Verbatim Mac

CCS CP

The net benefits are about engaging with china such as the japan DA and the xi DA

1nc

Cp text the United States federal government should: expand CO2 sequestration tax credits, Tax carbon emissions, establish a regulatory framework for long-term carbon storage liability, and fund carbon capture and storage research and demonstration projects

CCS is viable but needs government support

AIChE 16

AIChE, Bridging the Finance Gap for Carbon Capture and Storage, AIChE, the world's leading organization for chemical engineering professionals, with more than 50,000 members from over 100 countries, January 2016.

While each of the separate elements of CO2 capture, transport, and storage are commercially available and have decades of operational experience, the integration and scale-up of these elements at large-scale power plants is still in the demonstration phase. At this early phase in technology development, government support is critical. The major barrier to larger scale implementation of CCS is economic. Adoption of CCS above the amount supported by the market for EOR would likely require a price on carbon. And, current levels of governments support do not provide sufficient incentive for the private sector to invest in a new technology with its associated economic and technical risks. This paper provides an overview of current policy support for CCS, which includes R&D funding, tax credits, and grants for demonstration projects. Both public and private sector stakeholders have important roles to play in promoting the development of CCS. While debate continues about putting any price on carbon, Congress could, in the short term, provide a suite of incentives to support CCS deployment, including expansion of the CO2 sequestration tax credits, establishment of a regulatory framework for long-term carbon storage liability, and appropriations for CCS demonstration projects that incorporate lessons from past projects. State governments could include CCS in low carbon portfolio standards to make it easier for regulated utilities to recover costs for CCS projects through rate increases. Finally, the private and public sectors should work together to develop new ways to finance and allocate the risk for CCS.

CCS is key to halt warming, Other nations will model the U.S.

Peng 13[Syd Peng, the Charles E. Lawall Chair in Mining Engineering Emeritus at West Virginia University, 2/13/13 http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/OpEdCommentaries/201302150152] //Reemz

With its ambitious plans for promoting energy efficiency and expanding the use of renewable energy sources in the fight against global warming, the Obama administration has climbed aboard the biggest bandwagon in energy policy. But the idea that a modern economy can forgo the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power because a combination of conservation and "clean" energy sources can take their place is absurd.¶ There are legitimate reasons to be worried about climate change. Global energy consumption is so great and rising so fast that human activities are linked to climate change. Sea levels are rising, storms are becoming more frequent and stronger, and large parts of the United States and other countries are now subject to extreme drought, resulting in less food production.¶ But the fundamental question is not how we can expand the use of solar and wind energy while increasing its efficient use. The question is how much we're willing to do to ensure that Americans -- and billions of people throughout the world -- have affordable access to oil, natural gas and coal as well as nuclear power.¶ Reducing the consumption of energy would help control greenhouse-gas emissions. But that's not likely to be sufficient to solve the problem. Nor will replacing fossil fuels with alternative sources of energy like solar and wind, which are too impractical to be used for supplying base-load electricity on a large scale. Modern economies are thus bound to remain dependent on fossil fuels, which account for about 80 percent of the world's primary energy use.¶ An important technology has emerged that offers a way to capitalize on fossil fuels, coal in particular. Called "carbon sequestration," it is a way to capture carbon emissions from coal combustion and store them deep underground in geological formations and depleted oil and gas wells. China, India and other countries with fast-growing economies understandably want to use their vast coal resources for industrialization and to bring electricity to billions of people in rural areas who still do not have access to a power grid. But most countries with a lot of coal are not going to stop using it because of concerns about global warming.¶ With the right incentives and access to technology, however, sequestration can be made attractive so that key countries like China and India would back its use. But the leadership in developing and demonstrating the technology will have to come from the United States. We were the first country to crack down on smoking, require seat belts in cars, and adopt clean air regulations for airborne emissions that cause acid rain and ozone smog. Almost every industrialized country and many developing countries have followed our example. The logic seems unassailable: demonstrate the technology for carbon sequestration and other countries will follow suit, because carbon capture-and-storage may be the only realistic way to satisfy the world's enormous energy needs while lessening their side effects.¶ And instead of letting nuclear power slip away, we need to recognize that nuclear reactors have been overwhelmingly good for energy production and the environment. Nuclear reactors produce a huge amount of energy in the foreseeable future from a small amount of fuel. They have been good for our country.¶ For something as vital as energy production, we need federal policies that can help meet our national security and economic aspirations. If the government imposed an affordable price on carbon emissions from the production and use of energy, some of the revenue could be used to develop and demonstrate technologies for carbon sequestration and advanced nuclear power. Such technologies could help revive sagging manufacturing industries in the United States and provide a significant export.¶ It is essential that the United States maintain its technological leadership on the energy front. Developing new advances in clean coal and nuclear systems would provide an energy solution to the global warming problem and it would help ensure that we can maintain a livable environment.

2nc

The u.s government is key

The US government is key to developing CCS (can be retagged to be about tech leadership, HS aff)

Jennie C. Stephens (, InformatAssociate Professor & Blittersdorf Professor of Sustainability Science and Policy at the University of Vermon), Bob Van Der Zwaan (professor of Sustainable Energy Technology at the University of Amsterdam’s Faculty of Science ) Technology and the Research University "The Case for Carbon Capture and Storage," Issues in Science and Technology

In addition to the environmental benefits, more aggressive support of CCS technology is critical to maintaining U.S. leadership and competitiveness in both CCS and global energy-technology markets. The United States has played a leading role in nearly all R&D related to the use of fossil fuels and has always had particular expertise in coal-based power-production technologies. Yet despite the great potential of CCS, the U.S. government is not investing in it aggressively. The current administration emphasizes the importance of advanced technologies, including CCS, in addressing climate change, but is not effectively promoting its demonstration and deployment. U.S. industry is already beginning to lose ground, because the handful of existing large-scale CCS projects are not in the United States.

