Have a question?

How efficient is carbon capture and storage?

Most carbon capture technologies aim to stop at least 90% of the CO2 in smokestacks from reaching the atmosphere. But as the technology approaches 100% efficiency, it gets more expensive and takes more energy to capture additional CO2.

 

February 23, 2021

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is any of several technologies that trap carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from large industrial plants before this greenhouse gas can enter the atmosphere. CCS projects typically target 90 percent efficiency, meaning that 90 percent of the carbon dioxide from the power plant will be captured and stored. However, CCS could capture more CO2, and thus do more to combat climate change, if industries and governments decide not only to invest in CCS at a large scale but also to pay extra to maximize its potential.

As good as it gets?

Howard Herzog, a Senior Research Engineer in the MIT Energy Initiative, says that CCS projects have used 90 percent efficiency as a baseline target1 for decades because a system needs to remove at least that much CO2 to be worth the investment to build and install it, and also because 90 percent is an achievable goal. “Thirty years ago, people were still learning about the climate and how much CO2 we needed to get out. So getting 90 percent of the CO2 out of a coal plant was pretty good,” Herzog says.

Yet meeting ambitious climate targets with this technology will require a leap forward in CCS efficiency. Consider that untreated exhaust from a coal-fired power plant can contain 300 times as much CO2 as the Earth’s atmosphere, which means capturing 90 percent of the CO2 still leaves a lot behind. Even if CCS could remove 99 percent of the CO2 from coal plant exhaust, what is left would still have a CO2 concentration equal to or higher than the atmosphere.

Diminishing returns

There are multiple ways to capture carbon dioxide from fossil fuel-burning plants, such as coal power plants or factories that make cement. In the most common process, the exhaust gas is cooled and pumped into a chamber containing chemical “scrubbers” that bind to CO2 molecules. The carbon-free exhaust is then released into the air while the captured carbon is concentrated and stored. CCS has been implemented at two coal power plants (though one shuttered in 2020) and at about two dozen other locations so far.2

To catch the last remainders of CO2 once a system passes 90 percent efficiency is equal parts engineering puzzle and economics problem, Herzog says. The closer a CCS system gets to 100 percent efficiency, the harder and more expensive it becomes to capture additional carbon dioxide. From an engineering perspective, it is easier to capture carbon from a gas with a higher concentration of CO2 because more molecules of carbon dioxide are flowing past the scrubbers. Grabbing even more CO2 once most of it is gone requires larger equipment, more time, more energy, and a bigger investment.

While there are only a few dozen CCS projects in the world, some of them have exceeded 95 percent efficiency. Herzog says it is possible to envision the technology capturing even 98 or 99 percent of a power plant’s CO2. To realize that goal, however, power plants will have to pay a lot more for every extra molecule of CO2 they capture—which means they need stronger financial incentives to cut their carbon emissions. A carbon price would be one way to create those incentives, by taxing plants on whatever CO2 enters the atmosphere. “If you now start looking at carbon prices and you have a pretty high price, that will make it more affordable to go to higher capture percentages,” Herzog says.

 

Thank you to Howland Larsen of Gig Harbor, Washington, for the question. You can submit your own question to Ask MIT Climate here.

 

Read more Ask MIT Climate

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).
Footnotes

1 Brandl, Patrick et al. "Beyond 90% capture: possible, but at what cost?" International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 105, Feb. 2021. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103239.

2 Global CCS Institute: "Global Status of CCS 2020."

Want to learn more?

Listen to this episode of MIT's "Today I Learned: Climate" podcast featuring Howard Herzog.

Transcriptions

LHF: [00:00:00] Hello and welcome to TILclimate, the podcast where you learn about climate change from real scientists and experts. I’m your host, Laur Hesse Fisher, with the MIT Environmental Solutions Initiative. We’re back with the next episode in our series on energy and climate in partnership with the MIT Energy Initiative.

So far this season, we’ve talked about ways our electricity system could burn fewer fossil fuels, so the carbon trapped in coal, oil or natural gas stays underground where it can’t warm our atmosphere. But today, we’ll be talking with two members of the MIT Energy Initiative about a technology that actually doesn’t try to replace fossil fuels. 

