Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Technology: Challenges to Implementation

Zaharaddeen N Garba, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria

Ahmad Galadima, Federal University Gusau, Gusau, Nigeria
r 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

The emissions of greenhouse gas (GHG) has noticed a steadfast upsurge since the outset of industrial revolution with an annual
increase over the last decade reported to be by an average of 2.7% (Cuellar-Franca and Azapagic, 2015). In order to avert
catastrophic aftermath, two major global gatherings took place in Kyoto (1997) and the other one in Paris (2015). The scientific
suggestion that came from the two meetings was that average global temperature increase as a result of climate change should be
limited to no more than 21C (Voll et al., 2012). For this target to be achieved, worldwide GHG emissions must be reduced by at
least 50% of their current values by 2050 according to IPCC (2013). Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most popular and well-known
among various other gases that act as GHGs. It is characterized by high anthropogenic emission which acts as one of the major
contribution factor to global warming, caused mainly by fossil fuel combustion (Ustadi et al., 2017). The harmful nature and
impact of climate change and of fossil fuels are well established (McDonagh et al., 2019).
From pre-industrial level to present, concentration of CO2 was reported to have increased from 280 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) to 395 ppmv and it is estimated to reach a level of 570 ppmv by the end of this century (Goel et al., 2015). The
current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is estimated to be about 750 Giga tonnes which was projected to be on the increase for
the next 100 years to come (Fig. 1). This in turn caused the ocean to become acidic and more dangerously creating an imbalance in
the manner by which solar ultra-violet rays are trapped in the atmosphere thereby influencing how water is utilized by plants.
Upsurge in global temperature is therefore directly related to continuous CO2 emission (Fig. 2). Another issue considered by
environmental agencies that need to be drastically addressed is anthropogenic climate change (IPCC, 2005). Carbon capture and
storage is one of the many options that are gaining interest. It is a technology with the prospect of abating the anthropogenic
emissions of CO2 emissions and to achieve the target of holding the increase in the global average temperature at or below the
critical 21C threshold (Thomas et al., 2016; Wang and Qie, 2018). CCS from fossil-fired and bioenergy-fired plants was reported by
IPCC (2014) mutually contribute in reducing CO2 emissions by up to 25% till the year 2100 (Pachauri et al., 2014). Decoupling
energy use as well as CO2 release is a very vital long-term way of halting greenhouse gas emissions with the assumption that energy
use will continue to grow (Herzog, 2001). This can be achieved by utilizing renewable energy sources such as hydro, nuclear, wind,
solar, geothermal and tidal energy. However, these sources cannot fully replace fossil fuels, particularly given the numerous ways
in which such fuels are used and the current global framework for energy. The consequence is that fossil-fuel-based energy
infrastructure is currently been planned that will remain for decades, continuing to increase atmospheric CO2 concentration. This
article reports an overview of the CCS technology, its relevance as a multi-functional climate change mitigation option for oil and
gas companies and the associated challenges of its implementation.
Despite the controversy in the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the average temperature of the Earth is rising, especially
when measured at the poles. Fig. 2 show good correlation between the average Earth surface temperature correlates with the amount
of CO2 in the atmosphere (i.e., upsurge in the atmospheric CO2 levels is directly proportional to the increase in surface temperature).

Overview of the CCS Technology

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a technology that involved disengagement of CO2 from industrial and energy related sources
(large stationary sources), transport to a permanent storage location and complete isolation from the atmosphere (FAO, 2009).
This implies that CO2 must first be isolated from the emission point(s), emanating from the burning of fossil fuels before being
stored permanently in a manner that prevents it from entering the atmosphere. Addressing the sequestration of CO2 from widely
distributed and/or mobile emission sources such as residential heating, automobiles and airplanes, is currently impractical but
necessary (Williams, 2006). The process involved three important stages as described below.