The private sector has shown substantial interest in CCS and has begun investing in development and demonstration projects. But progress will be slow without government-created incentives. The challenge for the government is to harness the private sector’s interest by developing policies that reward investment in and early deployment of CCS systems.

Modeling/spill over

Experts agree- strong U.S unilateral action against climate change induces international action against climate change

Howard and Sylvan 15

Peter Howard PHD (economics director at Policy Integrity, and a former economic fellow. Much of his work focuses on the social cost of carbon and integrated assessment models ) and. Derek Sylvan (he strategy director at Policy Integrity. He previously worked as a senior consultant with Context America, advising multinational companies on sustainability issue), December 2015, Expert Consensus on the Economics of Climate Change Institute for Policy Integrity New York University School of Law,

We asked our sample whether the United States may be able to strategically induce other countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (or enter into an emissions reduction agreement) by first adopting policies to reduce U.S. emissions. We found that 82% of the experts either “agreed” (37%) or “strongly agreed” (45%) that this may be possible. This finding could be especially relevant to policymakers, as it suggests that more aggressive domestic climate policies could induce international action, potentially overcoming the free-rider problem that some cite as a reason to avoid unilateral emissions reductions.48

Experts in our sample overwhelmingly supported unilateral greenhouse gas reduction commitments by the United States, regardless of the actions other countries have taken. Critics of domestic climate policies often cite the potential for other countries to free-ride on U.S. reductions as a reason not to act.49 But economic experts evidently believe that the benefits of unilateral reductions or the potential for these reductions to spur foreign action outweigh the risks of the free-rider problem.

Ccs is better than other mitigation

A2 CCS is not viable

There are no fundamental barriers to CCS industry has experience with it and it is cheaper than other mitigation options

AIChE 16

AIChE, Bridging the Finance Gap for Carbon Capture and Storage, AIChE, the world's leading organization for chemical engineering professionals, with more than 50,000 members from over 100 countries, January 2016.

Of equal importance, there are no fundamental technological or physical barriers to commercial-scale deployment of CCS. Industry already has decades of operational experience managing each of the individual elements of CO2 capture, transportation, and storage; the main challenge remaining is integrating and scaling up these elements cost-effectively. Numerous models have shown that GHG mitigation would be costlier and more challenging without CCS. According to one model, the most cost-effective way of limiting global mean temperature increase to 2°C (1) would require equipping more than 40 percent of global coal-fired power plants with CCS (7). Another model found that if CCS was removed as a technology option, the capital investment required would increase by 40 percent relative to the baseline case where all technologies are available (11). CCS is projected to be especially important in developing countries, where most of the new fossil fuel-fired power plants will be constructed. In fact, by 2050, developing countries will need to account for 70 percent of the carbon captured by mass to satisfy the 2°C target (11). In a carbon-constrained world, CCS is a crucial option to have available.

Extension ccs solves warming

CCS projects are necessary to drop the average temperature to ensure planetary survival and halt climate change

Cockerill 15[Rob Cockerill, Rob has reported from a number of international industry conferences and events, exclusively interviewed some of the leading figures in the industrial gases business, and now heads up all editorial in his role as Managing Editor. A regular reporter, feature writer and columnist, in his current position Rob is particularly responsible for all magazine content and editorial planning. "CCS holds key to bridging climate gap, affirms Global Status of CCS 2015 report," Gas World. 11/6/15. http://www.gasworld.com/ccs-holds-key-to-bridging-climate-gap/2009529.article] //Reemz

Now in its sixth year, the Global Status of CCS 2015 report notes that the number of operational CCS projects presently stands at 15, with another seven projects in various stages of construction and due to come online in the next 18 months. These 22 projects hold the key to closing the gap between current international climate commitments, and what scientists say is needed in order to meet a global warming target of 2° Celsius, according to the organisation responsible for the report, the Global CCS Institute. The newly launched publication profiles two large-scale CCS projects that became operational in 2015 – the Canadian Quest project and the Uthmaniyah CO2-EOR Demonstration Project in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Uthmaniyah is the first large-scale CCS project in the Middle East. Speaking from the launch of Shell’s landmark Quest project in Alberta, Canada, Brad Page – CEO of the Global CCS Institute – said the substantial gap between international climate commitments and what scientists say is needed means all available technologies must be used. He explained, “If the world is serious about tackling the reality of climate change, we have to make full use of all available technology options – and especially CCS.” “It is vital that we share the knowledge and learnings highlighted by these trail-blazing CCS projects and apply them to projects in operation, projects currently being built, and projects at the earliest stages of assessment. These major projects show CCS is a proven technology that is reducing CO2 emissions by millions of tonnes in different countries around the world.” Page added, “CCS has a vital role to play as part of the overall technology mix required to meet the internationally agreed goal of limiting the impact of global warming to two degrees. Now is the time for decision-makers to make a renewed commitment to this vital low-carbon technology.” By 2017, the 22 CCS projects described in the new report will be able to capture and store 40 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year. This is equivalent to taking eight million cars off the road

Big push needed to solve Warming through CCS

Cooke 14

(Kieran, Kieran Cooke is a reporter for the Climate News Network, U.S. and China Lead the Way on Carbon Capture & Storage,"http://www.climatecentral.org/news/us-china-carbon-capture-storage-17790//ghs-an)

LONDON − For years, the energy companies have been telling us not to worry. Yes, mounting carbon emissions threaten to heat up the world – but technology, particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS), will come to the rescue.¶ China and the U.S signed a raft of agreements on tackling climate change − with half of them focusing on CCS.¶ The trouble is that there’s been plenty of talk about CCS and little action, with few projects being implemented on a large scale.¶ That could be about to change as China and the U.S., who have been leading the way on CCS research in recent years, this month signed a raft of agreements on tackling climate change − with half of them focusing on CCS.¶ The idea behind CCS is to capture at source the carbon emissions from big polluters, such as power utilities and cement plants, and either pipe the CO2 down into deep storage cavities below the Earth’s surface or to recycle the emissions to be used in the production of biofuels.¶ Despite various geopolitical rivalries and disputes over trade, China and the U.S. have shown increasing willingness to co-operate when it comes to climate change issues.¶ Worsening Impacts¶ In February this year, the two countries issued a joint statement that highlighted the urgent need for cutbacks in fossil fuel use “in light of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and its worsening impacts.”¶ The agreements signed in Beijing this month establish collaborative research programs between China’s state energy firms and U.S. universities on a wide range of CCS-related technologies, including CO2 storage techniques and the combining of captured emissions with algae to produce energy.¶ The implementation of CCS projects around the world has been plagued by various technical problems, high costs, arguments between energy companies and governments about who pays for research and development, and by regulatory uncertainties in many countries.¶ Sunset accentuates the pollution from a cement factory in Switzerland.¶ Credit: Stefan Wernli via Wikimedia Commons¶ The Global CCS Institute, an independent, not-for-profit organization based in Australia, promotes the use of CCS technology. It says that, at present, the 21 large-scale CCS projects either in construction or in operation around the world are capable of capturing in total up to 40 million tonnes of CO2 annually – the equivalent of taking eight million cars off the road each year.¶ While the use of CCS is expanding, it’s still not being utilized on anything like the scale needed to result in cutbacks of global greenhouse gas emissions. Most CCS projects are in the U.S., China and Canada, with Europe lagging very much behind.¶ Big Push Needed¶ Brad Page, the head of the Global CCS Institute, says that if we are to meet the generally-agreed target of limiting warming to 2˚C (4˚F) over 1990 levels by mid-century, there has to be a big push into CCS technology.¶ “For this low-carbon technology to reach a scale needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, more countries need to match progress in places like the U.S., Canada and China, which are bringing CCS projects online at a robust pace,” he says.¶ Page adds that CCS must be supported by clear government policies − particularly in Europe, where more flexible funding and policy arrangements are urgently needed.¶ Earlier this month, the International Energy Agency (IEA) called for the implementation of more CCS projects. The IEA said such projects are particularly important at a time when the use of coal – the most polluting of fuels − is increasing rapidly worldwide.

Transition to renewables fails now, CCS key to bridge the gap and solve for pollution in short term

Grantham Institute 5/24[Grantham Institute, a research centre at the LSE which brings together international expertise on climate change and the environment, “5 things you need to know about… unburnable carbon,” May 24, 2016. https://granthaminstitute.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-unburnable-carbon/] //Reemz

The International Energy Agency (IEA), the IPCC and the World Bank all agree: carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is key to reducing the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change whilst minimising the impact on world economies. The Sustainable Gas Institute’s recent white paper, Can technology unlock unburnable carbon?, goes one step further by showing how CCS can give us access to the energy locked up in fossil fuels without jeopardising the future of the planet. Here are 5 things you need to know about unlocking unburnable carbon: 1. What is ‘unburnable carbon’? This refers to the remaining fossil fuels that would cause global warming above 2°C if they were extracted and burnt for industry or power. In order to stand a reasonable chance of keeping the temperature warming below this level, scientists estimate we can emit an additional 1,000 Gt of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which would last roughly 30 years at current rates. Unburnable carbon is also known as ‘stranded assets’ or fossil fuel reserves that are known and commercially (or economically) extractable but would surpass the carbon budget if consumed. 2. Why is it critical to unlock more carbon? Global energy demand is skyrocketing as nations around the world build more fossil fuel power plants and populations in many developing countries grow at unprecedented rates. While energy demand has been declining in the European Union – the UK and Portugal achieved their first coal-free periods during the last week – it continues to increase year by year in the rest of the world in parallel with a growing appetite for fossil fuels. Consumption of coal in India increased by 11.1% in 2014 for example – the highest increase on record. Whilst a transition to renewable energy sources is the only viable long-term solution to meeting global energy needs, fossil fuels are likely to remain a substantial part of the energy mix until the end of the century. Hence, it is critical to reduce the amount of fossil fuel reserves that would otherwise be stranded by limiting global carbon emissions associated with fossil fuel usage. 3. CCS can make 37% of unburnable carbon burnable by 2050. CCS is widely considered to be one of the key ‘direct approach’ technologies to unlocking unburnable carbon. Other solutions include improving the energy efficiency of power plants and switching from coal power generation to gas (with the latter resulting in 50% less emissions). CCS involves capturing CO2 from power plants and industrial plants, then purifying and compressing the gas for transportation to a storage site (view infographic). Applying CCS to fossil fuel powered plants would allow them to generate energy whilst locking away 85-90% of the CO2 produced, thereby reducing the amount of unburnable carbon by approximately 400 GtCO2.

