Wikipedia

User:Clayoquot/CCUS

< User:Clayoquot

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Clayoquot (talk | contribs) at 21:13, 20 September 2024 (→‎Political debate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Society and culture

Political debate

CCS has been discussed by political actors at least since the start of the UNFCCC[1] negotiations in the beginning of the 1990s, and remains a very divisive issue.[2]

Fossil fuel companies have heavily promoted CCS, framing it as an area of innovation and cost-effectiveness.[3] Public statements from fossil fuel companies and fossil-based electric utilities ask for “recognition” that fossil fuel usage will increase in the future and suggest that CCS will allow the fossil fuel era to be extended.[3]  Their statements typically position CCS as a necessary way to tackle climate change, while not mentioning options for reducing fossil fuel use.[3]

Many environmental NGOs hold strongly negative views on CCS.[4]


are not in widespread agreement about CCS as a potential climate mitigation tool. Many NGO groups hold a strongly main disagreement amid NGOs is whether CCS will reduce CO2 emissions or just perpetuate the use of fossil fuels.[5][better source needed]

For instance, Greenpeace is strongly against CCS. According to the organization, the use of the technology will keep the world dependent on fossil fuels.[6][better source needed]

On the other hand, BECCS is used in some IPCC scenarios to help meet mitigation targets.[7] Adopting the IPCC argument that CO2 emissions need to be reduced by 2050 to avoid dramatic consequences, the Bellona Foundation justified CCS as a mitigation action.[6] They claimed fossil fuels are unavoidable for the near term and consequently, CCS is the quickest way to reduce CO2 emissions.[8]

Some environmental groups raised concerns over leakage given the long storage time required, comparing CCS to storing radioactive waste from nuclear power stations.[9]

Some environmental activists and politicians have criticized CCS as a false solution to the climate crisis. They cite the role of the fossil fuel industry in origins of the technology and in lobbying for CCS focused legislation.

Its effectiveness in reducing emissions has been disputed, notably when considering the life-cycle carbon emissions it takes to create CCS systems.[2] Opponents claimed that CCS could legitimize the continued use of fossil fuels, as well obviate commitments on emission reduction.[citation needed]

References

  1. ^ Carton, Wim; Asiyanbi, Adeniyi; Beck, Silke; Buck, Holly J.; Lund, Jens F. (November 2020). "Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal". WIREs Climate Change. 11 (6). Bibcode:2020WIRCC..11E.671C. doi:10.1002/wcc.671.
  2. ^ a b Westervelt, Amy (2024-07-29). "Oil companies sold the public on a fake climate solution — and swindled taxpayers out of billions". Vox. Retrieved 2024-07-30.
  3. ^ a b c Gunderson, Ryan; Stuart, Diana; Petersen, Brian (2020-04-10). "The fossil fuel industry's framing of carbon capture and storage: Faith in innovation, value instrumentalization, and status quo maintenance". Journal of Cleaner Production. 252: 119767. Bibcode:2020JCPro.25219767G. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119767. ISSN 0959-6526.
  4. ^ Romanak, Katherine; Fridahl, Mathias; Dixon, Tim (January 2021). "Attitudes on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a Mitigation Technology within the UNFCCC". Energies. 14 (3): 629. doi:10.3390/en14030629. ISSN 1996-1073.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
  5. ^ Corry, Olaf; Reiner, David (2011). "Evaluating global Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) communication materials: A survey of global CCS communications" (PDF). CSIRO: 1–46 – via Global CCS Institute.
  6. ^ a b Corry, Olaf; Riesch, Hauke (2012). "Beyond 'For Or Against': Environmental NGO-evaluations of CCS as a climate change solution". In Markusson, Nils; Shackley, Simon; Evar, Benjamin (eds.). The Social Dynamics of Carbon Capture and Storage: Understanding CCS Representations, Governance and Innovation. Routledge. pp. 91–110. ISBN 978-1-84971-315-3.
  7. ^ "Summary for Policymakers — Global Warming of 1.5 °C". Archived from the original on 31 May 2019. Retrieved 1 June 2019.
  8. ^ Agaton, Casper Boongaling (November 2021). "Application of real options in carbon capture and storage literature: Valuation techniques and research hotspots". Science of the Total Environment. 795: 148683. Bibcode:2021ScTEn.79548683A. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148683. PMID 34246146.
  9. ^ Simon Robinson (22 January 2012). "Cutting Carbon: Should We Capture and Store It?". Time. Archived from the original on 24 January 2010.

