Why geosequestration is no solution to climate change

Like nuclear power, geosequestration carries many risks and would merely leave our pollution problems to future generations. A sound analysis demonstrates why Greenpeace firmly rejects geosequestration as a solution to climate change.

   

"It really strikes me as a way of avoiding what we need to do, which is make a rapid transition to clean energy, to wind and solar and tidal and wave power ...

"[geosequestration] is essentially an effort by the fossil fuel industry to stave off that inevitable transition."

   

Ross Gelbspan, author & key advisor to former U.S. Vice President Al Gore

 

Wrong way, go back!

In recent years the federal and some state governments have ramped up funding for geosequestration research, development and commercialisation, at the expense of renewable energy research. Geosequestration, also known as carbon capture and storage (CCS), aims to capture greenhouse pollution such as carbon dioxide (CO2) from coal and gas power stations and “sequester” (in this case, bury) it deep underground. In theory, this would prevent the pollution from entering the atmosphere and changing the climate.

Not enough time

Scientists say we have just 10 years to make major emissions cuts needed to tackle climate change. Yet even the coal industry admits geosequestration can’t cut emissions in the urgent timeframe required.

•    Only nine plants (less than 6,000 MW of capacity) capable of carbon capture and storage would likely be built by 2020 worldwide, according to a 2006 World Coal Institute report. Yet clean, safe wind power could easily supply vastly more capacity (1,250,000 MW) by 2020, according to a report by the Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace.

•    The UN’s scientific advisory body, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says the bulk of geosequestration technology would be deployed on a large scale in the second half of this century – in 50 years.  That is too late to help stop runaway climate change.  

This shows that sinking money into geosequestration at the expense of renewable energy and energy efficiency technology doesn’t make sense.

Won’t do the job

The IPCC says geosequestration could at best capture only 9-12 per cent of global CO2 emissions by 2020, and as little as 21 per cent by 2050.  If the countries involved in the Asia-Pacific Partnership were to focus exclusively on geosequestration as A solution, greenhouse pollution in the region would rise by more than 70 per cent by 2050. Furthermore, the IPCC also found that up to 70 per cent of emissions from electricity generation in 2050 may not even be technically suited to geosequestration.  

The cost of burying our problems

Costs are still hard to predict, but the IPCC estimates that carbon capture and storage could raise costs of coal generation by up to 5 ¢/kWh (USD; almost 7¢ AUD).   This could almost triple the price of coal power, currently about 4 ¢/kWh  in eastern Australia. That would make coal power more expensive than renewable energy such as solar hot water, wind and geothermal power. This doesn’t include the costs to monitor and maintain geosequestration sites for up to 100,000 years to guard against CO2 escape.

Problems and risks

Leakage is one potential risk. Leakage would undermine geosequestration’s supposed benefits for reducing emissions and could “pose immediate dangers to human life and health,” according to the IPCC.   If the CO2 finds its way to ground closer to the surface, it could kill plants and animals, and contaminate groundwater. In Australia, little is known about the geology of the deep saline aquifers proposed for CO2 storage, or how they would behave if used for geosequestration.

In 2006, scientists testing geosequestration found that the stored CO2 formed strong acids underground. It dissolved minerals, creating a nasty mix of metals and organic substances. It also dissolved a surprising amount of the rock that helped hold the gas underground.

Liability for leakage is another big “wild card”. It is certainly unfair to expect governments, tax-payers or future generations to take responsibility for a geosequestration site after a corporation has created it. However, that’s exactly what the Ministerial Council for Mineral and Petroleum Resources proposes.

On rocky ground in NSW and SA

Storage sites would limit geosequestration’s use. For example, no appropriate identified sites lie within 500 km of major areas for coal-fired generation in NSW and South Australia – the sites where 39 per cent of Australia's current net greenhouse emissions are generated.  

Furthermore, plants using geosequestration would need to burn up to 10-40 per cent more energy than conventional plants. That means more coal and other fossil fuels burned, and more of the serious environmental problems that come with them -- habitat destruction, damage to rivers and waterways, and air pollution -- to name a few.

Time to quit coal

To sum up, when compared to zero emissions sources (such as wind or solar power), new coal plants with geosequestration would still increase emissions in the Asia Pacific region, making it impossible to stop global warming.

The future clearly lies with renewable energy and energy efficiency; directing public money away from these clean, green solutions toward geosequestration is a misguided attempt to protect coal industry profits. It’s time for Australia’s leaders to break our addiction to polluting coal, and join the clean energy revolution.

Read a Greenpeace report about geosequestration.

Read a report by The Australia Institute on geoseqestration.