Only CCS tech solves- alt renewables fail

Biello 14

(David, David Biello is an associate editor at Scientific American, where he covers energy and the environment, “Can Carbon Capture Technology

Be Part of the Climate Solution?”, http://e360.yale.edu/feature/can_carbon_capture_technology_be_part_of_the_climate_solution/2800//ghs-an)

For more than 40 years, companies have been drilling for carbon dioxide in southwestern Colorado. Time and geology had conspired to trap an enormous bubble of CO2 that drillers tapped, and a pipeline was built to carry the greenhouse gas all the way to the oil fields of west Texas. When scoured with the CO2, these aged wells gush forth more oil, and much of the CO2 stays permanently trapped in its new home underneath Texas. ¶ More recently, drillers have tapped the Jackson Dome, nearly three miles beneath Jackson, Mississippi, to get at a trapped pocket of CO2 for similar Kemper County power plant near Meridian, Mississippi¶ Gary Tramontina/Bloomberg/Getty Images¶ This power plant being built in Kemper County, Mississippi, would be the first in the U.S. to capture its own carbon emissions.¶ use. It's called enhanced oil recovery. And now there's a new source of CO2 coming online in Mississippi — a power plant that burns gasified coal in Kemper County, due to be churning out electricity and captured CO2 by 2015 and sending it via a 60-mile pipeline to oil fields in the southern part of the state. ¶ The Mississippi project uses emissions from burning a fossil fuel to help bring more fossil fuels out of the ground — a less than ideal solution to the problem of climate change. But enhanced oil recovery may prove an important step in making more widely available a technology that could be critical for combating climate change — CO2 capture and storage, or CCS. ¶ As the use of coal continues to grow globally — coal consumption is expected to double from 2000 to 2020 largely due to demand in China and India — some scientists believe the widespread adoption of CCS technology could be key to any hope of limiting global average temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, the threshold for avoiding major climate disruption. After all, coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel. ¶ “Fossil fuels aren’t disappearing anytime soon,” says John Thompson, director of the Fossil Fuel Transition Project for the non-profit Clean Air Task Force. “If we’re serious about preventing global warming, we’re going to have to find a way to use those fuels without the carbon going into the atmosphere. It seems inconceivable that we can do that without a significant amount of carbon capture and storage. The question is how do we deploy it in time and in a way that’s cost-effective across many nations?” ¶ The biggest challenge is one of scale, as the potential demand from aging oil fields for CO2 produced from coal-fired power plants is enormous. “Why spend so much time and energy coming up with solutions that are not really solutions?” says one critic. Thompson estimates that enhanced oil recovery could ultimately consume 33 billion metric tons of CO2 in total, or the equivalent of all the CO2 pollution from all U.S. power plants for several decades. Thompson and other analysts view such large-scale enhanced oil recovery as an important phase in the deployment of CCS technology while replacements for fossil fuels are developed. ¶ "In the short term, in order to develop the technology, we probably will enable more use of hydrocarbons, which makes environmentally conscious people uncomfortable,” says Chris Jones, a chemical engineer working on CO2 capture at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “But it’s a necessary thing we have to do to get the technology out there and learn how to make it more efficient." ¶ At the same time, CO2 capture and storage is not as simple as locking away carbon deep underground. As Jones notes, the process will perpetuate fossil fuel use and may prove a wash as far as keeping global warming pollution out of the atmosphere. Then there are the risks of human-caused earthquakes as a result of pumping high-pressure liquids underground or accidental releases as all that CO2 finds its way back to the atmosphere. ¶ "Any solution that doesn't take carbon from the air is, in principle, not sustainable," says physicist Peter Eisenberger of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, who is working on methods to pull CO2 out of the sky rather than smokestacks. He notes that merely avoiding CO2 pollution is not enough and will create political powerhouses—heirs to the energy companies of today—that will entrench such unsustainable technologies "Why spend so much time and energy and ingenuity coming up with solutions that are not really solutions?” he adds. ¶ But the expansion of enhanced oil recovery remains the main front in an intensifying effort to more broadly adopt CCS technology and reduce its price, which is currently the major impediment to its deployment. The need for CO2 storage goes beyond China and the U.S., the world's two largest polluters. Worldwide, more than 35 billion metric tons of CO2 are being dumped into the atmosphere annually, almost all from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas. To restrain global warming to the 2 degree C target, more than 100 CCS projects eliminating 270 million metric tons of CO2 pollution annually would have to be built by 2020, according to the International Energy Agency. But only 60 are currently planned or proposed and just 21 of those are actually built or in operation. ¶ Those include the Kemper facility and other coal-fired power plants, but also a CCS project under construction at an ethanol refinery in Illinois. A group led by Royal Dutch Shell is building technology to capture the CO2 The IPCC has suggested that CCS at power plants could prove a critical part of efforts to restrain global warming. pollution from tar sands operations in Alberta, Canada, and in Saskatchewan, a $1.2 billion project to retrofit a large coal-fired power plant with CCS technology is expected to open later this year. And there are 34 proposed or operating CCS projects outside of North America, the majority in Asia and Australia. But European countries like Germany have rolled back plans to adopt CCS because of public opposition, dropping the number of European projects from 14 planned in 2011 to just five as of 2014, according to the Global CCS Institute. ¶ That might conflict with the European Union's avowed intention to help combat climate change. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested earlier this year that carbon capture and storage at power plants could prove a critical part of any serious effort to restrain global warming. "We depend on removing large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere in order to bring concentrations well below 450 [parts-per-million] in 2100," said Ottmar Edenhofer, an economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and co-chair of the IPCC's third working group, which was tasked with figuring out ways to mitigate climate change. Ultimately, he said, keeping a global temperature rise to 2 degrees without any CCS would require phasing out fossil fuels entirely within “the next few decades.” ¶ Yet, from 2007 to 2013, global coal consumption increased from 6.4 billion to 7.4 billion metric tons, and coal use continues to rise. Although renewable energy sources like solar and wind are growing rapidly, they are doing so from a very small base and many energy analysts argue that it will be decades before they can supplant fossil fuels. The time and expense of building nuclear power plants — and public opposition — has also hampered that low-carbon technology's ability to replace coal burning. And biofuels or electric cars remain a long way from supplanting oil for transportation. ¶

A2 leaks

Leaks are unlikely- leaks of natural co2 pockets are not applicable

European Commission the executive of the European Union and promotes its general interest. 3-27-2012, "CO2 leakage- how important is it?," The Global CCS institute,

– just As a geologist I can be convinced of the safety of storage in a well researched and operated site. I can also accept that the CO2 will stay in the ground for a very long time and, hopefully, forever. There are many naturally occurring CO2 deposits around the world as there are natural gas ones – that have been there for thousands and even millions of years. Opponents, of course will point to a number of natural seepages of CO2 that have damaged the local environment in some way and the very small number of larger scale fatal emissions, such as the one resulting from the natural degassing of the waters of Lake Nyos in Cameroon. We can explain that these releases occur or occurred in regions or locations that we would not consider for storage as they are not in geological settings which can safely contain CO2 adequately. But despite having a track record which demonstrates that we can image what is happening hundreds of metres below the surface already it can start to sound a bit too 'black box' for many non-specialists.

The only way we will be able to convince a large number of people is to actually demonstrate it. This not only requires the technology to get the CO2 underground, but to show it is staying there by having monitoring and measuring systems capable of measuring very small leakages.

Leaks are highly unlikely and if they happened they would be slow

Department of industry resouces and energy, the lead economic development agency in New South Wales,"Carbon capture and storage FAQ, Department of Industry

A strong body of research developed over many decades, backed by years of industry experience, has shown that carbon dioxide can be stored safely and securely deep underground. For well-selected, designed and managed geological storage sites, experts estimate that 99% or more of the injected CO2 will be retained for 1000 years. Leakage of CO2 from a well-chosen storage site is highly unlikely. The CO2 is sealed in the underground reservoir by the rock structure. These sealing rocks have held gas securely in such reservoirs for millions of years. Once injection activities are complete, the well used to inject the CO2 is also sealed with concrete to prevent leakage. However, if leakage did commence it would be a very slow process. CO2 migrating upwards through the ground would become trapped in porous rock layers beneath one or many impermeable layers of rock, rather than reach the Earth's surface. Critics argue that CO2 storage is unproven. Carbon capture and storage is not a new or untested technology. The reality is that each year, tens of millions of tonnes of CO2 are transported and injected into deep rocks as part of petroleum, natural gas, fertiliser and synthetic gas production operations. So a great deal is known about the behaviour of CO2 in pipelines and in rocks. We also know how to monitor stored CO2 to ensure it does not leak and pose danger. CCS has been in use for over 40 years in the oil and gas industries as a way to enhance oil and gas recovery. Permanent storage of carbon dioxide has been used in Sleipner, Norway since 1996; in Weyburn, Canada since 2000 and In Salah, Algeria since 2004 – all without incident. In Victoria, the CO2 CRC's highly successful Otway Project has demonstrated the safe and secure geological storage of tens of thousands of tonnes of CO2 under Australian conditions. What are the costs – is CCS viable in NSW? Whilst Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) applications have been used in the oil and gas industry for many decades, the technology is currently not commercially viable in the electricity generation sector. The technology is, however, currently being demonstrated around the world with the aim of gaining knowledge and the lowering of costs. As with the introduction of any new technology, costs will fall as more plants are built. The relative costs of CCS will in part depend on the storage reservoir and its ability to contain an amount of carbon dioxide. Transport costs are related to distance and pipeline capacity, while storage costs are associated to the geological characteristics of sites. However, for the electricity industry, it is likely that the capture component of CCS will be the most costly part of the process. This cost will fall as innovation delivers costs savings and demand increases for more plants. Current cost estimates have coal-fired power stations with CCS construction and operation costs below most forms of renewable energy. Because the storage reservoirs in NSW are relatively unexplored, it is a priority for NSW to identify potential storage sites for greenhouse gases. The NSW Department of Industry's Division of Resources and Energy is coordinating the NSW CO2 Storage Assessment Program aimed at identifying deep geological sites throughout NSW that may be suitable for the safe and secure storage of carbon dioxide. How do we know that the stored gases won't leak? The Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that where underground storage sites are appropriately selected and managed, it is likely that 99% or more of the carbon dioxide (CO2) gas will be retained for 1000 years. Stored gas will eventually react with the rocks and saline aquifers in the storage area to form carbonates. This results in their permanent storage underground. These findings are based on scientific understanding of gas storage from petroleum geology and from modelling of existing CO2 injection sites.

There is an extremely low risk of gradual or slow greenhouse gas leakage from underground storage.

Less than 1% of stored gas may leak, and then only as far as the next strata of rock above the storage reservoir. This is still deep underground, not at the surface or into the atmosphere.

The risk of leakage can be minimised through the identification of appropriate sites, by careful site assessment and appropriate risk analysis.