WRI

From https://www.wri.org/insights/carbon-capture-technology, CC-BY:

A major concern associated with CCUS is its potential to lock in fossil power production and other fossil dependent processes. Associated with this, CCUS also risks perpetuating the negative health and environmental impacts caused by emissions intensive facilities and is seen as a band-aid over these polluting industries that disproportionately harm vulnerable communities that have historically borne disproportionate levels of air pollution and toxic emissions.

Recent research shows that carbon capture systems can reduce (but not eliminate) harmful pollutants, but in many cases, community-based organizations and other advocates would prefer a facility is shut down and investment is focused instead on cleaner production processes, such as renewables in the power sector.

In the United States, where CCUS has recently received billions of dollars in government funding, the types of facilities that could be retrofitted with CCUS are often located in communities that have already borne the negative environmental and health impacts of living near power or industrial facilities. While there is evidence that CCUS can help reduce non-CO2 pollutants along with capturing CO2, many environmental justice groups are concerned that CCUS is being pushed on them without consultation and that CCUS will be used as a way to prolong a facility’s lifetime and continue the local harms it causes. -


Storage - new

Storing CO2 involves the injection of captured CO2 into a deep underground geological reservoir of porous rock overlaid by an impermeable layer of rocks, which seals the reservoir and prevents the upward migration of CO2 and escape into the atmosphere.[1]: 112  When CO2 is injected into a reservoir, it flows through it, filling the pore space. The gas is usually compressed first into a supercritical fluid. The reservoir must be at depths greater than 800 metres to retain the CO2 in a dense liquid state.[1]: 112 

The CO2 is permanently trapped in the reservoir through several trapping mechanisms: structural trapping by the caprock seal, solubility trapping in pore space water, residual trapping in individual or groups of pores, and mineral trapping by reacting with the reservoir rocks to form carbonate minerals.[1]: 112  The extent of mineral trapping progresses over time, making storage increasingly stable.[2]

Enhanced oil recovery

Main article: Enhanced oil recovery

As of 2022, around 73% of the CO2 captured annually is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR).[3] In EOR, CO2 is injected into partially depleted oil fields to enhance production. This increases the overall reservoir pressure and improves the mobility of the oil, resulting in a higher flow of oil towards the production wells.[4]: 117 

There is controversy over whether carbon capture followed by EOR is beneficial for the climate. When the oil that is extracted using EOR is subsequently burned, CO2 is released. If these emissions are included in calculations, carbon capture with EOR is usually found to increase overall emissions compared to not using carbon capture at all.[5] If the emissions from burning extracted oil are excluded from calculations, carbon capture with EOR is found to decrease emissions. In arguments for excluding these emissions, it is assumed that oil produced by EOR displaces conventionally-produced oil instead of adding to the global consumption of oil.[5]

A 2020 review found that scientific papers were roughly evenly split on the question of whether carbon capture with EOR increased or decreased emissions.[5]

Saline formations

Some CCS operations store captured carbon dioxide in deep saline aquifiers. These are layers of porous and permeable rocks saturated with salty water.[1]: 112  Worldwide, saline formations have higher potential storage capacity than depleted oil wells.[6] Dedicated geologic storage is generally less expensive than EOR because it does not require a high level of CO2 purity and because there are more suitable sites, which means pipelines can be shorter.[7]

Other geologic reservoirs

Various types of reservoirs for storing captured CO2 are being researched as of 2021: CO2 could be injected into coal beds for enhanced coal bed methane recovery.[8] Ex-situ mineral carbonation involves reacting CO2 with mine tailings or alkaline industrial waste to form stable calcium carbonate or magnesium carbonate.[2] In-situ mineral carbonation involves injecting CO2 and water into underground basaltic rock formations, where it forms stable carbonate minerals relatively quickly.[2]