HH: [00:00:50] My name is Howard Herzog. I'm a senior research engineer in the MIT Energy Initiative. In about a month's time I'll be celebrating my 30th anniversary at the Energy Initiative or its predecessor the Energy Lab.

BH: [00:01:05] I'm Brad Hager. I'm a professor of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences. … And, in addition to being a- a professor, I'm the co-director of the MIT Energy Initiative's Low Carbon Energy Center on Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage.

LHF: [00:01:21] That’s right, they both work on something called carbon capture, utilization and storage—abbreviated as “CCUS”, or sometimes just called carbon capture, like we’ll call it today . 

HH: [00:01:36] The problem for climate change is the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere. So when you burn fossil fuels, you create CO2. The idea in carbon capture is that CO2 that's created by the burning of fossil fuels, you stop from going into the atmosphere. And you do that by capturing it and then you put it somewhere other than the atmosphere.

LHF: [00:02:06] So, why would we even consider this? Well, as we’ve heard earlier in this series, adding clean energy sources like solar, wind, and nuclear, comes with a lot of complications that we need to work out. In theory, carbon capture let’s us use the energy system that we have now, but removes the CO2 emissions from that system. 

HH: [00:02:29] The problem with climate change isn't fossil fuels. The problem is the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and so what we want to do is look at solutions that reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we're putting into the atmosphere. If we do that by using less fossil fuels, which I think is going to be part of the solution, so be it, but it doesn't mean that we can't continue to use fossil fuels if we have the technology to use them without putting their emissions into the atmosphere.

LHF: [00:02:58] So today, we’re diving into how carbon capture works, what we’re supposed to do with all this CO2 once we capture it, and just how realistic this is as a way to help slow climate change.

But let’s start with the basics. Because power plants and factories emit so much carbon dioxide in one place, most carbon capture happens there: from the "flue gas" that comes out of their smokestacks. Here’s Prof. Hager.

BH: [00:03:27]  The method of capturing carbon dioxide that has been used for the longest is to, run, the flue gas, through a solution of chemicals called amines. The carbon dioxide dissolves in the amines.

HH: [00:03:41]  Then you compress it to turn it into basically a liquid, a high pressure liquid. It's technically it's called a super critical fluid but it basically acts like a liquid. and then you can put it in a pipeline and you can put it down a well into the earth. And the place that right now is the biggest opportunity to store the CO2 is in deep underground formations.

LHF: [00:04:08] Engineers look for just the right places to do this so the CO2 can’t leak back into the atmosphere or into our groundwater.

BH: [00:04:17]  So we can think of a good reservoir, candidate for storing this stuff as being a layer of shale, called the caprock, to keep the fluids in place. And then underneath it, a layer of sandstone to provide empty space to put the CO2 in.

LHF: [00:04:32] Originally, I imagined these underground caves that the fluid CO2 was poured into. But actually, it’s injected into a rock, which kind of absorbs the CO2.

HH: [00:04:46]  The way to think of it is, think of you're at the beach and you have a bucket of sand, and you can put water into it and the water goes in the pores between the sand. 

LHF: [00:04:57] The CO2 then sits there, in the same way that oil has been sitting in these kinds of spaces underground naturally for millions of years.

And if this sounds like science fiction, well, actually, it’s already happening. There are around 20 facilities using carbon capture and storage around the world, although most of them aren’t power plants: they’re other industrial plants, like natural gas processors or steel or fertilizer plants. Some of them have been running for a long time.

BH: [00:05:32] The first really serious project is called Sleipner, run by the Norwegians. So in 1996, they started producing sour gas, cleaning it up, removing the carbon dioxide, and injecting it into the subsurface underneath the North Sea. And for the last 23 years, since the plant started, they have been injecting about a million tons of carbon dioxide a year into the subsurface.

LHF: [00:06:03] A million tons of CO2 is about the same amount 200,000 U.S. cars emit in a year. But burying this CO2 is not our only option for dealing with it. 