New monitoring inovations solves

Kyushu University 16

Kyushu University, Breakthrough in continuous monitoring of CO2 leaks from storage sites," January 22, 2016 ,phys.org

Carbon capture and storage projects rely on effective monitoring of injected CO2. However, the high number of necessary surveys makes this a costly endeavor. A team of Japanese researchers may have found a means of achieving easier and lower-cost monitoring for leaks of CO2 stored in underground reservoirs.A recently published article from a team led by researchers at Kyushu University's International Institute for Carbon-Neutral Energy Research (I2CNER) shows how underground CO2 storage sites could be continuously monitored for leaks—a breakthrough for monitoring applications.

Underground storage of CO2 produced from fossil fuel burning, rather than releasing it into the atmosphere, could play an important role in suppressing climate change. However, to safeguard those living at the surface and regulate the climate, ensuring that the CO2 does not leak from the storage site is key.

Current monitoring methods are costly and only carried out periodically, but by using techniques more often used to study earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the team used analysis of seismic waves to show it is possible to detect movement of subterranean fluids and to identify leaks before they reach the surface.

"One of the main issues" lead author Tatsunori Ikeda says, "was that we had to be sure we could distinguish between seismic wave signals from a CO2 leak and noise from other near-surface disturbances."

Drawing on previous work across multiple disciplines, the method was developed and rigorously analyzed using computer simulations, before being field-tested near a busy road in central Japan's Tokai region. "We used an ACROSS unit and a series of geophones to test the method," coauthor Takeshi Tsuji says. Given the success of the experiment, "a real opportunity for application of this work is that microseismic monitoring arrays typically installed at storage sites could provide the data needed to identify any leakages and decrease the need for more costly 4D seismic studies that are the industry norm."

Additional testing to refine the method and further improve its accuracy is one branch of work being carried out as part of I2CNER's interdisciplinary efforts to advance the development of carbon capture and storage and boost efforts for achieving a carbon-neutral society.

Choosing good storage sites reduces the risk of leaks

Jennie C. Stephens (, InformatAssociate Professor & Blittersdorf Professor of Sustainability Science and Policy at the University of Vermon), Bob Van Der Zwaan (professor of Sustainable Energy Technology at the University of Amsterdam’s Faculty of Science ) Technology and the Research University "The Case for Carbon Capture and Storage," Issues in Science and Technology

To reduce the risks associated with CO2 leaks, it is possible to choose “smart storage” sites first. Aquifers and depleted oil and gas fields under the North Sea, for example, provide a relatively safe opportunity for initial large-scale deployment. Risks associated with leakage from geologic reservoirs beneath the ocean floor are less than risks of leakage from reservoirs under land, because if the containment falters, the dissipating CO2 would diffuse into the ocean rather than reentering the atmosphere.

Black outs NB ( not great)

Renewables cause Blackouts

Brewer 14

(Reuben, Reuben Gregg Brewer spent 15 years at world renowned Value Line, the publisher of The Value Line Investment Survey, before joining The Motley Fool Blog Community, "How Renewable Energy Could Leave You Mired in Blackouts," Motley Fool, http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/10/19/renewable-energy-could-leave-you-mired-in-blackout.aspx//ghs-an)

There are plenty of things to like about renewable power sources like solar and wind. However, these sources, on a large scale, are relatively new to the U.S. electric grid. That has major implications that utilities may not be ready to deal with. And that risks leaving you without power and, thus, in the dark.¶ Zig zag¶ You likely know all about the benefits of solar and wind. The biggest ones being no emissions from burning fossil fuels and minimal costs once they are installed since they are powered by nature. These are huge benefits that can't be, and shouldn't be, dismissed. It makes sense to include such clean-power options in the mix.¶ However, if you get so caught up in the upside of renewable power you might lose sight of the downside. And there are some pretty notable negatives that have big implications for a U.S. power system that hasn't been designed to handle intermittent power.¶ That, in fact, is one of the biggest problems. The sun and the wind can't be controlled. There's no way to tell just how much power you'll get on any given day or at any given moment. This fact has utilities more than a little concerned, since their job is basically to ensure your lights stay on no matter what.¶ Images¶ SOURCE: U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION¶ Just how big an issue is this? Earlier in the year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration put out a graph showing the swings in wind power supply in Texas. The chart, shown above, is full of peaks and valleys. The spike up can mean the grid has to absorb four times as much power from wind as it does during the lulls.¶ And solar is no better -- and perhaps even worse. Sempra Energy's (NYSE:SRE) San Diego Gas & Electric (roughly 40% of the company's earnings last year), has a rooftop solar penetration rate of around 6% that it expects to double over the next two years or so. Tom Bialek, chief engineer at the San Diego utility, however, points out a problem: "Customers are changing how we view the world just because they are making choices."¶ Why is this such a big deal? Because customers don't need Sempra's consent to make changes, which means that Sempra doesn't know how much new solar to expect. And that's on top of the fact that you can't predict how much the sun will shine on any given day. Utility customers aren't likely to start installing wind farms, so this is an issue unique to solar.¶ In fact, Hawaiian Electric Industries (NYSE:HE) is dealing with a big solar problem right now, as so much solar has been installed, a good portion of which it didn't know about, that peak production times are putting it at risk of overloading circuits. The island state has 20 times the average rooftop solar penetration as the mainland. Every utility could be heading toward this dilemma.¶ SOURCE: REUBENGBREWER, VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS¶ Old reliable¶ This is why utilities like controllable power sources like natural gas, coal, and nuclear. There's no question how much power you'll get -- you run the plant at the level you need. But, that's a legacy issue, too, in a world with increasing intermittent, renewable penetration.¶ Most base-load plants are designed to be run constantly. This not only allows for peak efficiency, but means that they weren't designed to be turned on and off. If Texas sees a huge wind power spike it has to pull back on power somewhere. Increasingly that's likely to come from the power plants it can control. ¶ Dealing with the complex dance between controllable and intermittent power has been tricky for utilities. Some have simply put up roadblocks to slow the adoption of renewable power, such as Hawaiian Electric, which now requires homeowners to get approval before hooking to the grid. Others, like Edison International (NYSE:EIX), have worked to refocus their businesses around the distribution of power, minimizing the generation aspect. In fact, connecting often remote renewable power sources will require a large amount of new transmission investment and that's actually a big industry opportunity. Overall, however, utilities increasingly have little choice but to upgrade their systems, which is what Sempra's San Diego Gas & Electric has been doing. But upgrading is a costly and time intensive task and Hawaiian Electric's experience shows that time may not be on the industry's side. ¶ We take reliable electricity for granted in the United States. The impact of not having power, however, has been on display several times in recent years after natural disasters caused widespread blackouts. Moving too quickly down the renewable road without ensuring a system built for a different time can handle it could cause even more damage. This isn't a suggestion that renewable power is bad or that it shouldn't be an increasing part of the U.S. power system. But it is a word of caution that too much of a good thing could leave you sitting in a blackout.