Stage 1: Capture process

Before capturing CO2, separating it from other flue gases that results from combustion and/or other industrial processes must first be
achieved. This could be done by post-combustion, pre-combustion or oxy-combustion method or oxyfuel capture (Markewitz et al., 2012).
The post-combustion process (gas scrubbing or flue gas method) involved scrubbing the gas exiting the combustion or pro-
duction process (Heafeli et al., 2004). The capture process is practised at over a dozen plants all over the world, which is based on
chemical absorption. Up to 99% of the gas exiting a boiler or a gas sweetening unit can be captured. Mono ethanolamine (MEA) is
the most popular solvent usually employed with the process described in the following equations (Galadima and Garba, 2008).

(1) 2RNH2 þ CO2 þ H2 O-ðRNH3 Þ2 CO3

(2) ðRNH3 Þ2 CO3 þ H2 O þ CO2 -2RNH3 HCO3

Encyclopedia of Renewable and Sustainable Materials doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.11002-1 1

2 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Technology: Challenges to Implementation

Fig. 1 Global CO2 emissions. Source: http://courses.knox.edu/envs101/tempco2.JPG.

Fig. 2 Effect of CO2 emissions on global temperature. Source: http://courses.knox.edu/envs101/tempco2.JPG.

(3) 2RNH3 HCO3 -2RNH2 þ 2H2 O þ 2CO2 [Amines regeneration and carbon dioxide release for transportation to appropriate
geological storage unit]. Alternatively, the process can obey the following mechanism

2RNH2 þ CO2 -RNHCOONH3 R-2RNH2 þ CO2

R¼C2H4OH when the employed solvent is MEA.

To date, the chemical absorption processes with monoethanolamine (MEA)-based solvents is being used by all commercial
post-combustion CO2 capture plants. MEA was developed over 70 years ago as a general, non-selective solvent to remove acid
gases, such as CO2 and hydrogen sulfide, from natural gas streams. The process was modified to incorporate inhibitors that reduce
solvent degradation and equipment corrosion when applied to CO2 capture from flue gas. Concerns about degradation and
corrosion also kept the solvent strength relatively low (typically 20%–30% amines by weight in water), resulting in relatively large
equipment sizes and solvent regeneration costs (Chavez and Guadarrama, 2008).
 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Technology: Challenges to Implementation 3

