Written evidence submitted by the Plymouth Marine Laboratory (CCS05)

 

 

Background

 

  1. Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML) is a world-class, independent research laboratory engaged in marine environmental research across a wide range of topics of interest and relevance to society.  PML was established in 2002 as a company limited by guarantee with charitable status.  Prior to this it was wholly owned by the Natural Environment Research Council.  Further details are available at www.pml.ac.uk

 

  1. This evidence is submitted by PML and represents its independent views.

 

  1. PML is well placed to respond to some of the questions posed by the Committee as it is currently leading, or involved in, a number of national and European research projects in the area of Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS), using its expertise to develop an environmental impact assessment for CCS in the marine environment. Dr Jerry Blackford of PML is the UK CCS Research Area Champion for Ecosystems and Environmental Impact and also provides advice to UK governmental departments and international organizations, industry and NGOs on issues related to climate change and CCS.  Dr Steve Widdicombe of PML has provided evidence on the ecological implications associated with geological storage of CO2 to the London Convention.  PML also communicates its findings to a wide range of different stakeholders and has produced a glossary of terms “the Language of CCS” as part of a European project, which the Committee might find useful and is available for download at http://www.eco2-project.eu/info-material.html   

Responses to Questions

Responses have been provided to questions that are pertinent to PML’s research and expertise.

What types of CCS technology are currently being developed and how do they differ from one another?

  1. Nil response.

 

What contribution could CCS make towards the UK’s decarbonisation targets? Are the UK Government’s expectations reasonable in this regard?

  1. Nil response.

Are there any potential benefits (e.g. the ability to export CCS technology abroad) of successfully developing CCS to the UK economy and, if so, what are they?

  1. Whilst potential benefits to the UK economy as a result of CCS technology are important, it must not be overlooked that there are also benefits to the UK relating to research.  The UK’s scientific expertise in understanding the impacts of a potential leakage of carbon dioxide (CO2) has attracted European funding in the area of CCS and also interest from around the globe (in particular from Japan and Australia).  PML leads the project Quantifying and Monitoring Potential Ecosystem Impacts of Geological Carbon Storage (QICS), funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) in collaboration with the Scottish Association for Marine Science, the British Geological Survey (BGS) and three other institutions.  The primary aim of QICS is to develop knowledge of use to government, industry, regulators, environmental guardians and the public, establishing methodologies of detecting a leak of CO2 from carbon capture and storage and an understanding of any potential environmental consequences. In May/June 2012 a world-first experiment was conducted as part of this project to monitor what might happen if CO2 leaks from an underground storage reservoir.  A consortium of Japanese researchers is also involved in the collaboration and the PML lead scientist has presented his work at a stakeholder workshop in Japan and also in the US.  This puts the UK at the forefront of research in this area. 

 

For further information, please see http://www.pml.ac.uk/media/news_highlights/qics_update.aspx

 

What are the main barriers (e.g. economic, political, regulatory, scientific and social) to developing large-scale integrated CCS projects in the UK and internationally? How can they be overcome?

  1. As with any new technology, there are likely to be a number of barriers and the purpose of the scientific research being undertaken is to overcome or mitigate some of these by providing sound methodologies and impartial advice to the various stakeholders.  One of the greatest risks or barriers is public acceptance and perception and the avoidance of unwarranted scaremongering in particular about environmental impacts.  There are three pathways to overcome this: firstly the development of science led regulatory systems, effectively led by the “competent authorities”; secondly the development of effective and efficient systems for monitoring storage integrity or leakage, which must include an understanding of leakage pathways and environmental baselines, and thirdly early engagement with stakeholders providing clearly understandable and transparent information are therefore absolutely essential.  Various projects including the PML led QICS (NERC), the BGS led RISCS (EU) and German led ECO2 (EU) projects are actively engaged in this research. Perhaps the remaining barrier is to ensure the transfer of the resulting scientific knowledge into effective regulation and practice.

 

  1. With respect to economic barriers, such large-scale projects will require significant investment and thus any private investors will want to be assured of their returns and also to understand the risks involved.  Again, sound and impartial scientific advice can help in understanding such risks including environmental risks.

Are there any safety issues associated with capturing, transporting and storing carbon dioxide? How could they be overcome? Who should have responsibility for ensuring these activities are safe?

  1. CO2, whilst naturally ubiquitous, will if in high enough concentrations engender environmental and safety issues.   In terrestrial settings there is some danger of dense CO2 gas collecting in depressions and creating an asphyxiation risk, however this is well researched and can be mitigated by appropriate design of transport pipelines. As mentioned above, research is already being undertaking to understand the potential consequences on the marine environment from a leak of CO2 from a sub-sea store/reservoir. Whilst this research is still ongoing the suggestion is that a relatively small leak (few tonnes/day) would have a very limited impact whilst a catastrophic leakage (1000s tonnes /day) would have a significant impact. However, when judged against the environmental, social and economic impacts of not mitigating CO2 emissions, the science would suggest that given appropriate regulation and standards, CCS should be pursued.

 

  1. The “competent authorities” would seem the obvious parties to regulate CCS, with the proviso that regulations draw from the growing body of research becoming available. Regulatory independence would be a significant step towards stakeholder assurance.

 

How have other countries incentivised CCS development? How successful have they been? How do they compare to the UK’s efforts?

  1. Nil response.

Is the UK Government’s approach, set out in its CCS Roadmap, likely to incentivise development of CCS in the UK?

  1. Nil response.

Could the successful development of CCS improve international efforts to mitigate climate change? What role could UK CCS play in this? 

  1. It is very likely that the successfully development of CCS (which implies a widespread international implementation) would make a highly significant contribution to mitigating climate change. The UK is currently world leading in several aspects of CCS research, in particular storage options, environmental impact assessment and development of monitoring storage integrity for assurance, verification and safety. The UK is already leading research in many of these areas via Research Council and EU funding and with the formation of the UK CCS Research Centre. There is a danger of momentum being lost. The current commercialization competition and negotiations, if successfully concluded, would help to maintain momentum and allow application of UK research in the UK.

What are the consequences of failing to develop CCS and what alternatives are available for decarbonisation if CCS fails?

 

  1. Climate change remains a serious social, economic and environmental threat to the UK. Given that the UK is locked into and developing further fossil fuel based energy sources, a methodology by which resultant emissions of carbon dioxide can be curtailed is necessary. CCS provides the most obvious process by which to achieve this and has been successfully demonstrated (by Statoil) for over a decade. To the best of our knowledge no practical or economic method for removing CO2 from the atmosphere once emitted is available. Proposed geo-engineering techniques (e.g. Royal Society Report 2009) have limited utility and effect. The other route to decarbonisation that is achievable involves developing a mix of renewable and nuclear options coupled with increased energy efficiency.

 

August 2013