Scientists propose a way forward on carbon capture

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://pubs.acs.org/action/showStoryContent?doi=10.1021%2Fon.2009.01.27.243768&cookieSet=1

Scientists propose a way forward on carbon capture

A new report advises the Obama Administration on the regulatory problems posed by pumping CO₂ underground.

Erika Engelhaupt
Publication Date (Web): January 28, 2009

The U.S. cannot feasibly reduce 50–80% of its CO₂ emissions by 2050 without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, according to a new interim report by a group of scientists and legal experts. But responsible development of that technology would require a complete overhaul of U.S. environmental regulations, the team concludes.

Current regulations, which mainly address the impacts of CCS on drinking water, will not address the need for long-term oversight, the researchers said at a January 9 report briefing in Washington, D.C. The report was written as part of the http://www.ccsreg.org/">CCSReg Project, a joint effort by a team of experts led by http://www.epp.cmu.edu/httpdocs/people/bios/morgan.html">M. Granger Morgan of Carnegie Mellon University with primary funding from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.

Storing CO₂ underground raises a host of nagging legal and regulatory questions. How can a developer, such as a utility, demonstrate that a project will be safe and effective? And, who, if anyone, owns the right to pump CO₂ into deep underground pore space? In addition, a national CCS program could require building and maintaining about 300,000 miles of pipeline—about the length of current U.S. natural gas pipelines—and that raises issues of property rights and possible eminent domain rulings.

The 150-page report urges the Obama Administration to get moving on CCS projects despite the regulatory hurdles to overcome. “The U.S. has to stop talking about CCS and actually start building some commercial-scale facilities,” Morgan says. During injection, operators should pay into a fund to cover the long-term costs of monitoring and maintaining sites, the team recommends. The report suggests that a single federal program could oversee this stewardship most cheaply.

…

[kenny blankenship]

1. I say we stuff it all into Rush Limbaugh

You know he has the capacity!

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. One word, "flatulence"

[excess_3]

3. why bother, scan artists are glad to sell carbon offsets . n./t

[kristopher]

4. What is the cost of developing this infrastructure

And how does that compare to the cost of moving to all renewable sources of power?

The evaluation doesn't favor investing all that infrastructure money into an upgrade of that magnitude to support a diminishing resource; it favors using those same funds to lay the groundwork for eliminating the use of fossil fuels completely. There is a huge disparity in the long term value of those investments.