like that all the industry stuff is there — but it’s pretty boring. Maybe you could have a “high school basics” page (terms and concepts), and move the industry stuff to another page? MBG02 (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sequester That
I don’t think this article – or Carbon sequestration, or the post above – explains this (but maybe it does);

What is “sequestering”?

Is it; the storage (of carbon); the chemical “locking up” (of carbon)? Or is the critical part, the removal (of carbon) from the atmosphere.

When is (something) just storage and when is it sequestering?

And (just me?) “sequestering” doesn’t sound permanent; it sounds like (the carbon) has only been set aside, waiting for you to figure out what to do with it.

MBG02 (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Changed link to main article for CCU
Changed the link in Section 6 (CCU) to the new main article page of CCU (previously Carbon-neutral fuel). Also added and changed a minor bit in the summary of CCU. Please help review the changes. Thanks to all! Santosojonathan (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Pyrogenic carbon capture and storage (PyCCS)
I have created an article about PyCCS in the German Wikipedia this week. Does anyone want to create the English counterpart? A good academic article to start with might be: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabb0e/meta 80.71.142.166 (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Nature
(This might be in a different article)

Why doesn’t plant-life and animal-life naturally increase to “capture” the extra carbon in the atmosphere; especially microbial life?

Is the amount of carbon in all earth-life (relatively) constant. Was it the same 400 million years ago (before fossil fuels formed)?

MBG02 (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert but I understand plants do grow faster, but not enough to capture all the carbon. But this is not the place to discuss the Gaia hypothesis. Having said that the soil carbon article could do with improvement I reckon as the subject is so important - if you have time to work on that you might gain knowledge somewhat related to your questions I guess.Chidgk1 (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"Clean gas" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clean gas. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Renamed "Limitations" section as "Political debate"
The "Limitations" section was really about opposition to CCS and the arguments critics have brought against CCS, so I renamed it to "Political debate". This political opposition is one obstacle for CCS and cost is the other main one. There were a few sentences about cost in this section, so I moved them down to the Cost section. Lightsnap (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Composting or trench composting of prunings and crop residues
Not mentioned here is composting (and digging in) or direct trench composting of prunings, crop residue (i.e. stubble burning, ... by agriculture (or even just gardeners). This contains carbon too and by storing it in the soil, carbon is locked away at least temporarily too (not sure how long as the prunings and residue will break down, and may linger in soil or get released (?) or even gets used by the next crop planted on the soil -not sure whether it will take the CO2 from the soil first, or rather prefers to take it directly from the air-). I'm not entirely sure whether it can be called "carbon sequestration" (as not sure how long the carbon is locked away, may not be long-term), "carbon capture and utilization" (CO2 is not reused for any industrial process), "carbon capture and storage", ...

Certainly worth mentioning somewhere (in either of the above mentioned articles, or in a new article) though as composting and trench composting is done extensively (so there should be a huge beneficial impact).

Also not sure whether it's actually compensated (emissions trading schemes) or can be compensated at all (as some countries or cities may just ban burning of prunings and crop residue alltogether).

Following sources speak of the practice somewhat:
 * Greenhouse gas emissions from conventional and organic cropping systems in Spain.


 * LCA of CO2 for different arboricultural practices

User:Genetics4good


 * I think the carbon sequestration article is indeed the article to talk about this if any. I'm not really familiar with this technique in the context of climate change mitigation, so I don't know whether it is due. There are more techniques described in the carbon sequestration article of which the timescales are not that well-known, so that shouldn't be an argument against. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sand clogging and micro-seismic events at Gorgon, Australia
Sand interfering with water extraction prior to injection. Increase in micro-seismic events after start of injection. Sand clogs up Australia’s only operating carbon capture project RenewEconomy 13 January 2021. Chevron’s Gorgon emissions to rise after sand clogs $3.1B C02 injection system BoilingCold 12 Jan 2021 — contains link to Chevron report to government, released under freedom of information. David Woodward (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: Sequester This
Carbon capture is simply the process of capturing carbon (mostly carbon dioxide). This could be done by separation processes such as absorption, desorption, or membranes. Carbon storage on the other hand, is the storage of carbon dioxide captured earlier. This could be stored geologically in rock formations or stored deep down in the deep ocean. Carbon sequestration is a subset of carbon storage in which carbon dioxide captured earlier are stored underground (typically in a rock formation).