The flow diagram of the main process is depicted in Fig. 3. Gas flow G1 gets entry from the bottom of the absorption column
with the liquid flow L1 coming in from the top. The rich liquid amine stream L2 enters to a heat exchanger to raise its temperature
and then pass to the stripper where it carries out amine regeneration. For the sake of verifying the mass balance of the whole
process, the regenerated liquid flow is mixed with MEA solution at 30% weight L5. Stream L6 is re-circulated to the absorption
column. The stability of the stream L5 was clue to know the iteration number in the simulator (Chavez and Guadarrama, 2008).
Post-combustion capture has an edge over other capture technologies, having the advantage of being compatible with existing
coal-fired power plant infrastructure as well as being retrofitted without requiring tangible change in basic combustion technology.
It has the highest priority when it comes to gas-fired power plants. Neither the oxy-combustion nor the pre-combustion
approaches are well suited for gas plants.
Another advantage it offers is flexibility as the power plant can still operate even if the capture plant is off but the other two
capture options are highly integrated with the power plant: So if capture fails, the entire plant must shut down. It also proffers
utilities which allow for increased capacity by temporarily restraining the capture process during periods of peak power demand.
Pre-combustion/syngas method is appropriate to integrated coal gasification combined cycle (ICGCC) plants, where by syn-
thetic H2 and CO2 rich gas is produced from the fuel (Heafeli et al., 2004). It first involved the gasification of coal to generate the
synthetic gas comprising of CO and H2 followed by “water-gas shift reaction” of the CO to produce CO2 for capture and H2 to a
turbine to generate electricity. This clean coal technology has good potential for future generation and is currently practised in few
existing facilities in the US and Europe.
Oxy-combustion process involves burning the fossil fuel in pure or enriched oxygen to produce a flue gas consisting mostly of CO2
and H2O vapour. The CO2 can be piped directly to storage unit after being compressed. Cooled flue gases are circulated with the sole
purpose of limiting the resulting flame temperatures to levels common during typical combustion and injected into the combustion
chamber. The constituents of flue gas are mainly carbon dioxide and water vapour, the latter of which is condensed through cooling.
The result is an almost pure carbon dioxide stream that can be transported to the sequestration site and stored. Power plant processes
that relies on oxyfuel combustion are also referred to as “zero emission” cycles, because the CO2 stored is not a fraction removed from
the flue gas stream (as in the cases of pre- and post-combustion capture) but the flue gas stream itself. It is also worth noting that no
matter how small a fraction of CO2 generated during combustion, it will inevitably end up in the condensed water. Thus the water
would have to be treated or be disposed fittingly to merit the label “zero emission”. The technique is encouraging though the initial air
separation step demands a lot of energy. This process is still at the Research and Development (R & D) phase. The main stages of the
above-mentioned three carbon capture methods are summarized in Fig. 4 (Agralı et al., 2018).
Chemical looping combustion (CLC) is an alternate method though under development. It is a method based on utilization of a
metal oxide as solid oxygen carrier. Metal oxide particles usually produces solid metal particles with a mixture of carbon dioxide and
water vapour when reacted with solid, liquid or gaseous fuel in a fluidized bed combustor, condensing the water vapour thereby
leaving the pure carbon dioxide ready for sequestration. The solid metal particles are circulated to another fluidized bed where they
react with air, producing heat and regenerating metal oxide particles that are recirculated to the fluidized bed combustor.
Eradicating CO2 from the atmosphere is a form of geoengineering by greenhouse gas remediation. Widespread media coverage
was given to techniques of this type due to their upper hand in offering the promise of a comprehensive solution to global
warming if they can be coupled with efficient carbon sequestration technologies. It is more common for such techniques to be
proposed for air capture, than for flue gas treatment. Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is more commonly proposed on
plants burning coal in oxygen extracted from the air, which means the CO2 is highly concentrated and no scrubbing process is
necessary. A hierarchical and multiscale framework was presented by Hasan et al. (2015) to design CCS and CCU supply chain
networks with less investment, operating and material costs by taking into consideration the selection of source plants, capture
processes, capture materials, CO2 pipelines, locations of utilization (for enhanced oil recovery) and sequestration sites, and

Fig. 3 Flow sheet diagram for post-combustion capture. Source: Chavez, R., Guadarrama, J.J., 2008. Optimized process for post-combustion CO2
capture in thermoelectric power plant using structured packing. Available at: http://www.aidic.it/pres11/webpapers/291Chavez.pdf.
4 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Technology: Challenges to Implementation

Fig. 4 Basic principles of carbon capture. Reproduced from Agralı, S., Üçtug, F.G., Türkmen, B.A., 2018. An optimization model for carbon
capture & storage/utilization vs. carbon trading: A case study of fossil-fired power plants in Turkey. J. Environ. Manag. 215, 305–315.

amounts of CO2 storage. A profit of $9.23 per ton of CO2 was achieved by their optimized network. An optimal solution to the
problem of choosing between CCS and carbon trading was founded by Üçtug et al. (2014) for a hypothetical methanol production
facility. A non-linear optimization approach was employed with the objective of maximizing the net returns from pursuing an
optimal mix of CCS and carbon trading. The results are sensitive to carbon credit prices and the discount rate, which determines
the choices with respect to the future and present. Three alternative CCS configurations to the benchmark process which is
absorption by using monoethanolamine, (MEA) as solvent was compared by Schach et al. (2010). They concluded that “the
process with the highest energy savings is not the lowest cost of CO2-avoided, and the influence of rising investment costs of more
complex configurations cannot be ignored.” A coal-fired power plant was also studied by Cristobal et al. (2012a) for which they
considered installing four control devices in series. They assumed that bypassing one or more of these devices before the CO2
discharge point would be possible. They develop a mixed-integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) model that determines which
devices to use and the operating condition of each device. MINLP was also developed by Cristobal et al. (2012b) for a similar
problem where a set of pollution control retrofitting alternatives are considered to be installed in a cap and trade framework.

