From: USA Today
Published December 8, 2008 09:40 AM

Would burying CO2 help in climate crisis?

POZNAN, Poland (AP) — Could the world solve part of its climate crisis by simply burying the problem?

Backers say carbon capture and storage could make an important contribution to cutting emissions by mid-century. The idea involves capturing carbon dioxide as power stations spew it out, then pumping it into empty gas and oil wells or aquifers, where it will remain forever.

But, as delegates from some 190 countries meet in Poland to begin thrashing out a new global climate change treaty, environmentalists are divided.

Some see the still-unproven and expensive technology as a distraction from renewable energy; others say it deserves a chance because dirty and cheap coal-fired power isn't about to disappear.

The top U.N. climate official, Yvo de Boer, said he believes it will be "critical" for countries such as China and India to use coal as they expand their economies and fight poverty.

In addition, coal-dependent parts of Europe, such as Poland, are unlikely to change their habits soon.

President-elect Barack Obama also has expressed interest in clean-coal technology in the U.S.

Carbon capture "potentially can be a solution," to curbing the resulting emissions, De Boer said. But whether it takes off "depends on some of the real resistance that there is against this technology."

A few pilot projects are underway in countries such as the Netherlands and Germany.

European Union leaders want up to 12 demonstration plants built by 2015. But details, including possible subsidies, have yet to be resolved.

The U.S. Department of Energy said earlier this year it expects to spend up to $1.3 billion on multiple clean-coal power plants involving carbon capture and storage, but has not yet chosen sites.

Carbon capture could have "a huge impact potentially on our target to reduce CO2 emissions significantly," said Kai Tullius of the European Union's executive Commission.

He said Europe wants to make it "commercially feasible" by 2020, eventually making it cheaper than buying permits to emit greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

Even for supporters, cost is a key problem. Many carbon capture projects now "certainly are not economical," and concerns such as legal liability for the carbon remain, said Tim Bertels, who works on CO2 emission solutions for Shell.

He said business will need incentives to launch the first projects. Otherwise, "there will not be sufficient appetite from the industry to put the money on the table."

The environmental group Greenpeace pointed to carbon capture's hesitant start as a cause for skepticism.

It "seems to us like a mythical technology" at the moment, climate campaigner Stephanie Tunmore said.

"The concept is being used as an excuse to build more coal-fired power stations" with promises that they will later be fitted for carbon capture, she added.

Greenpeace also is concerned about safety. Like nuclear waste, buried CO2 could escape in the event of an earthquake or another natural disaster.

Stephan Singer of the World Wildlife Fund said that building new coal power stations fitted for carbon capture and storage could actually be more expensive than using renewable energy. He was more positive about fitting the technology to existing plants.

"We all believe that normal fossil fuel-fired power stations are here to stay for the next 40 to 50 years," Singer said.

More research is needed on details of carbon storage, said Singer, but noted that, "if we don't have it, we have 100% leakage (of carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere."