One of the biggest challenges in our fight against climate change is reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the energy sector.
Approximately 87% of current global primary energy supplies (and 67% of electricity generation) come from the fossil fuels coal, oil and gas. Worse still, energy-related GHG emissions are projected to rise by over 50% by 2030, mainly due to rapid developments in China and India.
Much research in recent years has shown that no single technology or strategy will be sufficient to curb rising emissions. Instead, we will need to use every tool we can to develop a portfolio of solutions.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS), or geosequestration, is one such tool. It will be a key factor in meeting the challenge of climate change.
Indeed, numerous studies by the International Energy Agency (IEA), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and many governments around the world see CCS as an essential technology for reducing emissions.
How does CCS work?
The first step in CCS is to capture carbon dioxide (CO₂) from large industrial sources, such as power stations. This is carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted into the atmosphere.
This CO₂ is then compressed and transported to a suitable site for injection. These sites are typically porous rock formations more than 800 metres underground, with impermeable rocks above that ensure CO₂ remains stored over time.
Identifying suitable sites with adequate volumes of porous rock and secure seals or traps is a vital part of a CCS project. Detailed exploration and modelling work is required to satisfy proponents, bankers and regulators that the site will be secure and that the carbon dioxide is then trapped for thousands or millions of years, preventing it from leaking into the atmosphere.
Once approved, CO₂ storage sites are continuously assessed and monitored to ensure leakage does not occur. CO₂ storage is considered to be safe and very low risk by industry and researchers.
This process mimics the way CO₂ is stored naturally in geological formations. By capturing and storing CO₂, CCS can prevent up to 90% of a power station’s CO₂ from reaching the atmosphere.
CCS is already happening
Over 50 million tonnes of CO₂ are already being geologically stored annually in projects around the world, in countries such as Canada, Norway and Algeria. Numerous projects are also being planned in the USA and in Europe.

Carbon dioxide has been transported by pipelines and injected into oil-bearing rocks for decades to enhance oil recovery. In the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico, more than 600 million tonnes of CO₂ have been injected over a number of decades.
It is for this reason that geologists and petroleum engineers have enormous confidence in our ability to safely manage and store large quantities of CO₂.
In addition, the storing of large quantities of purified natural gas in porous, underground rocks has been occurring since 1915. The first natural gas storage project was in Weland County, Canada, which used the porous rocks of a depleted natural gas field as a store for natural gas.
There are now more than 500 facilities geologically storing natural gas in over 20 countries around the world.
Why we need CCS
Recent Australian Treasury modelling indicates that without CCS, Australian emissions will be 25 million tonnes per annum higher by 2050, and Gross National Income will be 0.2% lower.
CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) modelling in 2006 indicated an even greater impact without CCS, estimating 32 million tonnes per annum higher emissions and 0.8% lower GDP.
Furthermore, IEA studies suggest significant global emissions reduction without CCS could be 70% more expensive.
Given the potential of CCS in Australia, and because of Australia’s natural advantages in fossil energy, Australia needs to be at the international forefront of research and development in this technology.
The challenges for CCS

Before CCS can be deployed commercially, we need to overcome the joint challenges of time and money.
Assessing and characterising geological CO₂ storage sites is a long process that is currently underway in many parts of the world.
In Australia, the Government has released several areas for exploration, in much the same way as they do for oil and gas exploration. These areas will need careful assessment before any CO₂ is stored there.
One of the challenges for any developing technology is how to bring down costs. This is a key CCS research driver and substantial improvements are being made. That said, the gap between laboratory work and commercialisation – the “Valley of Death” – must still be crossed for CCS.
Demonstration will be essential to bridging this gap and advancing the technology. Industry and government also need to have a clear set of policies that allow them to navigate this period while the technologies mature to a point where market-based decisions become possible.
This is the same issue facing many emerging renewable energy technologies.
Capturing carbon, reaching targets
Although the Federal Government has cut support for its CCS Flagship program, it is still providing $1.68 billion dollars for the initiative.
Another $60.8 million of CCS infrastructure funding is going to Geoscience Australia for regional geological work related to carbon storage.
CCS investigations and Flagship projects are being developed with assistance from these funds. But it is clear that more will be required, if industry is going to employ CCS and drive it to the levels required to efficiently meet Australia’s emission reduction targets.
To reach our 2050 emission reduction targets, Australia needs to deploy five or six moderate-scale CCS demonstration projects in the next ten to 15 years.

