Page - 64 - in Water, Energy, and Environment - A Primer

• Captured CO2must be liquified and stored for indefinite periods of time in such a way as to avoid leakage and sudden large releases (‘burps’) that can be toxic. This requires identification and development of storage sites (depleted oil and gas wells, coal mines, underground aquifers) and infrastructure to transport liquidCO2,which adds additional costs and raises questions of liability if something goes wrong and stored CO2 is accidentally released. • The time required for development, demonstration and large-scale deployment of CCS technology that can have a meaningful impact on global warming is too long comparedwith other options. Proponents of CCS (see http://www.globalccsinstitute.com) argue that CCS costs can be brought down significantly with a sufficient number of demonstration projects and the economies of scale associated with large-scale deployment. Nevertheless, at the 2013 Doha Clean Energy Forum even one of its supporters admitted that to make an impact a global CCS system will cost an estimated $3.6 trillion. One immediate reaction at themeetingwas that for $3.6 trillionwe can deliver an awful lot of non-CO2 emitting renewable energy that will replace coal, oil, and natural gas used in power generation and transportation. Nevertheless, there is the argument that the CO2 emissions from some industries will still be there in large and growing amounts even with large-scale deployment of renewables and CCS may be the only way to limit these emissions. These are strong arguments for some attention to CCSR&D and demonstration. Nevertheless, CCS demonstrations are expensive, and the money for themwould have to come from somewhere. Government funding is at best problematic in current budget situations. Other funding possibilities are the fossil fuel industries themselves. Countries with large reserves Water,Energy, andEnvironment–APrimer64