Stage 2: Transportation process

I was reported by IPCC (2005) that the gas should be transported safely except in the situation when emission point is located directly over
the storage unit. Onshore pipelines have been utilized since the 1970s in the USA. About 5800 km of CO2 pipelines were reported in the
United States in 2008, with most of them in the Permian Basin of Texas. CO2 is being transported to oil production fields by these
pipelines where the CO2 is injected in older low producing fields to enhance oil recovery by EOR. Another option for the gas trans-
portation is by liquidification like liquidified petroleum gas (LPG) and transported through ships or ocean going tankers. In the case of
small scale applications, rail cars may also be employed. CO2-transportation generally depends on distance, quantity and cost.

Stage 3: Storage process

Large quantities of captured CO2 could be stored in different geological formations, minerals and deep oceans as believed by
scientists and engineers.

Ocean storage
Oceans can accommodate CO2 due to its being appreciably soluble in water. Upon its capture, CO2 could potentially be injected
directly into deep oceans and most of it would remain there for millions of years (IPCC, 2005). It was reported by Herzog (2001)
that the ocean embodies the largest storage option for the gas. Already 40,000 Giga tonnes of CO2 were reported to be confined in
the oceans in relation to the atmospheric concentration of only 750 Giga tonnes. Thus, quantities of CO2 that would double its
atmospheric concentration would only change the ocean’s concentration by 2% (Herzog, 2001). As such the countries with better
chance of storing large volume of the gas are those that are closed to the oceans. Below are among the various concepts proposed
for the ocean storage:
 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Technology: Challenges to Implementation 5

• Injecting CO2 by ship or pipeline into the water column at depths of 1000 m or more, and the CO2 subsequently dissolves.
• Depositing CO2 directly onto the sea floor at depths greater than 3000 m, where CO2 is denser than water and is expected to
form a ‘lake’ that would delay dissolution of CO2 into the environment.
• Converting the CO2 to biocarbonates (using limestone).
• Storing the CO2 in solid clathrate hydrate already existing on the ocean floor, or growing more solid clathrate.
Negative environmental effects of oceanic storage are usually reported though poorly understood. Living organisms in the
ocean are usually killed by high concentration of CO2 and also the ocean storage is not permanent too as the dissolved CO2 would
eventually equilibrate with the atmosphere. Also, the CO2 reacts with the water to form carbonic acid, H2CO3, hence increasing the
acidity of the ocean water.
CO2 þ H2 O-H2 CO3
About 1600 years was the order of time estimated to take water in the deeper oceans to circulate to the surface. The retention of
CO2 in the ocean would be enhanced by the bicarbonate approach which reduce the pH effects, but other environmental effects
and cost will also increase.
The inevitability of the effects of making the ocean more acidic are absolute as illustrated by Fig. 5, which are easy to predict
due to reliance on simple chemistry, not on complex computer models of climate. The ocean already holds 400 Billion tons of
fossil fuel CO2. Consequently, the ocean is already 0.1 pH units more acid than before industrial CO2 emissions. This means
nutrients for plankton in the North Sea, and all shallow ocean waters, are changing rapidly. This is the base of the food chain for
invertebrates, shells and, eventually, economic fishing. By 2050 the ocean will be five times more acid than at any time since
glaciation (change pH 8.4 to pH 7.8).

Mineral storage
Another form of carbon sequestration involve the reaction of naturally occurring Mg and Ca containing minerals with CO2 to
produce carbonates as can be seen from the following reactions.
2Mg þ O2 -2MgO; MgO þ CO2 -MgCO3

2Ca þ O2 -2CaO; CaO þ CO2 -CaCO3

In this process, stable carbonates are produced by exothermically reacting CO2 with abundantly available metal oxides. This is a
process that occurs naturally over many years and is responsible for much of the surface limestone. Reaction at higher temperatures
and pressures or pre-treatment of the minerals made the reaction rate to be faster although the method may require additional
energy. The IPCC estimates that a power plant equipped with CCS using mineral storage will need 60%–180% more energy than a
power plant without CCS.

