Remember Stéphane Dion's early speeches on the environment shortly after he became Liberal leader? I'm paraphrasing but it went something like, if Canada can lead the way in figuring out how to cut megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, Canada can make megatonnes of money.
So here's a report from CIBC Capital Markets economist Benny Tal [PDF] that talks about cutting greenhouse gas emissions and getting rich at the same time. Tal published this in December (I've recently had a chance to wade through the pile in my “must-read” box) and while some of the numbers have a change a little since then, the overall premise still works.
With no restrictions on emissions, companies have no economic motivation to apply such an option. Things, however, are changing. Soon, the right to emit will come with a price tag. And the surprise will be how little it will take to convince large emitters that injecting CO2 into the ground will make more economic sense than spreading it into the atmosphere…
In this context, due to its proximity to some of the world’s finest geological storage sites, Alberta’s oil patch is ideally located to
benefit from this emissions reduction option.
Instead of being the victim of environmental
regulations, the oil patch might emerge
victorious in the carbon war . . .. . .Current estimates put the full-life cycle cost of pre-
combustion CCS at roughly $40 per tonne of CO2 —
notably cheaper than using the post-combustion
technology. But these cost estimates are being
revised downward almost daily, and the consensus is that
pre-combustion capture will be 25-30% cheaper within a
decade. In an environment of rising carbon prices, it may
not be long before the cost curve of capture and the cost
curve of emitting intersect. Accordingly, a price signal
of $20-25 per tonne of CO
can trigger a significant acceleration in the utilization of pre-combustion CCS [carbon capture and storage] as an economically feasible method of emissions reduction in
the oil sands. Incidentally, under the federal government’s
Green Plan, the price tag on carbon is scheduled to rise
to $20 per tonne of CO
by 2013.
CCS scares the bejeezus out of me.
On August 21,1986, a cloud of carbon dioxide gas was released from Lake Nyos. Because carbon dioxide is more dense than air it hugged the ground and flowed down valleys. The cloud traveled as far as 15 miles (25 km) from the lake. It was moving fast enough to flatten vegetation, including a few trees. 1,700 deaths were caused by suffocation. 845 people were hospitalized.
I don't, for one instant, trust that the supporters of this technology know what long term consequences may arise from pumping CO2 underground.
What is conveniently left out of this is that this lake is formed in the crater of a dormant volcano that still released magmatic gasses into the water which is absorbed and held by the water and pressure. This “cloud” happened because some geological event took place that essentially “Opened the bottle of pop” and allowed the gas to escape. Steps have since been taken to ensure this CO2 is released in small quantities so that this kind of event doesn't happen again.
Fear tactics aren't exactly as scary when more knowledge is brought into the light.
I'm well aware of the additional knowledge you've presented. In fact it was right there in the link I provided. That still doesn't change the fact however, that nobody knows for certain if the CO2 that will be pumped underground will remain underground or if something could trigger its release leading to an event like the one that occurred at Lake Nyos. CSS may well be the answer, but absent a credible assessment of the long term ramifications it's not something I'd want to risk.
I'm actually impressed that you've kept an open mind to CSS.
I would hope that the scientists beind CSS, especially those involved in the geological considerations of the project would have learned lessons from volcanic studies and pyroclastic clouds in relation to pressure-builds in CO2 and how to safely contain/release the pressures in responsible manners.
The last thing anyone wants is a geo-thermal explosion on the scales you mentioned.
Why wouldn't I keep an open mind to science? I'm not a creationist, after all.
“I would hope…”
I would hope too, but I wouldn't bet the farm on hope alone.