Storage - old

Various approaches have been conceived for permanent storage. These include gaseous storage in deep geological formations (including saline formations and exhausted gas fields), and solid storage by reaction of CO2 with metal oxides to produce stable carbonates. Storage capacity, containment efficiency and injectivity are the three factors that require major pre-assessment to decide the feasibility of CO2 storage in a candidate geological formation.[9] Geo-sequestration, involves injecting CO2, generally in supercritical form, into underground geological formations. Oil fields, gas fields, saline formations, unmineable coal seams, and saline-filled basalt formations have been suggested as alternatives. At the molecular level, carbon dioxide is shown to affect the mechanical properties of the formation where it has been injected.[10] Physical (e.g., highly impermeable caprock) and geochemical trapping mechanisms prevent the CO2 from escaping to the surface.[11]

Unmineable coal seams can be used because CO2 molecules attach to the coal surface. Technical feasibility depends on the coal bed's permeability. In the process of absorption the coal releases previously absorbed methane, and the methane can be recovered (enhanced coal bed methane recovery). Methane revenues can offset a portion of the cost, although burning the resultant methane, however, produces another stream of CO2 to be sequestered.[citation needed]

Saline formations contain mineralized brines and have yet to produce benefit to humans. Saline aquifers have occasionally been used for storage of chemical waste in a few cases. The main advantage of saline aquifers is their large potential storage volume and their ubiquity. The major disadvantage of saline aquifers is that relatively little is known about them. To keep the cost of storage acceptable, geophysical exploration may be limited, resulting in larger uncertainty about the aquifer structure. Unlike storage in oil fields or coal beds, no side product offsets the storage cost. Trapping mechanisms such as structural trapping, residual trapping, solubility trapping and mineral trapping may immobilize the CO2 underground and reduce leakage risks.[11] [12]

Worldwide storage capacity in oil and gas reservoirs is estimated to be 675–900 Gt CO2, and in un-minable coal seams is estimated to be 15–200 Gt CO2. Deep saline formations have the largest capacity, which is estimated to be 1,000–10,000 Gt CO2.[13] In the US, there is estimated to be at least 2,600 Gt and at most 22,000 Gt total CO2 storage capacity.[14]

 
Mountaintop removal mining of coal produces adverse health and environmental impacts. Since CCS uses energy, it typically increases the "upstream" harms caused by extracting fossil fuels.

First paragraph of lead - CCUS

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) is a family of processes in which CO2 is separated from the other gases coming out of a facility before it enters the atmosphere, and then put to use and/or permanently stored. Typically, the CO2 is captured from large point sources, such as a natural gas processing plant or a bioenergy plant, treated, transported, and then stored in a suitable geological formation.

Captured CO2 can also be incorporated into certain types of products, such as concrete or chemicals, in which case it is considered to be utilized and may also qualify as being stored.[15] CCUS can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus mitigate climate change.[16][17] For example, CCS retrofits for existing power plants can be one of the ways to limit emissions from the electricity sector and meet the Paris Agreement goals.[18]: 16 

Terminology

Terminology

The IPCC defines CCS as:

"A process in which a relatively pure stream of carbon dioxide (CO2) from industrial and energy-related sources is separated (captured), conditioned, compressed and transported to a storage location for long-term isolation from the atmosphere."[19]: 2221 

The terms carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) are closely related and used interchangeably.[20] Both terms are used predominantly to refer to a process in which captured CO2 is injected into partially-depleted oil reservoirs in order to extract more oil.[20] This is both "utilization" and "storage", as the CO2 left underground is intended to be trapped indefinitely. Prior to 2013, the process was primarily called CCS; since then the more valuable-sounding CCUS has gained popularity.[20]

Around 1% of captured CO2 is used as a feedstock for making products such fertilizer, synthetic fuels, and plastics.[21] These uses are forms of carbon capture and utilization.[22] In some cases, the product durably stores the carbon from the CO2 and thus is also considered to be a form of CCS. To qualify as CCS, carbon storage must be long-term,[23]: 2221  therefore utilization of CO2 to produce fertilizer, fuel, or chemicals is not CCS because these substances release CO2 when burned or consumed.[22]

Some sources use the term CCS, CCU, or CCUS more broadly, encompassing methods such as direct air capture or tree-planting which remove CO2 from the air.[24][25][26] In this article, the terms are used according to the IPCC's definition, which requires CO2 to be captured from point-sources such as the flue gas of power plants.