Geological storage
Several factors such as geological setting, integrity of the hydrocarbon column height (cap rock), quality of the reservoir and
possibility of unexpected events like earthquake need to be considered in order to strike a balance between permanent storage and
risks of leakage with regards to the geological storage options. Geological storage options involve depleted oil and gas reservoirs,
offshore and onshore deep saline formations, use of CO2 in enhanced hydrocarbon (oil or gas) recovery and in enhanced coal bed
methane recovery (Galadima and Garba, 2008). In 2001 according to Herzog and Golomb (2005), about 200 million cubic

Fig. 5 Effects of CCS on ocean acidity. Source: http://courses.knox.edu/envs101/tempco2.JPG.

6 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Technology: Challenges to Implementation

Fig. 6 Application of CCS for EOR and enhanced methane recovery from coal seams.

meters of the gas were believed to be injected into more than 30 different oil and gas fields of Alberta and Columbia. The gas could
also be utilized in improving the recovery of coal bed methane especially with the fact that the surface structure of coal has good
adsorption affinity for CO2. With the possibility of achieving return on investment in short time, EOR becomes an economic
option with special interest to many oil and gas companies leading to the availability of more than 80 CO2-EOR projects world-
wide in the last 9 years, producing 200,772 bbls of oil per day (Herzog and Golomb, 2005). In general, the cheapest and most
environmentally friendly storage option is the geological storage.

Benefits of CCS Technology

Utilization of the gas for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is one of the major potential benefits of the CCS. The method has the
advantage of increasing the oil amount that is recouped from an underground oil reservoir. By pumping CO2 into an oil reservoir,
previously unrecoverable oil is pushed up through ideal displacement to where the oil can be reached (Fig. 5). Additional 30%–60%
of the original amount of recoverable oil was reported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) once all the recoverable oil has been
reached, and the depleted reservoir can act as a permanent storage site for the CO2 (MGA, 2009). As reported by Galadima and Garba
(2008), CO2 has been injected into over 11,000 oil wells for tertiary recovery since late 1970s and the technology already accounted
for over 15% of annual oil and gas production in the region in the Permian basin of Texas United States.
“Sleipner Project”, is an example of the commercial success of the technology. It is a project where the gas is compressed and pumped
into 200 m thick Utsira sandstone layer of the Sleipner oil and gas field in the North Sea United Kingdom (Herzog, 2001). The investment
was paid back in about one-and-half years only with about 1 million metric tonnes of CO2reported to have been sequestrated annually
since October 1996 (Herzog, 2001). Another project is called the Weyburn-CO2 monitoring project, Canada which accounts for about $30
million of gross revenues to the gasification plant’s cash flow each year (Heafeli et al., 2004). Up to 20 million tonnes of CO2 would be
injected and permanently stored, leading to at least 130 million barrels of additional oil recovery for the project life cycle.
As can be seen in Fig. 6 with regard to oil and gas companies involved in methane exploitation from coal beds, studies reported
the possibility of injecting up to 173–203 billion tonnes of the gas for enhanced coal bed methane recovery (ECBMR) world-wide.
In a country like Nigeria that is developing, the current proven oil and gas reserves (36.22 bbls & 184 tcf) were projected to last for
the next 40 years (Galadima et al., 2009), indicating that future CO2-enhanced oil recovery is necessary.
The conversion of CO2 into hydrocarbons is a potentially useful way of dealing with industrial sources where it can be stored or
reused as fuel or to make plastics with quite a number of projects investigating that possibility. Currently, biofuels represent the
other potentially carbon neutral jet fuel available. Carbon dioxide scrubbing variants exist based on potassium carbonates which
can be used to create liquid fuels. Although the creation of fuel from atmospheric CO2 is not a geoengineering technique, nor does
it actually function as greenhouse gas remediation, it nevertheless is potentially very useful in the creation of a low carbon
economy, as transport fuels, especially aviation fuel, are currently hard to make other than by using fossil fuels. A proven process
to produce a hydrocarbon is to make methanol. Methanol is rather easily synthesised from CO2 and H2.
CO2 þ H2 -Methanol
By heating CO2 up to the temperature of 24001C, it dissociates into carbon monoxide and oxygen. Another important process
that can be used to convert CO into hydrocarbons is the Fischer-Tropsch process. The required temperature can be achieved by
using a chamber containing a mirror which focuses sunlight on the gas.
CO2 -CO-Hydrocarbons
 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Technology: Challenges to Implementation 7

