PDF Publication Title:
Text from PDF Page: 386
374 IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage Chomitz (2000) suggests two primary approaches to accounting for stored CO2: (1) acknowledge that CO2 storage is likely not permanent, assess the environmental and economic benefits of limited-term storage, and allot credits in proportion to the time period over which CO2 is stored, and (2) provide reasonable assurance of indefinite storage. Examples discussed for sequestration in the terrestrial biosphere include (under the first approach) ton-year accounting (described below); and (under the second approach) various combinations of reserve credits and insurance replacing lost CO2 by sequestration reserves or other permanent emissions reductions. For further discussion on these issues, see Watson et al., 2000; Marland et al., 2001; Subak, 2003; Aukland et al., 2003; Wong and Dutschke, 2003; and Herzog et al., 2003. There are also proposals to discount credits so that there is a margin of conservativeness in the number of credits acknowledged. With this kind of discussion and uncertainty, negotiations toward the Kyoto Protocol have chosen to place limits on the number of credits that can be claimed for some categories of terrestrial CO2 sequestration during the Protocol’s first commitment period (UNFCCC, 2002). To illustrate the concept of allotting credits in proportion to storage time, one alternative, the ton-year approach is described. The ton-year alternative for accounting defines an artificial equivalence so that capture and storage for a given time interval (for example, t years) are equated with permanent storage. Availability of credits can be defined in different ways but typically capture and storage for one year would result in a number of credits equal to 1/t, and thus storage for t years would result in one full credit (Watson et al., 2000). A variety of constructs have been proposed for defining the number of storage years that would be equated with permanent storage (see, for example, Marland et al., 2001). But as Chomitz (2000) points out, despite being based on scientific and technical considerations, this equivalence is basically a political decision. Although ton-year accounting typifies the first approach, it has been subject to considerable discussion. Another derivative of Chomitz’s first approach that has been further developed within negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol (Columbia, 2000; UNFCCC, 2002; UNFCCC, 200) is the idea of expiring credits or rented temporary credits (Marland et el., 2001; Subak, 2003). Temporary or rented credits would have full value over a time period defined by rule or by contract, but would result in debits or have to be replaced by permanent credits at expiration. In essence, credit for stored CO2 would create liability for the possible subsequent CO2 release or commitment to storage was ended. UNFCCC (2002), Marland et al. (2001), Herzog et al. (2003), and others agree that the primary issue for stored CO2 is liability. They argue that if credit is given for CO2 stored, there should be debits if the CO2 is subsequently released. Physical leakage from storage and current emissions produce the same result for the atmosphere. Accounting problems arise if ownership is transferred or stored CO2 is transferred to a place or party that does not accept liability (for example, if CO2 is stored in a developing country without commitments under the Kyoto protocol). Accounting problems also arise if potential debits are transferred sufficiently far into the future with little assurance that the systems and institutions of liability will still be in place if and when CO2 is released. The system of expiring credits in the Marrakech Accords for sequestration in the terrestrial biosphere fulfils the requirement of continuing liability. Limiting these credits to five years provides reasonable assurance that the liable institutions will still be responsible. This arrangement also addresses an important concern of those who might host CO2 storage projects, that they might be liable in perpetuity for stored CO2. Under most proposals, the hosts for CO2 storage would be liable for losses until credits expire and then liability would return to the purchaser/renter of the expiring credits. Kennett (2003) suggests that long-term responsibility for regulating, monitoring, certifying, and supporting credits will ultimately fall to governments (see also section .8.). With this kind of ultimate responsibility, governments may wish to establish minimum requirements for CCS reservoirs and projects (see Torvanger et al., 200). The published discussions on ‘permanence’ have largely been in the context of sequestration in the terrestrial biosphere. It is not clear whether the evolving conclusions are equally appropriate for CCS in the ocean or in geological reservoirs. Important differences between modes of CCS may influence the accounting scheme chosen (see Table 9.2). An apparent distinction is that sequestration in the terrestrial biosphere involves initial release of CO2 to the atmosphere and subsequent removal by growing plants. But as storage in geological reservoirs does not generally involve release to the atmosphere, it might be envisioned as a decrease in emissions rather than as balancing source with sink. In either case, a mass of CO2 must be managed and isolated from the atmosphere. Storage in the terrestrial biosphere leaves open the possibility that sequestration will be reversed because of decisions on maintenance or priorities for resource management. Ocean and geological storage have very different implications for the time scale of commitments and for the role of physical processes versus decisions in potential physical releases. An important question for crediting CCS is whether future emissions have the same value as current emissions. Herzog et al. (2003) define ‘sequestration effectiveness’ as the net benefit from temporary storage compared to the net benefit of permanent storage, but this value cannot be known in advance. They go one step further and argue that while CO2 storage is not permanent, reducing emissions may not be permanent either, unless some backstop energy technology assures all fossil fuel resources are not eventually consumed. According to Herzog et al. (2003), stored CO2 emissions are little different, to fossil fuel resources left in the ground. Most analysts, however, assume that all fossil fuels will never be consumed so that refraining from emitting fossil-fuel CO2 does not, like CO2 storage, give rise directly to a risk of future emissions. Wigley et al. (1996) and Marland et al. (2001) argue that there is value in delaying emissions. If storage for 100 years were to be defined as permanent, then virtually all carbon injected below 100 m in the oceans would be considered to be permanent storage (Herzog et al., 2003).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 (Standard Web Page)