Parking lot

[27][28]

As of 2022, around 73% of the CO2 captured annually is used for EOR.[29]

This process, called dedicated geological storage, is used for around 27% of the CO2 captured each year.[30]

Terminology in this area is often inconsistent and confusing.[27] Some institutions use these terms more broadly or more narrowly than others.[27]

The term "utilization" is

can all refer to the practice of capturing Prior to 2013, this practice was primarily called CCS; since then the more valuable-sounding CCUS has gained popularity.[20] Alternatively, CO2 can be injected into underground formations such as saline aquifers where it will be trapped, without attempting to extract oil or gas. CCS is well known process of capturing CO2 from stationary sources of carbon emissions and permanently storing it, before it is released into the atmosphere.[8]

Sources of carbon dioxide

As of 2021:

  • power generation (26 facilities with 62.51 MtCO2/year)
  • natural gas processing (20 facilities with 42.95 MtCO2/year),
  • chemical production (9 facilities with 13.72 MtCO2/year),
  • hydrogen production (16 facilities with 13.45 Mt CO2/year),
  • ethanol production (39 facilities with 10.85 MtCO2/year),
  • fertilizer production (7 facilities with 7.45 MtCO2/year)
  • cement (3 facilities with 3.2 MtCO2/year).[8]

CO2 utilization

Enhanced oil recovery

Main article: Enhanced oil recovery

As of 2022, around 73% of the CO2 captured annually is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR).[31] In EOR, CO2 is injected into partially depleted oil fields to enhance production. This increases the overall reservoir pressure and improves the mobility of the oil, resulting in a higher flow of oil towards the production wells.[32]: 117 

CO2 has been injected into partially depleted oil fields for several decades for enhanced oil recovery. This has been criticised for producing more emissions when the gas or oil is burned.[33]

CO2 utilization in products

CO2 can be used as a feedstock for making various types of products. As of 2022, around 1% of captured CO2 is used in this way.[34] These uses vary in terms of their ability to sequester CO2 for long periods, their economic profitability, and the scale of the market for the product.[35]

As of 2023, it is commercially feasible to produce the following products from captured CO2: methanol, urea, polycarbonates, polyols, polyurethane, and salicylic acids.[8] Methanol is currently primarily used to produce other chemicals, with potential for more widespread future use as a fuel.[35] Urea is used in the production of fertilizers.[32]: 55 

Technologies for sequestering CO2 in mineral carbonate products have been demonstrated, but are not ready for commercial deployment as of 2023.[8] Research is ongoing into processes to incorporate CO2 into concrete or building aggregate. The utilization of CO2 in construction materials is considered one of the most promising routes for carbon sequestration,[36] and is the only foreseeable CO2 use that is permanent enough to qualify as storage.[1] Other potential uses for captured CO2 that are being researched include the creation of synthetic fuels, various chemicals and plastics, and the cultivation of algae.[8] The production of fuels and chemicals from CO2 is highly energy-intensive.[1]

The potential for CO2 utilization in products is small compared to the total volume of CO2 that could foreseeably be captured. For instance, in the International Energy Agency (IEA) scenario for achieving net zero emissions by 2050, over 95% of captured CO2 is geologically sequestered and less than 5% is used in products.[1] The IEA predicts that products created from captured CO2 are likely to cost a lot more than conventional and alternative low-carbon products.[32]: 110 

