Large CO2 Sinks: Their role in the mitigation of greenhouse gases from an international, national (Canadian) and provincial (Alberta) perspective

Significant reduction of CO2 emissions on a global scale may be achieved by reduction of energy intensity, by reduction of carbon intensity or by capture and storage of CO2. A portfolio of these methods is required to achieve the large reductions required; of which utilization of carbon sinks (i.e. material, geosphere and biosphere) will be an important player. Material sinks will probably only play a minor role as compared to biosphere and geosphere sinks in storage of CO2. Biosphere sinks are attractive because they can sequester CO2 from a diffuse source whereas geosphere sinks require a pure waste stream of CO2 (obtained by using expensive separation methods). On the other hand, environmental factors and storage time favor geosphere sinks. It is expected that a combination of the two will be used in order to meet emission reduction targets over the next 100 yr. A critical look is taken at capacities, retention/residence times, rates of uptake and relative cost of utilization of biosphere and geosphere sinks at three scales - global, national (Canada) and provincial (Alberta). Biosphere sinks considered are oceans, forests and soils. Geosphere sinks considered are enhanced oil recovery, coal beds, depleted oil and gas reservoirs and deep aquifers. The largest sinks are oceans and deep aquifers. The other biosphere and geosphere sinks have total capacities approximately of an order of lower magnitude. The sinks that will probably be used first are those that are economically viable such as enhanced oil-recovery, agriculture, forestry and possibly enhanced coalbed methane-recovery. The other sinks will be used when these options have been exhausted or are not available or a penalty (e.g. carbon tax) exists. Although the data tabulated for these sinks is only regarded as preliminary, it provides a starting point for assessment of the role of large sinks in meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

[1]  Stefan Bachu,et al.  Aquifer disposal of CO2: Hydrodynamic and mineral trapping , 1994 .

[2]  Guntis Moritis,et al.  New technology, improved economics boost EOR hopes , 1996 .

[3]  Chris Hendriks,et al.  Carbon Dioxide Removal from Coal-Fired Power Plants , 1994 .

[4]  S. H. Stevens,et al.  Vast resource potential exists in many countries , 1992 .

[5]  W. Kurz,et al.  ASSESSING THE ROLE OF CANADIAN FORESTS AND FOREST SECTOR ACTIVITIES IN THE GLOBAL CARBON BALANCE , 1991 .

[6]  W. Kurz,et al.  Past and Possible Future Carbon Dynamics of Canada’s Boreal Forest Ecosystems , 1998 .

[7]  Wim Turkenburg,et al.  Sustainable development, climate change, and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) , 1997 .

[8]  Mark Rounsevell,et al.  Climate Change 1995: impacts, adaptations and mitigation of climate change: scientific-technical analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 1996 .

[9]  Stefan Bachu,et al.  Technical and economic feasibility of CO2 disposal in aquifers within the Alberta sedimentary basin, Canada , 1996 .

[10]  W. Gunter,et al.  Deep coalbed methane in Alberta, Canada: A fuel resource with the potential of zero greenhouse gas emissions , 1997 .

[11]  W. D. Barnhart,et al.  Weyburn CO2 Miscible Flood Conceptual Design and Risk Assessment , 1999 .

[12]  B. Hitchon,et al.  Aquifer disposal of carbon dioxide : hydrodynamic and mineral trapping : proof of concept , 1996 .

[13]  E. Croiset,et al.  Coal combustion with flue gas recirculation for CO2 recovery , 1999 .

[14]  William D. Gunter,et al.  Sedimentary basins and greenhouse gases: a serendipitous association , 1999 .

[15]  Ragnhild Korbol,et al.  Sleipner Vest CO2 Disposal, CO2 Injection Into A Shallow Underground Aquifer , 1996 .