Carbon capture works optimally for fixed point sources such as fossil-fuel based power plants as it is relatively easy to collect and capture co2 from a stationary site. Imagine trying to capture from a non-fixed carbon point sources such as cars. It will be hard trying to capture CO2 from a moving point source.

Where does methane pyrolysis used with fixed point sources such as natural gas based power plants fit in? It is a one-step process that removes the carbon before use in the power plant and leaves only hydrogen to fuel the plant with H2O as the emitted result. Is this carbon capture or carbon emission prevention? Parent55 (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is a carbon negative process as there is a net movement of CO2 from the atmosphere is going to be stored underground. Carbon capture and utilization (CCU) is different from CCS in which CCU aims to be a net zero carbon process. The CO2 captured will instead be utilized to create other products such as fuels (biofuel or synthesis of higher hydrocarbon), converted into plastic, or made into concrete.

I myself am thinking on making CCU a separate page in general as it should be fundamentally different in terms of the net zero carbon process perspective. I am open to all opinions and suggestion! Thanks! Santosojonathan (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * So can animal life “capture” carbon; or microbial life?
 * (Re: point source) Can you suck up bucket loads of air (anywhere) and “capture” the carbon; and then store it or sequester it?
 * Does sequestering have to be underground; in rocks?
 * MBG02 (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * One more; Carbon dioxide can be separated out of air... with absorption, adsorption, or membrane gas separation technologies.  Any others? Fractional Distillation? Can CO₂ be separated by centrifuge (at either cold or hot temperatures)? MBG02 (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Cost
Feel free to undo my deletion of the formula as I am not an expert, but if so it would be great if you could write the reason below. The reasons I removed the formula are:

1) Hard for average non-expert (e.g. me) to understand

2) Only covers power generation whereas it seems a lot of CCS will be for heavy industry such as cement

3) Wouldn't the calculation be very different in the EU, which has a carbon price, and in the USA, which does not? In other words to have a proper formula surely in the EU the (futures) price of EU Allowances would be the most important variable would it not?

4) Price of electricity varies by time - surely we would need the price during dark doldrums (as the only times when gas-fired plants would likely be running e.g. in Texas) for a proper formula would we not? And that would be far too complicated for most readers to understand? Or maybe the USA will expand the use of something like the UK capacity market to more states? Or maybe without a carbon price the only way in the USA is subsidy combined with shutting down all coal power by law (which would not pass the senate I guess).

5) China is a regulated electricity market so not sure how that can be explained with a formula

If anyone understand this stuff better please comment/undo/rewrite in the article as you think best.Chidgk1 (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Add separate article on Aquistore?
Aquistore is mentioned briefly on this page, but a lot of information is available on that project. Do you guys think it would be worthwhile to make a page dedicated to Aquistore? Silliestchris (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * If you want to add more I suggest you do it here rather than a new article for now. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JSteponick11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meghnar11, Lorenzorosa92, Sop8hia, Rrahul24, Sdhamilton, Geggybee1. Peer reviewers: C yantist, Evanwilson95, Monica.rdz.ma, Swifter78neo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zverevab, Wbooth82, Matt Panec, Sethgk00.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Example CCS Projects
New updates made to the Example CCS Projects. All new material can be found here: User:Matt_Panec/sandbox

Four critical changes were made. The industrial projects subsection was updated with current information and two new sub-subsection were added while two were removed. The subsection of Canada was reformatted and updated with current information. The China subsection was updated and three new sub-subsections were added. Two new subsections were added: Developing projects and Alternative Carbon Capture methods.

Please take the time to review our updates. I apologize if I make this process difficult as I made these updates in only 6 separate publications. The information should be well sourced and unbiased. Any changes you deem worthy, please feel free to write over this update. If you have questions as to why or what has been changed contact me on my talk page or here and we can discuss the validity of the change. Matt Panec (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Split
could you explain why you want to split? Or close split request of course. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Lfstevens (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now as not sure yet anyone would be keen enough to keep such a list up to date - there might be more chance of updates if it stayed here Chidgk1 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The concept and technology are a nice scope for an article and change at a reasonable clip. The number of projects is growing exponentially and will soon overwhelm the other material, if it hasn't already. The article is already well over the 5k words I use as a rule of thumb to know when to ask "should we split". Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * +1 As much as CCS is not a solution to the climate crises, we are probably going to an ever expanding list of countries and projects with it. Would be far more appropriate to have a short section with a map or table in this article and let the list flourish. Right now the natural weight of the article is going to lean heavily US and Global North if we don't provide that structural break, Sadads (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. OK but I am not going to do it. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I support a split as for the reasons given above. Splits are not that time consuming to do, so I could do it, although writing up the short remaining section might be a little bit harder to do. EMsmile (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: is this the agreed title of the spin-off article?: List of carbon capture and storage projects. EMsmile (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging the people involved so far just to be sure about the title of the spin-off article? Matt Panec, Chidgk1, Sadads? EMsmile (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the "list of" language works for me, Sadads (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. See List of carbon capture and storage projects. EMsmile (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Direct capture (cement and lime manufacture)
Direct carbon capture of CO2 needs to be added to this page. The industry/EU LEILAC project in Europe is leading this work using Calix Ltd technology and is attracting significant interest and investment (projects in scale up and design phase in Europe, the UK and Australia). Direct capture by heating the CaCO3 using renewable electricity and then just compressing the pure C02 stream from the calcination kiln appears to be lower cost than post-combustion separation and more environmentally friendly (amines not lost to atmosphere, less energy used, renewal power used instead of fossil fuels etc).