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g "CO2 Capture and Utilisation - Energy System". IEA. Retrieved 2024-07-18.  Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
  2. ^ a b c Snæbjörnsdóttir, Sandra Ó; Sigfússon, Bergur; Marieni, Chiara; Goldberg, David; Gislason, Sigurður R.; Oelkers, Eric H. (February 2020). "Carbon dioxide storage through mineral carbonation". Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 1 (2): 90–102. doi:10.1038/s43017-019-0011-8. ISSN 2662-138X. Retrieved 2024-06-21.
  3. ^ Robertson, Bruce; Mousavian, Milad (September 1, 2022). "The carbon capture crux: Lessons learned" (PDF). Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. p. 10. Retrieved 2024-06-27.
  4. ^ IEA (2020), CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions, IEA, Paris   Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
  5. ^ a b c Sekera, June; Lichtenberger, Andreas (6 October 2020). "Assessing Carbon Capture: Public Policy, Science, and Societal Need: A Review of the Literature on Industrial Carbon Removal". Biophysical Economics and Sustainability. 5 (3): 14. Bibcode:2020BpES....5...14S. doi:10.1007/s41247-020-00080-5.
  6. ^ Ma, Jinfeng; Li, Lin; Wang, Haofan; Du, Yi; Ma, Junjie; Zhang, Xiaoli; Wang, Zhenliang (July 2022). "Carbon Capture and Storage: History and the Road Ahead". Engineering. 14: 33–43. Bibcode:2022Engin..14...33M. doi:10.1016/j.eng.2021.11.024. S2CID 247416947.
  7. ^ Ma, Jinfeng; Li, Lin; Wang, Haofan; Du, Yi; Ma, Junjie; Zhang, Xiaoli; Wang, Zhenliang (July 2022). "Carbon Capture and Storage: History and the Road Ahead". Engineering. 14: 33–43. Bibcode:2022Engin..14...33M. doi:10.1016/j.eng.2021.11.024. S2CID 247416947.
  8. ^ a b c d e f Dziejarski, Bartosz; Krzyżyńska, Renata; Andersson, Klas (June 2023). "Current status of carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies in the global economy: A survey of technical assessment". Fuel. 342: 127776. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2023.127776. ISSN 0016-2361. Retrieved 2024-06-17.  Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
  9. ^ Salt precipitation during CO2storage—A review,International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2016: 136-147.
  10. ^ Simeski, Filip; Ihme, Matthias (January 13, 2023). "Corrosive Influence of Carbon Dioxide on Crack Initiation in Quartz: Comparison with Liquid Water and Vacuum Environments". Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 128 (1). Bibcode:2023JGRB..12825624S. doi:10.1029/2022JB025624. S2CID 255922362.
  11. ^ a b "Good plant design and operation for onshore carbon capture installations and onshore pipelines - Storage". Energy Institute. Archived from the original on 18 September 2012. Retrieved 11 December 2012.
  12. ^ Edward Hinton and Andrew Woods (2021). "Capillary trapping in a vertically heterogeneous porous layer". J. Fluid Mech. 910: A44. Bibcode:2021JFM...910A..44H. doi:10.1017/jfm.2020.972. hdl:11343/258916. S2CID 231636769.
  13. ^ Aydin, Gokhan; Karakurt, Izzet; Aydiner, Kerim (2010-09-01). "Evaluation of geologic storage options of CO2: Applicability, cost, storage capacity and safety". Energy Policy. Special Section on Carbon Emissions and Carbon Management in Cities with Regular Papers. 38 (9): 5072–5080. Bibcode:2010EnPol..38.5072A. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.035.
  14. ^ "NETL's 2015 Carbon Storage Atlas Shows Increase in U.S. CO2 Storage Potential". Archived from the original on September 26, 2021. Retrieved September 26, 2021.
  15. ^ Lebling, Katie; Gangotra, Ankita; Hausker, Karl; Byrum, Zachary (2023-11-13). "7 Things to Know About Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration". World Resources Institute.  Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
  16. ^ Metz, Bert; Davidson, Ogunlade; De Conink, Heleen; Loos, Manuela; Meyer, Leo, eds. (March 2018). "IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage" (PDF). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
  17. ^ Ketzer, J. Marcelo; Iglesias, Rodrigo S.; Einloft, Sandra (2012). "Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions with CO2 Capture and Geological Storage". Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation. pp. 1405–1440. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7991-9_37. ISBN 978-1-4419-7990-2.
  18. ^ IPCC, 2022: Summary for Policymakers [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, A. Reisinger, R. Slade, R. Fradera, M. Pathak, A. Al Khourdajie, M. Belkacemi, R. van Diemen, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, D. McCollum, S. Some, P. Vyas, (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.001.