In addition to all these, the captured CO2 can be applied for various other household and industrial applications which include
production of carbonated drinks and soda water, electric fire extinguishers, polymers and plastics, industrial welding urea or as a
promising solvent for organochlorine in the removal of caffeine from coffee, lipophilic organic compounds as well as an industrial
gas laser (CO2-laser). These therefore give a chance to various oil and gas companies to diversify their investments by establishing
related industries

Implementation Limitations and Challenges

It was claimed that even very low leakage rates could undermine any climate mitigation effect, for that safe and permanent storage of
CO2 cannot be guaranteed. However, some geologists argued that the proportion of CO2 retained in appropriately selected and
managed geological reservoirs is likely to exceed 99% over 1000 years. There is major concern here with CCS as to whether the
leakage of stored CO2 may compromise the technology as a climate change mitigation option. For well-selected, designed and
managed geological storage sites, IPCC estimates that risks are comparable to those associated with current hydrocarbon activities.
For ocean storage, its depth is very crucial in determining the CO2 retention. It was estimated by IPCC that 30%–85% would be
retained after 500 years for depths of 1000–3000 m. With regard to mineral storage on other hand, it is free from any risks of leakage.
The degree of challenges for CCS implementation can be viewed from country perspective. Majority of developing countries
cannot successfully adopt the CCS technology in the short term despite certain progress being achieved in terms of its life cycle
assessment. Several factors covering technology to regulatory policies could be attributed to this fact.

Technology
Shifting towards low-carbon energy sources (more importantly biofuels) has special interest in many countries; most projections
show that the current environmentally undesirable fossil fuels will in the medium term continue to play a crucial role. For example
coal demand alone in developing countries will likely increase from 4215 to 5647 million tonnes from 2015 to 2030. In ensuring the
successful capture of CO2 that will be emitted in line with the combustion of these fuels, an effective technology is very vital. For
successful “Clean Coal Technology” alone, a range of modern technologies that are currently not available in developing countries
are certainly required. These technologies will cover the preparation of coal (washing and briquetting), combustion for example by
fluidised bed boilers and gasification, and clean-up of undesirable gases by processes like flue gas desulphurisation and deni-
trification before the ultimate carbon capture and storage. In fact the whole CCS process involved series of advance technologies, few
of which are under early stages of practise in some industrialised countries like United Kingdom and U.S.A. This clearly indicates that
inefficient technology will lead to a serious setback in implementing CCS in many regions and most developing countries, who do
not have enough technology to provide their citizens with basic amenities (Galadima and Garba, 2008).

Capture and storage cost

The country, technology and fuel types have a big influence on the costs of capture, transport and storage of CO2. For example, the cost of
capture from gas-fired power plants will be lower than from coal power plants due to lower concentration of the gas. Similarly
transportation cost varies with applicable options with ships and pipelines emerging as the most viable transport options in many regions.
Different authors reported varying cost estimates. In an analysis by Anderson and Newell (2003), they estimated storage costs of $7 to $19
per 1000 Kg of CO2 total transport while Hendriks et al. (2000) reported $13 to $44 per 1000 Kg of the gas (Galadima and Garba, 2008).
The transportation distance of 1000 km was assumed by both authors, implying an upsurge in both transportation cost and risk of
corrosion for longer distance (especially for offshore pipelines). In a developing country like Nigeria for example, the costs are much likely
to be higher due to metocean conditions, requiring advance pipelines technology and potentially longer transportation distance. This may
have an earnest effect in its implementation except otherwise if forced by government or oil and gas companies make use of the gas in
enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The consequence will rise in oil and gas consumers cost and when this is connected with the current poverty
situation, the masses would be at serious disadvantages (Galadima and Garba, 2008).