During this time, the carbon price alone will be too low (as it is for renewable energy) and billions of dollars of incentives will be required to make this happen.
Such incentives for deployment will allow CCS to play its part alongside renewable energy technologies, which are already receiving complementary subsidies valued at $20-30 billion through the Large Renewable Energy Target.
… but these things take time
Large-scale industrial processes such as CCS are big projects with long lead times (often between ten and 15 years). As such, it is essential that incentives are enacted now, in order to have CCS available in the future.
We must move away from a mindset that renewable energy and CCS are opposed to each other. In the fight against climate change we need both to move forward as fast as possible. CCS must be made to work hand-in-hand with renewable energy technologies.
An early crop of five or six CCS demonstration projects will provide the basis for significant deployment of low cost CCS as the carbon price rises and the pressures to reduce CO₂ from gas and coal combustion become more intense.
Indeed, Federal Government Treasury modelling indicates significant growth in gas-fired power stations in the early years of carbon pricing.

In 15–20 years, the CO₂ from those gas-fired power stations will be seen as a problem and will need to be captured for storage. CCS will be essential as demand increases for more significant CO₂ emission reductions.
Bluntly, there is no transition to a clean Australian economy without CCS. The technology has the realistic potential to tackle our biggest emission challenges, but to do so, it needs to be supported in the next 15-20 years in the same way that renewable energy is being supported.
Renewable energy, energy efficiency and lower carbon intensity fuels will all play a part but we must be realistic about our future energy mix, the size of the challenge and the urgency to act.
CCS technology is practical, can be deployed safely and has the potential to make a huge contribution to solving the global climate change problem.
We cannot turn our backs on CCS.
Further reading:
- World Energy Outlook – International Energy Agency
- Statement on CCS Cost Reports – European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP)