  19. ^ IPCC, 2021: Annex VII: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C.  Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022.
  20. ^ a b c d Sekera, June; Lichtenberger, Andreas (6 October 2020). "Assessing Carbon Capture: Public Policy, Science, and Societal Need: A Review of the Literature on Industrial Carbon Removal". Biophysical Economics and Sustainability. 5 (3): 14. Bibcode:2020BpES....5...14S. doi:10.1007/s41247-020-00080-5.
  21. ^ Martin-Roberts, Emma; Scott, Vivian; Flude, Stephanie; Johnson, Gareth; Haszeldine, R. Stuart; Gilfillan, Stuart (November 2021). "Carbon capture and storage at the end of a lost decade". One Earth. 4 (11): 1645–1646. Bibcode:2021OEart...4.1645M. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.10.023. hdl:20.500.11820/45b9f880-71e1-4b24-84fd-b14a80d016f3. ISSN 2590-3322. Retrieved 2024-06-21.
  22. ^ a b "CO2 Capture and Utilisation - Energy System". IEA. Retrieved 2024-06-27.
  23. ^ IPCC, 2021: Annex VII: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C.  Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022.
  24. ^ Snæbjörnsdóttir, Sandra Ó; Sigfússon, Bergur; Marieni, Chiara; Goldberg, David; Gislason, Sigurður R.; Oelkers, Eric H. (February 2020). "Carbon dioxide storage through mineral carbonation". Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 1 (2): 90–102. Bibcode:2020NRvEE...1...90S. doi:10.1038/s43017-019-0011-8. ISSN 2662-138X. Retrieved 2024-06-21.
  25. ^ Hepburn, Cameron; Adlen, Ella; Beddington, John; Carter, Emily A.; Fuss, Sabine; Mac Dowell, Niall; Minx, Jan C.; Smith, Pete; Williams, Charlotte K. (2019-11). "The technological and economic prospects for CO2 utilization and removal". Nature. 575 (7781): 87–97. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1681-6. ISSN 1476-4687. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  26. ^ "About CCUS – Analysis". IEA. 2021-04-07. Retrieved 2024-08-24.
  27. ^ a b c Olfe-Kräutlein, Barbara; Armstrong, Katy; Mutchek, Michele; Cremonese, Lorenzo; Sick, Volker (2022-05-30). "Why Terminology Matters for Successful Rollout of Carbon Dioxide Utilization Technologies". Frontiers in Climate. 4. doi:10.3389/fclim.2022.830660. ISSN 2624-9553.
  28. ^ Baena-Moreno, Francisco M.; Rodríguez-Galán, Mónica; Vega, Fernando; Alonso-Fariñas, Bernabé; Vilches Arenas, Luis F.; Navarrete, Benito (2019-06-18). "Carbon capture and utilization technologies: a literature review and recent advances". Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects. 41 (12): 1403–1433. doi:10.1080/15567036.2018.1548518. ISSN 1556-7036.
  29. ^ Robertson, Bruce; Mousavian, Milad (September 1, 2022). "The carbon capture crux: Lessons learned" (PDF). Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. p. 10. Retrieved 2024-06-27.
  30. ^ Robertson, Bruce; Mousavian, Milad (September 1, 2022). "The carbon capture crux: Lessons learned" (PDF). Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. p. 10. Retrieved 2024-06-27.
  31. ^ Robertson, Bruce; Mousavian, Milad (September 1, 2022). "The carbon capture crux: Lessons learned" (PDF). Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. p. 10. Retrieved 2024-06-27.
  32. ^ a b c IEA (2020), CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions, IEA, Paris   Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
  33. ^ "The carbon capture crux: Lessons learned". ieefa.org. Retrieved 2022-10-01.
  34. ^ Martin-Roberts, Emma; Scott, Vivian; Flude, Stephanie; Johnson, Gareth; Haszeldine, R. Stuart; Gilfillan, Stuart (November 2021). "Carbon capture and storage at the end of a lost decade". One Earth. 4 (11): 1645–1646. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.10.023. hdl:20.500.11820/45b9f880-71e1-4b24-84fd-b14a80d016f3. ISSN 2590-3322. Retrieved 2024-06-21.
  35. ^ a b Kim, Changsoo; Yoo, Chun-Jae; Oh, Hyung-Suk; Min, Byoung Koun; Lee, Ung (November 2022). "Review of carbon dioxide utilization technologies and their potential for industrial application". Journal of CO2 Utilization. 65: 102239. doi:10.1016/j.jcou.2022.102239. ISSN 2212-9820.
  36. ^ Li, Ning; Mo, Liwu; Unluer, Cise (November 2022). "Emerging CO2 utilization technologies for construction materials: A review". Journal of CO2 Utilization. 65: 102237. doi:10.1016/j.jcou.2022.102237. ISSN 2212-9820.  Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Sources


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Clayoquot/CCUS&oldid=1246750116"