Carbon captured and stored since 1996 is important, but overrated by up to 30%

Credit: AIXabay / CC0 public domain

So far, significant amounts of carbon have been captured and stored, but the government should curb overestimation.

This is due to a new report from Imperial College London published today. Environmental Science and Technology Letter..Researchers compared stored estimates carbon The official report found that the report leads to an overestimation of actual carbon storage by 19 to 30 percent.

They calculated that 197 million metric tons of carbon were captured and stored between 1996 and 2020. Climate change relief. However, researchers have found that the lack of a consistent reporting framework means that currently reported carbon recovery is overestimated, and the situation is inaccurate about the technology’s contribution to the fight against climate change. It states that it is showing. Researchers say this risks losing the ability to respond to climate mitigation strategies such as the Paris Agreement and concealing problems that could otherwise be easily solved, such as facility technology and transportation inefficiencies. increase.

Lead author Yuting Zhang, Ph.D. Candidate for the Faculty of Earth Sciences, said, “Carbon Recovery and Storage (CCS) is, of course, the cornerstone of climate change mitigation, but without a centralized reporting framework, we need to be more proactive in addressing issues with robust and accurate reporting. Work on climate change. “

“Policymakers need to adopt a centralized reporting database that includes carbon capture, transport, and storage rates, including quality assurance measures such as independent audits.”

CCS is a global initiative to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide (CO).2) In the atmosphere by capturing greenhouse gases at their source and storing them underground. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that the CCS is the key to achieving the goal of net zero emissions by the middle of the century to mitigate climate change.

Currently, the most centralized and up-to-date information on capture rates is available from think tank annual reports and databases, which report CCS activity as facility capacity rather than actual stored carbon. .. As of 2021, the world’s capture capacity is estimated to be 40 million metric tonnes per year for all 26 operating CCS facilities.

There is no centralized framework globally that enforces reporting of the exact amount of carbon captured, so actual capture, transport, and storage rates are not centrally reported. However, this information is needed for tracking. Climate change mitigation Impact of existing operations. Fluctuations in the performance of industry-wide CCS plants can also help understand and mitigate issues that affect the performance of individual CCS facilities.

Dr. Samuel Clever, senior author of the Imperial Department of Earth Sciences and Engineering, said, “Carbon recovery can significantly change the fate of the planet, but the unclear guidance is how much it has ever been. It means that there is no international consensus on what is stored .. There is an urgent need for well-defined parameters to know exactly where we are standing. “

“Approximately 200 million metric tons of climate warming carbon removed from the atmosphere is important, but reaching this number should not have relied on academic research.”

To carry out the study, researchers have obtained 20 of the 26 CCS plants worldwide with recovery and storage rates from a variety of publicly available sources recorded between 1996 and 2020. I looked it up. They organized the sources into three categories that corresponded to the degree of warranty associated with them. : 1) Legal guarantee, 2) Audit quality guarantee, 3) No guarantee. They calculated a carbon recovery of 29 million metric tons of CO.2 In 2019, the total storage for the study period (1996-2020) will be 197 million metric tons.At these rates, underground storage provided CO2 Approximately half the reduction in emissions avoided by solar panels in the United States in 2019.

We then compared these numbers with those currently reported by think tanks. This is currently the most reliable source of information on the outcome of CCS. Carbon recovery capacity.

Researchers have found that reporting capacity alone means that storage rates are overestimated by 19-30 percent. By requiring the facility to report actual catch rates, they can get a better idea of ​​how well CCS is working and be in a better position to deal with the climate crisis. I insist that I can.

The gap between capacity and actual storage could have been due to project performance issues, but this was not always the case. The discrepancy also arose from changes in the source of CO over time.2 A variation of the capture capacity definition used in the project.

“CCS is a relatively new climate technology that has already contributed significantly to the fight against climate change, but capture capacity is not the best way to do it,” said Chris Jackson, a visiting professor at Imperial’s School of Earth Sciences and Engineering. First, the storage rate should be measured and the government should ideally force the use of the final metric for captured carbon. “

“Overall, CCS plants are functioning well and contribute significantly to climate mitigation, but a more accurate measurement of their success will only help in this effort.”

Consistent reporting on CCS storage performance facilitates modeling large-scale deployments of CCS, allowing you to monitor short-term emission reductions and long-term resource requirements for your technology.Researchers say the reporting framework should include important details such as the intended capture rate capacity, maximum capture rate capacity, and annual CO capture.2CO annual transportation2CO annual storage2Quality assurance measures such as third-party audits, and reasons for offline periods when the CCS facility did not work as intended.

Why can’t I plant more trees to clean the carbon dioxide in the air?

For more information:
Yuting Zhang et al, estimation of geological CO content2 Storage for the period 1996-2020, Environmental Science and Technology Letter (2021). DOI: 10.31223 / X5HD06

Quote: Carbon captured and stored since 1996 is important, but was obtained from https: // on July 19, 2022. Up to 30% (July 19, 2022) Overrated

This document is subject to copyright. No part may be reproduced without written permission, except for fair transactions for personal investigation or research purposes. Content is provided for informational purposes only.

Carbon captured and stored since 1996 is important, but overrated by up to 30%

Source link Carbon captured and stored since 1996 is important, but overrated by up to 30%

Show More

Related Articles

Back to top button