I can start this process - but I’m a relatively inexperienced Wiki editor so my edits would need some cleaning up afterwards by more experienced editors.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by OracleOfStanwellPark (talk • contribs) 01:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Go ahead be bold Chidgk1 (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Laws of thermodynamics don't apply?
Where is the critique section? It takes more energy to get CO2 out of the atmosphere than is generated by releasing this CO2. Coal plants generate about 1000kg of CO2 for 1MW of energy. It takes 1.2MW of energy to capture 1000kgo of CO2. The process of carbon capture will release 200kg of additional CO2 into the atmosphere. Pk2000 (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Nowadays very few people (if any) propose using CCS on coal plants Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we need to change any of the wording in the article or add additional text and refs? EMsmile (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @EMsmile I don’t have a ref for that info. @Pk2000 Where did you get the figure of 1.2 MW from please? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here it is https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/direct-air-capture-energy-use — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pk2000 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Content that is maybe useful here?
I've just removed this content from carbon sequestration. It doesn't fit there. Does it fit here? I am not sure. It might be too much relying on primary sources. +++++++++

Electrochemistry
Another method uses a liquid metal catalyst and an electrolyte liquid into which CO2 is dissolved. The CO2 then converts into solid flakes of carbon. This method is done at room temperature. In 2022, the team updated its work to operate at a lower temperature, and operate more quickly and with fewer steps.

Industrial use
Traditional cement manufacture releases large amounts of carbon dioxide, but newly developed cement types from Novacem can absorb from ambient air during hardening. A similar technique was pioneered by TecEco, which has been producing "EcoCement" since 2002. Canadian startup CarbonCure Technologies takes captured CO2 and injects it into concrete as it is being mixed. Carbon Upcycling UCLA is another company that uses in concrete. Their concrete product is called CO2NCRETE, a concrete that hardens faster and is more eco-friendly than traditional concrete.

In Estonia, oil shale ash, generated by power stations could be used as sorbents for mineral sequestration. The amount of captured averaged 60 to 65% of the carbonaceous  and 10 to 11% of the total  emissions. EMsmile (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

EMsmile (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Question about short description
The short description of the article currently reads: Commercially unproven but improving method of storing greenhouse gases underground. The IPCC glossary has this for CCS: Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) A process in which a relatively pure stream of carbon dioxide (CO2) from industrial and energy-related sources is separated (captured), conditioned, compressed and transported to a storage location for long-term isolation from the atmosphere. Sometimes referred to as carbon capture and storage.. So I wonder if the "Commercially unproven but improving" is suitable wording for the short description? EMsmile (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * How about “Capturing carbon dioxide from industry and storing it underground”? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Or maybe "Technology for capturing CO2 from industrial emissions and storing it long-term underground or elsewhere"? I am not sure but I think it's not always underground, or is it? I might be wrong. EMsmile (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Confusing article text
The paragraph describing pre-combustion contains this text (emphasis mine):

> ''The H2 can be used as fuel; the CO2 is removed before combustion. Several advantages and disadvantages apply versus post combustion capture. The CO2 is removed after combustion, but before the flue gas expands to atmospheric pressure.''

I think it's contrasting pre- and post-combustion technology, and that the second statement refers to an advantage that only post-combustion technology has, high pressure. I'm not certain that that's what it means though, and I initially read this as self-contradictory article text. Could someone who understands the technology please clarify the text here? Thanks. Jfriedly (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Removed further reading list
I've removed the further reading list as I felt it wasn't adding value: EMsmile (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)