Capture and storage policies

For the successful implementation of CCS, the right approach must be developed by the major emitters (oil and gas companies)
and other companies permitted by the government to be involved in power distributions and related services as well as other
industry participants that integrates important solutions and previous lessons from international sectors like the natural gas
company of America. This should include development of government regulatory frame works that ensure unconditional com-
mitment and national support. Putting into consideration the existing environmental policies in many countries that do not
address this issue, its implementation will be stuck along the way if the government do not either introduce a new regulatory frame
work that encourages its development or modify the current regulations to ensure that capture and storage responsibilities are
assigned to the actual emitters. In essence, the oil companies should initiate CCS in addition to the biofuels options based on the
current environmental policy (Galadima and Garba, 2008).

Implementation time
Sufficient time and planning is also very crucial when it comes to the implementation of CCS system that can capture desired
quantities of greenhouse gases. In order to promote the efficient isolation and capture of CO2, Each oil and/or gas formation as
8 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Technology: Challenges to Implementation

well as power generation facility (medium or large) requires unique method innovations (Galadima and Garba, 2008). There is
the need for appropriate technology and equipments to be put in place for the transportation of the gas either by pipelines or ships
and also the number of capture facilities fully implemented upon the effective capture costs and cost-sharing agreement finalised
between companies and appropriate authorities assigned by the government. Other reasons that can lead to the shift of project to a
longer period in many countries in addition to lack of efficient technology suitable for CCS include poor planning and imple-
mentation policies, potential cost inconsistencies, serious corruption problems and unmitigated insecurity in the oil industry.
Early compliance by oil and gas companies being the major emitters is another indicator of how shortly and successfully the
implementation will be. However, for CCS project to be successfully executed in the short term, those problems need to be
adequately addressed, which will yield positive results though very difficult (Galadima and Garba, 2008).

Conclusion

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a carbon emissions reduction process receiving special attention globally today. The
technology provides a good solution against the global climate change. It also provide low-carbon approach to use non-
renewable fuels like coal or natural gas to ensure security of power supply and is a good opportunity for Enhanced Oil Recovery
(EOR) from low producing or partly depleted petroleum formations. In this article, an evaluation of CO2 capture, transpor-
tation and storage potential was given, which include storage site screening, storage mechanism analysis, and storage capacity
evaluations. Though the current economic situation does not consider the process as financially viable, CCS will play a
significant role in mitigating future emissions especially from developing countries. However, careful approach is required to
avoid more problems than benefits. Successful implementation of the technology must be planned ahead of time, effective
future agreement is required from the sides of both government and oil companies, policies and strategies shall be base on
research findings by environmental, geological and policy analysts couple with lessons from prior developed and developing
countries. With correct policies, government and financial support, CCS will undoubtedly play more and more important role
on sustainable development.