Leads to nuclear meltdowns

Hodges 14 {Dave Hodges Head Editor of the Common Sense Show a wide variety of important topics that range from the loss of constitutional liberties, to the subsequent implementation of a police state under world governance, to exploring the limits of human potential. The primary purpose is to provide Americans with the tools necessary to reclaim both our individual sovereignty http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/04/18/nuclear-power-plants-will-become-americas-extinction-level-event/]

Long before Fukushima, American regulators knew that a power failure lasting for days involving the power grid connected to a nuclear plant, regardless of the cause, would most likely lead to a dangerous radioactive leak in at least several nuclear power plants. A complete loss of electrical power poses a major problem for nuclear power plants because the reactor core must be kept cool as well as the back-up cooling systems, all of which require massive amounts of power to work. Heretofore, all the NERC drills which test the readiness of a nuclear power plant are predicated on the notion that a blackout will only last 24 hours or less. Amazingly, this is the sum total of a NERC litmus test.   Although we have the technology needed to harden and protect our grid from an EMP event, whether natural or man-made, we have failed to do so. The cost for protecting the entire grid is placed at about the cost for one B-1 Stealth Bomber. Yet, as a nation, we have done nothing. This is inexplicable and inexcusable. Our collective inaction against protecting the grid prompted Congressman Franks to write a scathing letter to the top officials of NERC. However, the good Congressman failed to mention the most important aspect of this problem. The problem is entirely fixable and NERC and the US government are leaving the American people and its infrastructure totally unprotected from a total meltdown of nuclear power plants as a result of a prolonged power failure. According to Judy Haar, a recognized expert in nuclear plant failure analyses, when a nuclear power plant loses access to off-grid electricity, the event is referred to as a “station blackout”. Haar states that all 104 US nuclear power plants are built to withstand electrical outages without experiencing any core damage, through the activation of an automatic start up of emergency generators powered by diesel. Further, when emergency power kicks in, an automatic shutdown of the nuclear power plant commences. The dangerous control rods are dropped into the core, while water is pumped by the diesel power generators into the reactor to reduce the heat and thus, prevent a meltdown. Here is the catch in this process, the spent fuel rods are encased in both a primary and secondary containment structure which is designed to withstand a core meltdown. However, should the pumps stop because either the generators fail or diesel fuel is not available, the fuel rods are subsequently uncovered and a Fukushima type of core meltdown commences immediately. At this point, I took Judy Haar’s comments to a source of mine at the Palo Verde Nuclear power plant. My source informed me that as per NERC policy, nuclear power plants are required to have enough diesel fuel to run for a period of seven days. Some plants have thirty days of diesel. This is the good news, but it is all downhill from here. A long-term loss of outside electrical power will most certainly interrupt the circulation of cooling water to the pools. Another one of my Palo Verde nuclear power plant sources informed me that there is no long term solution to a power blackout and that all bets are off if the blackout is due to an EMP attack. A more detailed analysis reveals that the spent fuel pools carry depleted fuel for the reactor. Normally, this spent fuel has had time to considerably decay and therefore, reducing radioactivity and heat. However, the newer discharged fuel still produces heat and needs cooling. Housed in high density storage racks, contained in buildings that vent directly into the atmosphere, radiation containment is not accounted for with regard to the spent fuel racks. In other words, there is no capture mechanism. In this scenario, accompanied by a lengthy electrical outage, and with the emergency power waning due to either generator failure or a lack of diesel needed to power the generators, the plant could lose the ability to provide cooling. The water will subsequently heat up, boil away and uncover the spent fuel rods which required being covered in at least 25 feet of water to remain benign from any deleterious effects. Ultimately, this would lead to fires as well and the release of radioactivity into the atmosphere. This would be the beginning of another Fukushima event right here on American soil. Both my source and Haar shared exactly the same scenario about how a meltdown would occur. Subsequently, I spoke with Roger Landry who worked for Raytheon in various Department of Defense projects for 28 years, many of them in this arena and Roger also confirmed this information and that the above information is well known in the industry.