rob alan
IT Tech
Geothermal looks to be a better option for the long term and as press releases go is more convincing than above CCS version.
Enhanced Geothermal Systems - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6r_3AgI49Y
Alex Cannara
logged in via Facebook
Unfortunately, "carbon capture" means more that just capturing carbon. It means compressing & pumping CO2 into storage chambers, with energy cost and, oxygen cost.
While there's plenty of O2 around in the air, it makes no long-run sense to remove it from circulation along with the C in CO2. Far better to not remove stored carbon (in fossil fuels) and not burn it in the first place. Far better to dissociate CO2 from the air into new fuel directly. This closes the natural loop. One example is,,,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgKfS74hVvQ
www.itheo.org
www.thoriumenergyalliance
www.thoriumremix.com
Rob Riel
Publisher
Quite so, Richard. Unfortunately, in Australia, ideology has trumped science since, oh, 2007, more or less. The much reviled Howard government launched a CCS initiative ... was it 2001? Sufficiently long ago that, had Labor and environmentalists not belittled and opposed the idea, we'd already have to hand the research results you're calling for now. One of the few things we know about Treasury's modelling of Gillard's Carbon Tax is that it assumed CCS was a significant part of the mix. That the PM has passed research into CO2 abatement strategies into the hands of the Greens, who outright oppose any form of CCS is, to my mind, criminal. Given the exigencies of minority government, I can't see the situation changing. Pitiful, just pitiful.
Paul Judd
logged in via Facebook
There is a safe alternative that has been used foryears, biochar (terapreta).
Biochar has the advantages in that it holds water in the soill, reduces fertilizer use (and hence energy usage) by aiding better mineral absorption, provides `home` for soil microorganisms and can last in the soil from 500 to over a thosand years.
IIf biochar is made from waste products and the energy of prolysis captured enrgy and carbo capture is achieved. The CCs method desribed in article requires energy and has none of the soil benefis of biochar.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=biochar&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CEcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csiro.au%2Fresources%2FBiochar-Factsheet.html&ei=6Gu4TuOBNa2ZiQfS58HQAQ&usg=AFQjCNE9qr-Yz2oKtkTFKMcdfZ-xLKUJZg
http://www.biochar.org/joomla/
Pccific Pyrolysis will build a continuos Biochar plant in melbourne next year.
http://pacificpyrolysis.com/agrichar.html
[text box hard to read so hard to see mistakes in typing]
Rob Riel
Publisher
Paul has a good point: biochar is a low-cost, low-tech, high-value-added option for carbon sequestration. Unfortunately, it's championed by the Liberals, and since anything THEY favour must be wrong, it's off the agenda. Farmers approve, and that's also a no-no in Canberra these days. It can be done immediately, without the need for expensive long-term research programs, so there's no constituency in the Civil Service or Universities which might support it. None of which matters much, since the Greens aren't interested. Politics, remember, is the art of the possible. Ergo, nothing is possible unless Bob Brown says so.
cindy baxter
climate campaigner
My goodness.
So. The Conversation says you have to say who funds you so as not to compromise content. Fair enough.
I would like to know to what tune Mr Aldous is being funded by the multitude of fossil fuel companies listed on his website as partners, many of whom are using CCS to argue they can carry on digging up coal and building new coal-fired power stations, which is NOT the way forward.
If CCS ever makes it to commercial viability, it should be used to sequester C02 during the phase out of coal, not as a BAU excuse for industry.
Next up, let's have Exxon on "why oil is good for you" and, while we're at it, Gina Reinhart on "why eating coal won't hurt children"?
wilma western
logged in via email @bigpond.com
Both Coalition and Labor governments including State governments have repeatedly budgeted money for CCS pilot plants and to assist commercialisation and finding storage sites. The problem is not politics despite comments above - it's costs and technology, distance gas would need to be pumped if CCs was bolted on to coal fired generators etc.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Thanks Wilma, nice to hear some reason, as opposed to ill-tempered ideology.
It might be added that, while biochar has potential, it is far from fully researched and by no means simple and universally applicable. It's an area that absolutely warrants serious research as it holds great potential, but the real reason it's not yet being widely or very actively adopted is simply that it's not yet fully ready and it has nothing to with being "championed by the Liberals, and since anything THEY favour must be wrong, it's off tha agenda. Farmers approve, and that's also a no-no in Canberra these days, etc."
Philip O. Haddad
PhD.Chem. E. retd
I believe that the only effective sequestration of CO2 is through photosynthesis. The reason being that reduction in heat, not CO2 is what we must focus on. Most of our energy use is supplied by fossil fuels and it is the heat released by this (as well as the nuclear and geothermal plants) and not the CO2 by-product that is our contribution to global warming. For example, in 2008 we added 50x10E16 BTUs to an environment whose atmosphere has a mass of 5.3x10E18 kilograms. This is enough to raise the…
Read moreMichael Swifte
writer
One of the greatest proponents of CCS in the Howard government Ian McFarlane has on several occassions said CCS is "dead in the water". CCS has repeatedly failed to reach the point of commercialistion. The author here says we are looking at a 10-15 year time frame for CCS technology roll out. This is far too long a wait! We cannot afford to bank on uncommercialised technologies that require us to maintain our dependence of fossil fuels.
Rob Riel
Publisher
Maybe we’re making a bit of progress. Wilma is quite right: existing coal-fired generation facilities aren’t likely to be ideally sited for implementation of CCS. The technology has promise. Still, the Greens are blocking plans to trial it, so there’s no support a greenfield pilot project. CCS isn’t ready.
Felix is also right: biochar could sequester a good deal of carbon, improve soils, and recycle waste. Questions like cost, transport, what volumes of biochar we could manage, long-term effects…
Read moreKen Fabian
Mr
I can't share the author's optimism. More than 3.5 times as much CO2 as black coal burned, requiring separation, compression, temporary storage, transport, pumping, deep drilling...? How can this ever be economically viable?
Sorry but I think CCS is much more greenwash than green solution, providing an excuse for further construction of coal plants that are 'CCS ready' whether CCS is ready or - as will almost certainly prove the case - not. When it becomes clear that it isn't going to be viable…
Read moreClayton Werner
Customer Service Manager
The Government has put bucket loads of money out there as available, but to this point CCS is not viable, thus the money has not been allocated. Suggest we move quickly to viable and sustainable technologies quickly, we are the biggest carbon emitters per capita, we can afford to do something about it!
Fran Barlow
teacher
CC&S is a giant furphy. Firstly and most obviously, the storage sites for CO2 are, by definition a finite resource. Secondly, unless they happen to be close to source of CO2 effluent, the cost escalates rapidly. It is likely that the longterm picture for this technology will be theopposite for most other abatement -- tending to become more rather than less expensive as the "low hanging fruit" in storage is saturated.
Then there's the fact that these aquifers or other storage sites storing their…
Read moreDean Ashby
Company Owner at Ezestore Storage Sydney
The idea for carbon capture and storage has been around for awhile and I do know it will help the carbon dioxide levels in the air drop. However, it is very sad the solution to a problem started by humans is also quite expensive and time consuming. Whilst I appreciate the fact that in Australia, the government is willing to do something about the climate, it is definitely better to reduce greenhouse gases in the first place. I think the carbon capture and storage initiative must be paired with a lowering of greenhouse emissions project.
Michael Swifte
writer
Dean, You might want to check out the partners in the authors research. The worlds biggest miners and petro-chemical companies who are also the biggest polluters. Chevron, Shell, and BP!
CCS has been described as "dead in the water" by some of it's strongest exponents. It continues to fail commercialisation. It's a pipe dream designed to create the impression that we can continue burning carbon intensive fossil fuels. It's kept alive by the mega corporations who stand to benefit from transitioning from coal to gas powered power stations.