References

Agralı, S., Üçtug, F.G., Türkmen, B.A., 2018. An optimization model for carbon capture & storage/utilization vs. carbon trading: A case study of fossil-fired power plants in
Turkey. J. Environ. Manag. 215, 305–315.
Anderson S., Newell R., 2003. Prospect for Carbon Capture and Storage Technology: Resources for the Future. Discussion Paper 02- 68, Washington, DC.
Chavez R., Guadarrama J.J., 2008. Optimized process for post-combustion CO2 capture in thermoelectric power plant using structured packing. Available at: http://www.aidic.it/
pres11/webpapers/291Chavez.pdf.
Cristobal, J., Guillen-Gosalbez, G., Jimenez, L., Irabien, A., 2012a. Optimization of global and local pollution control in electricity production from coal burning. Appl. Energy
92, 369–378.
Cristobal, J., Guillen-Gosalbez, G., Jimenez, L., Irabien, A., 2012b. Multi-objective optimization of coal-fired electricity production with CO2 capture. Appl. Energy 98, 266–272.
Cuellar-Franca, R.M., Azapagic, A., 2015. Carbon capture, storage and utilisation technologies: A critical analysis and comparison of their life cycle environmental impacts. J.
CO2 Util. 9, 82–102.
FAO, 2009. Food and Agricultural Organisation of United States Publication. 6. Food and Agricultural Organisation of United States publication. pp. 117–124.
Galadima, A., Garba, Z.N., 2008. Carbon capture and storage in Nigeria: Fundamental science and potential implementation risks. Sci. World J. 3, 95–99.
Galadima A., Kabiru A., Garba Z.N., Abubakar A., 2009. Carbon capture and storage (CCS): A future challenge to Nigeria. A Paper Presented During the 7th CHEMCLASS
Conference, A,B.U. Zaria-Nigeria.
Goel, C., Bhunia, H., Bajpai, P.K., 2015. Development of nitrogen enriched nanostructured carbon adsorbents for CO2 capture. J. Environ. Manag. 162, 20–29.
Heafeli, S., Bosi, M., Philibert, C., 2004. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Issues – Accounting and Baselines under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC). IEA Information Paper, Paris May 2004.
Hasan, M.F., First, E.L., Boukouvala, F., Floudas, C.A., 2015. A multi-scale framework for CO2 capture, utilization, and sequestration: CCUs and CCU. Comput. Chem. Eng. 81,
2–21.
Hendriks, C.A., Wildenborg, A.F.B., Blok, K., Floris, F., Vanwees, J.D., 2000. Cost of carbon removal by underground storage. Paper presented at the 5th International
Conference on Greenhouse Gases Control Technology (GHGT-5), Cairns, Australia, August, 13-16.
Herzog, H.J., 2001. What future for carbon capture and sequestration? Environ. Sci. Technol. 35, 148A–153A.
Herzog, H., Golomb, D., 2005. Carbon Capture and Storage From Fossil Fuels Use. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (Article Number: NRGY:
00422).
IPCC, 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Technical Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
IPCC, 2014. Report on Climate Change: the Physical Science Basis. Technical Report.
IPCC, 2005. Facts on CO2 capture and storage. A summary of special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available from: http://www.greenfacts.org/en/
CO2-capture-storage/.
Markewitz, P., Kuckshinrichs, W., Leitner, W., et al., 2012. Worldwide innovations in the development of carbon capture technologies and the utilization of CO2. Energy Environ.
Sci. 5, 7281–7305.
McDonagh, S., Wall, D.M., Deane, P., Murphy, J.D., 2019. The effect of electricity markets, and renewable electricity penetration, on the levelised cost of energy of an
advanced electro-fuel system incorporating carbon capture and utilisation. Renew. Energy 131, 364–371.
MGA, 2009. Carbon capture and storage and enhanced oil recovery, fact sheet. Available from: http://www.midwesterngovernors.org.
Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L.Y., IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change.
Schach, M.O., Schneider, R., Schramm, H., Repke, J.U., 2010. Techno-economic analysis of postcombustion processes for the capture of carbon dioxide from power plant flue
gas. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49, 2363–2370.
 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Technology: Challenges to Implementation 9

Thomas, B., Henriette, N., Barbara, O.K., 2016. Separating the debate on CO2 utilisation from carbon capture and storage. Environ. Sci. Policy 60.
Üçtug, F.G., Agrali, S., Arikan, Y., Avcioglu, E., 2014. Deciding between carbon trading and carbon capture and sequestration: An optimisation-based case study for methanol
synthesis from syngas. J. Environ. Manag. 132, 1–8.
Ustadi, I., Mezher, T., Abu-Zahra, M.R.M., 2017. The effect of the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology deployment on the natural gas market in the United Arab
Emirates. Energy Proced. 114, 6366–6376.
Voll, D., Wauschkuhn, A., Hartel, R., Genoese, M., Fichtner, W., 2012. Cost estimation of fossil power plants with carbon dioxide capture and storage. Energy Proced. 23,
333–342.
Wang, X., Qie, S., 2018. When to invest in carbon capture and storage: A perspective of supply chain. Comput. Ind. Eng. 123, 26–32.
Williams T., 2006. Carbon capture and storage technology, capacity and limitations, Canada Library of Parliament publication, PRB 05-89E, Available from: http://www.parl.gc.
ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0598-e.pdf.