BH: [00:06:16] Recently, there's been a lot of interest in using the carbon dioxide as an intermediate product. It can be used to make plasti cs, make feed stocks for plastics, and it can even be combined with hydrogen to make, for example, jet fuel.

LHF: [00:06:33] The more useful stuff we can make out of CO2, the more reason that companies will have to capture it. Because right now, there isn’t really a big market for this captured CO2. 

HH: [00:06:48]  The amount of CO2 that we are producing from energy use will - basically is so much larger than markets for a lot of the products people are thinking of that at best it's going to be a niche solution, and you're still going to need to put it in underground reservoirs if carbon capture is going to be adopted on large scale.

LHF: [00:07:05] What does “large scale” really mean? Let’s imagine that we only capture and store one tenth of the CO2 we’re emitting today. That would be about as much liquid as all the oil consumed worldwide—a massive industry served by huge tankers, storage depots, and hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines.

It would take a lot to repurpose or build new infrastructure for moving around CO2, and if you’re a power company, or a steel manufacturer, you might be wondering why you would pay for it. Which brings us to one of the big challenges for carbon capture: it’s pretty expensive.

BH: [00:07:56] There's additional expense that you need to build the facility to do this. And then it takes energy to do it. So the, increase in, you know, cost of electricity coming down the power line to the consumer, is on the order of 30 to 50%.

LHF: [00:08:13] At the moment, there’s not enough of an incentive for power companies to take on that extra cost. 

BH: [00:08:20] In order to promote the capture of carbon dioxide, you need some sort of economic incentive to do that. So you can have a carrot or you can have a stick. And the carrot, which is being held out right now, is the, basically tax rebates.

LHF: [00:08:36] Yeah, actually, here in the U.S., we offer companies a tax credit for capturing their carbon emissions. Right now it's about $50/ton CO2, which isn't really high enough to retrofit all our fossil fuel power plants. So that’s the carrot. And the stick?

BH: [00:08:56] The other side is putting a price on carbon and so if that's high enough, a company will, you know, voluntarily capture and- and sequester its carbon dioxide.

LHF: [00:09:07] We did a whole episode on carbon pricing in our first season, so check that out to understand how a carbon price would work.

The thing you’re hearing here, is that capturing and storing CO2 at our current power plants is possible. But we either need to decrease the costs of doing it or increase the incentives. And the policies we choose can make a huge difference to companies deciding whether to invest in something like carbon capture. 

HH: [00:09:39] Technology doesn't happen in a vacuum. Innovation doesn't happen in a vacuum. You need to create the markets and that's a political thing. I think if you had a carbon tax, it will create innovation and there's a lot of room for innovation in this area. But there's no silver bullet in dealing with climate change. There's no one solution that's going to provide the answer.

LHF: [00:10:11] If it becomes cheap enough, carbon capture could be a long-term solution for many power or manufacturing plants. Or its role could be to help us cut emissions immediately until we solve the challenges with wind, solar, or nuclear power, or energy efficiency.

BH: [00:10:30] I see this as a, a strategy that will bridge through the next three decades. And, you know, so the next 20 to 50 years. I hope that cheaper sources of electricity, of clean electricity, will be developed.

LHF: [00:10:44] So carbon capture is one more tool we can add to our clean energy toolbelt. And it’s just like all the other technologies we’ve explored in this series: powerful, but with their advantages and disadvantages, and none of them able to do the job on its own.

There’s a lot more to learn about carbon capture. We’ve left some links in the show notes to places you can learn more, including a couple episodes of the MIT Energy Initiative podcast.

Our next episode of TIlclimate is on fusion energy, so stick with us.

A quick shout out to amyleewee who left us a review on Apple Podcasts. Amyleewee says, “Super informative podcast that breaks down really complex topics into small bites and does so without placing blame! Keep up the good work!” Thanks Amyleewee, we appreciate it.

We invite you to leave us a review on Apple Podcasts as well, or wherever you’re listening from today.

Today I Learned Climate is brought to you by the MIT Environmental Solutions Initiative. Thank you to Brad Hager and Howard Herzog for talking to us, and thank you for listening.