That causes extinction

Lendman 11 (Stephen, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization,

03/ 13, “Nuclear Meltdown in Japan,”, The People’s Voice http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/03/13/nuclear-meltdown-in-japan, accessed 8-2-12, RSR)

Reuters said the 1995 Kobe quake caused $100 billion in damage, up to then the most costly ever natural disaster. This time, from quake and tsunami damage alone, that figure will be dwarfed. Moreover, under a worst case core meltdown, all bets are off as the entire region and beyond will be threatened with permanent contamination, making the most affected areas unsafe to live in. On March 12, Stratfor Global Intelligence issued a "Red Alert: Nuclear Meltdown at Quake-Damaged Japanese Plant," saying: Fukushima Daiichi "nuclear power plant in Okuma, Japan, appears to have caused a reactor meltdown." Stratfor downplayed its seriousness, adding that such an event "does not necessarily mean a nuclear disaster," that already may have happened - the ultimate nightmare short of nuclear winter. According to Stratfor, "(A)s long as the reactor core, which is specifically designed to contain high levels of heat, pressure and radiation, remains intact, the melted fuel can be dealt with. If the (core's) breached but the containment facility built around (it) remains intact, the melted fuel can be....entombed within specialized concrete" as at Chernobyl in 1986. In fact, that disaster killed nearly one million people worldwide from nuclear radiation exposure. In their book titled, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," Alexey Yablokov, Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko said: "For the past 23 years, it has been clear that there is a danger greater than nuclear weapons concealed within nuclear power. Emissions from this one reactor exceeded a hundred-fold the radioactive contamination of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." "No citizen of any country can be assured that he or she can be protected from radioactive contamination. One nuclear reactor can pollute half the globe. Chernobyl fallout covers the entire Northern Hemisphere." Stratfor explained that if Fukushima's floor cracked, "it is highly likely that the melting fuel will burn through (its) containment system and enter the ground. This has never happened before," at least not reported. If now occurring, "containment goes from being merely dangerous, time consuming and expensive to nearly impossible," making the quake, aftershocks, and tsunamis seem mild by comparison. Potentially, millions of lives will be jeopardized. Japanese officials said Fukushima's reactor container wasn't breached. Stratfor and others said it was, making the potential calamity far worse than reported. Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said the explosion at Fukushima's Saiichi No. 1 facility could only have been caused by a core meltdown. In fact, 3 or more reactors are affected or at risk. Events are fluid and developing, but remain very serious. The possibility of an extreme catastrophe can't be discounted. Moreover, independent nuclear safety analyst John Large told Al Jazeera that by venting radioactive steam from the inner reactor to the outer dome, a reaction may have occurred, causing the explosion. "When I look at the size of the explosion," he said, "it is my opinion that there could be a very large leak (because) fuel continues to generate heat." Already, Fukushima way exceeds Three Mile Island that experienced a partial core meltdown in Unit 2. Finally it was brought under control, but coverup and denial concealed full details until much later. According to anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman, Japan's quake fallout may cause nuclear disaster, saying: "This is a very serious situation. If the cooling system fails (apparently it has at two or more plants), the super-heated radioactive fuel rods will melt, and (if so) you could conceivably have an explosion," that, in fact, occurred. As a result, massive radiation releases may follow, impacting the entire region. "It could be, literally, an apocalyptic event.

Solves air pollution

CCS solves Air pollution

EEA 2011

(Europe Environment Agency, “Air pollution impacts from¶ carbon capture and storage (CCS)”, http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/carbon-capture-and-storage//ghs-an)

The objective of this case study was to quantify¶ and highlight the range of GHG and air pollutant¶ life-cycle emissions that could occur by 2050 under¶ a low-carbon pathway should CCS be implemented¶ in power plants across the European Union under¶ various hypothetical scenarios. A particular focus¶ of the study was to quantify the main life-cycle¶ emissions of the air pollutants taking into account¶ the latest knowledge outlined in Part A on air¶ pollutant emission factors and life-cycle aspects of¶ the CCS chain. The deployment of CCS in industrial¶ applications has not been considered.¶ Two earlier studies undertaken for the European¶ Commission have to some extent also looked into¶ the impacts that CCS implementation in Europe¶ may have on emissions of air pollutants. The¶ impact assessment (European Commission, 2008)¶ that accompanied the EU CCS Directive (European¶ Union, 2009) included various scenarios that looked¶ at the potential impacts arising from different¶ possible types and scales of CCS implementations¶ in Europe. The impact assessment presented a short¶ analysis of the pollution impacts to 2030 arising¶ from the different CCS scenarios. The modelling¶ approach used for that assessment found that¶ reducing CO2¶ by implementing CCS had an overall¶ positive effect in terms of reducing the aggregated¶ air pollution control costs.¶ The European Commission's communication¶ 'A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon¶ economy in 2050' (European Commission, 2011a)¶ lays out a plan for the European Union to meet a¶ long-term target of reducing domestic emissions¶ by 80–95 % by 2050. Within the 2050 Roadmap, the¶ implementation of CCS technologies in both the¶ power and industry sectors is foreseen. Overall,¶ the reductions in GHG emissions under different¶ decarbonisation scenarios were found to also lead¶ to positive impacts for air pollution in the Roadmap¶ scenario. At the time the case study described in¶ this report was performed, the detailed underlying¶ data from the 2050 Roadmap were not yet available,¶ and thus it was not possible to perform a detailed¶ comparison of the results from this study with those¶ from the 2050 Roadmap. Aggregated results from¶ the 2050 Roadmap indicate that, for the energy¶ scenarios evaluated, reducing GHG emissions in¶ 2050 will further reduce emissions of PM2.5, SO2¶ and¶ NOX in the EU compared to a reference case. Under¶ the Roadmap's 'effective technologies' scenario, air¶ pollution from these substances is foreseen to reduce¶ some 29% in 2050 compared to a reference scenario.¶ No data concerning NH3¶ emissions (which might be¶ expected to increase) is provided.