PDF Publication Title:
Text from PDF Page: 269
Chapter 5: Underground geological storage 257 Paper by the European Commission outlines the general approach to environmental liability (EU, 2000), literature specifically addressing liability regimes for CO2 storage is sparse. De Figueiredo et al. (2005) propose a framework to examine the implications of different types of liability on the viability of geological CO2 storage and stress that the way in which liability is addressed may have a significant impact on costs and on public perception of CO2 geological storage. Moreover, there was no evidence that those who expressed familiarity were any more likely to correctly identify that the problem being addressed was global warming rather than water pollution or toxic waste. The authors also showed that there was a lack of knowledge of other power generation technologies (e.g., nuclear power, renewables) in terms of their environmental impacts and costs. Eurobarometer (2003) made similar findings across the European Union. The preference of the sample for different methods to address global warming (do nothing, expand nuclear power, continue to use fossil fuels with CO2 capture and storage, expand renewables, etc.) was quite sensitive to information provided on relative costs and environmental characteristics. A number of novel issues arise with CO2 geological storage. In addition to long-term in-situ risk liability, which may become a public liability after project decommissioning, global risks associated with leakage of CO2 to the atmosphere may need to be considered. Current injection practices do not require any long-term monitoring or verification regime. The cost of monitoring and verification regimes and risk of leakage will be important in managing liability. Itaoka et al. (2005) conducted a survey of approximately a thousand people in Japan. They found much higher claimed levels of awareness of CO2 capture and storage (31%) and general support for this mitigation strategy as part of a broader national climate change policy, but generally negative views on specific implementation of CO2 capture and storage. Ocean storage was viewed most negatively, while offshore geological storage was perceived as the least negative. Part of the sample was provided with more information about CO2 capture and storage, but this did not appear to make a large difference in the response. Factor analysis was conducted and revealed that four factors were important in influencing public opinion, namely perceptions of the environmental impacts and risks (e.g., leakage), responsibility for reducing CO2 emissions, the effectiveness of CO2 capture and storage as a mitigation option and the extent to which it permits the continued use of fossil fuels. There are also considerations about the longevity of institutions and transferability of institutional knowledge. If long-term liability for CO2 geological storage is transformed into a public liability, can ongoing monitoring and verification be assured and who will pay for these actions? How will information on storage locations be tracked and disseminated to other parties interested in using the subsurface? What are the time frames for storage? Is it realistic (or necessary) to put monitoring or information systems in place for hundreds of years? Any discussion of long-term CO2 geological storage also involves intergenerational liability and thus justification of such activities involves an ethical dimension. Some aspects of storage security, such as leakage up abandoned wells, may be realized only over a long time frame, thus posing a risk to future generations. Assumptions on cost, discounting and the rate of technological progress can all lead to dramatically different interpretations of liability and its importance and need to be closely examined. Shackley et al. (2004) conducted 212 face-to-face interviews at a UK airport regarding offshore geological storage. They found the sample was in general moderately supportive of the concept of CO2 capture and storage as a contribution to a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions in the UK by 2050 (the government’s policy target). Provision of basic information on the technology increased the support that was given to it, though just under half of the sample were still undecided or expressed negative views. When compared with other mitigation options, support for CO2 capture and storage increased slightly, though other options (such as renewable energy and energy efficiency) were strongly preferred. On the other hand, CO2 capture and storage was much preferred to nuclear power or higher energy bills (no information on price or the environmental impact of other options was provided). When asked, unprompted, if they could think of any negative effects of CO2 capture and storage, half of the respondents’ mentioned leakage, while others mentioned associated potential impacts upon ecosystems and human health. Others viewed CO2 capture and storage negatively on the grounds it was avoiding the real problem, was short-termist or indicated a reluctance to change. Huijts (2003) polled 112 individuals living in an area above a gas field in The Netherlands that had experienced two small earthquakes (in 1994 and 2001). She found the sample was mildly positive about CO2 capture and storage in general terms, but neutral to negative about storage in the immediate 5.8.5 Public perception and acceptance There is insufficient public knowledge of climate change issues and of the various mitigation options, their potential impact and their practicality. The study of public perceptions and perceived acceptability of CO2 capture and storage is at an early stage with few studies (Gough et al., 2002; Palmgren et al., 2004; Shackley et al., 2004; Curry et al., 2005; Itaoka et al., 2005). Research on perceptions of CO2 capture and storage is challenging because of (1) the relatively technical and ‘remote’ nature of the issue, with few immediate points of connection in the lay public’s frame of reference to many key concepts; and (2) the early stage of the technology, with few examples and experiences in the public domain to draw upon as illustrations. 5.8.5.1 Survey research Curry et al. (2005) surveyed more than 1200 people representing a general population sample of the United States. They found that less than 4% of the respondents were familiar with the terms carbon dioxide capture and storage or carbon storage.PDF Image | CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGE
PDF Search Title:
CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGEOriginal File Name Searched:
srccs_wholereport.pdfDIY PDF Search: Google It | Yahoo | Bing
NFT (Non Fungible Token): Buy our tech, design, development or system NFT and become part of our tech NFT network... More Info
IT XR Project Redstone NFT Available for Sale: NFT for high tech turbine design with one part 3D printed counter-rotating energy turbine. Be part of the future with this NFT. Can be bought and sold but only one design NFT exists. Royalties go to the developer (Infinity) to keep enhancing design and applications... More Info
Infinity Turbine IT XR Project Redstone Design: NFT for sale... NFT for high tech turbine design with one part 3D printed counter-rotating energy turbine. Includes all rights to this turbine design, including license for Fluid Handling Block I and II for the turbine assembly and housing. The NFT includes the blueprints (cad/cam), revenue streams, and all future development of the IT XR Project Redstone... More Info
Infinity Turbine ROT Radial Outflow Turbine 24 Design and Worldwide Rights: NFT for sale... NFT for the ROT 24 energy turbine. Be part of the future with this NFT. This design can be bought and sold but only one design NFT exists. You may manufacture the unit, or get the revenues from its sale from Infinity Turbine. Royalties go to the developer (Infinity) to keep enhancing design and applications... More Info
Infinity Supercritical CO2 10 Liter Extractor Design and Worldwide Rights: The Infinity Supercritical 10L CO2 extractor is for botanical oil extraction, which is rich in terpenes and can produce shelf ready full spectrum oil. With over 5 years of development, this industry leader mature extractor machine has been sold since 2015 and is part of many profitable businesses. The process can also be used for electrowinning, e-waste recycling, and lithium battery recycling, gold mining electronic wastes, precious metals. CO2 can also be used in a reverse fuel cell with nafion to make a gas-to-liquids fuel, such as methanol, ethanol and butanol or ethylene. Supercritical CO2 has also been used for treating nafion to make it more effective catalyst. This NFT is for the purchase of worldwide rights which includes the design. More Info
NFT (Non Fungible Token): Buy our tech, design, development or system NFT and become part of our tech NFT network... More Info
Infinity Turbine Products: Special for this month, any plans are $10,000 for complete Cad/Cam blueprints. License is for one build. Try before you buy a production license. May pay by Bitcoin or other Crypto. Products Page... More Info
| CONTACT TEL: 608-238-6001 Email: greg@infinityturbine.com | RSS | AMP |