sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

The Government is looking at pumping CO2 underground and storing it there to fight climate change

Public Policy / news
The Government is looking at pumping CO2 underground and storing it there to fight climate change
kapuni

The Government has raised the option of storing CO2 underground to keep it out of the atmosphere and combat climate change. 

The gas would mainly be pumped into depleted gas fields in and around Taranaki and held there to keep it out of the air.

The technology is called Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS), and a discussion document has been released by the Coalition Government for consultation.

The Minister of Energy, Simeon Brown says he wants to reduce red tape and remove barriers to investment. 

 “As part of our plan to transition to a low emission economy, we are enabling innovative technology that reduces net CO2 emissions,” Brown says.

CCUS has been pushed for many years.  The idea is that CO2 could be captured at a power plant, pumped underground and capped, to keep it out of the atmosphere.   The aim would be to add a useful device to the climate change toolbox rather than replace the need for lower emissions overall. 

Brown estimates that implementation of CCUS would reduce New Zealand’s net CO2 emissions by 4.65 megatonnes over 10 years.

It would be aimed at hard-to-abate industries such as natural gas production, which is used to top up New Zealand’s electricity supply at peak times. 

Brown adds CCUS could be a low-cost solution and would mesh in with other countries.

The proposal comes as gas production levels have shrunk to an historic low, which the current administration blames on the previous government’s ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration. 

“Natural gas production is critical as we transition towards renewable energy,” Brown says. 

A document released as part of the Minister’s statement suggests that CCUS in New Zealand would be subject to a robust approvals process, and companies operating a CCUS project would be liable for any CO2 leakage via cracks in the rock. Civil penalties would be imposed in the event of any failure. 

The document says the trapped CO2 could be dipped into later for a variety of industrial purposes. These could include the manufacture of dry ice, the replenishing of fire extinguishers and even the provision of fizz in a bottle of beer. 

The document goes on to cite a case study. It says the Ngawha geothermal power plant in Northland currently injects CO2 from its own processes back underground. In the first half of 2023, this amounted to 35,000 tonnes of CO2, which saved $2.5 million at a carbon price of $70 per tonne.

The announcement by the Government has been welcomed by the industry group, Energy Resources Aotearoa, whose Chief Executive John Carnegie applauds a “pragmatic approach".

"CCUS is a vital piece of the puzzle to meet our net-zero emissions goals for the gas sector and other applications,” he says. 

“By capturing emissions before they are released into the atmosphere, CCUS provides a critical tool for limiting CO2 emissions.”

He adds New Zealand needs to catch up with the rest of the world. And he cites a study his group commissioned from Castelia, which showed CCUS was economical. 

Green groups have generally been hostile to CCUS, seeing it as a failed alibi for countries that don’t reduce emissions in the first place. 

Scott Willis is energy spokesperson for the Green Party, and says it is little better than “magical thinking".

“The best carbon capture is keeping coal, oil and gas in the ground in the first place,” he says.

“There have been hundreds of millions spent globally on trying to find a technical solution, instead of simply doing the simple thing, which is to stop burning fossil fuels.

“Carbon capture is a really good way for politicians to spend money to get a photo op, but it doesn't do anything else. 

"Countries can look for technical solutions to enable us to keep on burning fossil fuels. That will cost millions upon millions, or they can employ solutions that they have at their fingertips, like getting cars off the road, like building rail, like ensuring we have rail enabled ferries and electric buses. 

“These are solutions that we have right now.”

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

60 Comments

Low cost option, everything I've read about it suggests it's a very expensive option , in its infancy.

Up
6

CCS from gas streams is only viable with hundreds to thousands per tonne CO2 subsidy, and multi hundred million dollar+ facilities above very specific geological formations.

Better to use biology such as trees, algae, bamboo, hemp etc complemented by targeted enhanced weathering and PyCCS pyrolysis to sink carbon into the soil and sea floor long term, whilst improving agricultural value of the land and sea.

Can also put the low-value fraction of pyrolysis oil back into old mines or oil wells under the ground like some have started doing in the states.

Up
3

I’d love to see hemp advanced in NZ. Such a versatile and abundant crop which deserves to be revitalised for the benefits it can bring.

Up
1

Can someone please tell Simeon we are already storing 39 million tonnes a year.

"New Zealand was a net CO2 sink of −38.6 ± 13.4 TgC yr−1."

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GB007845

Up
6

What did it used to be before we cleared all the native bush and started burning stored carbon?

Up
5

Well, we had a lot more wetlands, which were significant sources of methane.

Up
1

Re-wetting of organic soils results in a net reduction in emissions

Up
4

I can absolutely guarantee that this will not be viable at any useful scale in the next twenty years in NZ. It's a distraction - purely performative.

Up
20

Brought to us by Nact's fossil fuel donors playing with simple Simeon's naivete. 

Up
4

So obvious that they are sat round board tables with fossil fuel execs nodding like little dogs.

Up
5

Bugger...just saw this post...had posted the same...its simply part of a strategy to overwhelm the electorate.

 

 

Up
4

Carbon capture powered by fusion reactors will save us /sarc

Up
3

Probably that’ll eventually be true. But given the current technology, this announcement is a performative stunt.

Up
1

This will never happen for two reason - fusion and CCUS

Up
1

New rule - if Simian likes it, it must be stupid. 
 

How did this buffoon end up with Energy and Transport? I couldn’t imagine a less informed guy to head 2 such important roles in the 21st century. 

Up
8

You answered you own question I thinks!

Up
1

The whole climate change fantasy gets whackier and whackier! 

Up
5

More globalist nonsense, if you pull the CO2 out of the atmosphere what will the plants make Oxygen for us to breathe with? really basic do not mess with mother nature! 

Up
2

Wait a sec , you mean we could plant trees, and they would take carbon out of the atmosphere , and store it in useful forms. sounds way too difficult. 

Up
2

The fossils were all in the ground, the trees and forest covered the land.

Growing back the forests doesn't negate all that released carbon. 

Up
2

Not all on the first rotation, but if some of the carbon in that forest can be converted into something more akin to graphite, then you start getting virtually permanent carbon removal, and that carbon can be usefully used and safely disposed of to land or sea. It took us hundreds of years to get to this point, it'll also take some time to pay back the carbon debt

Up
1

Not in the first rotation? Yeah, I think it may take a little longer to sequester millions of years of CO2 drawdown via photosynthesis? The first step would be to stop shoveling more CO2 into the atmosphere, but that is too complex for intellectual minnows in government to comprehend. 

Up
5

Agree that we'd do well to stop pumping fossil carbon into the atmosphere. If we look at the evidence, the bulk of humanity's carbon debt contribution been accrued in the last 200 years, so I'd be inclined to focus on that

I feel the first goal is to realign our economy to become climate positive on a net basis, then get to work on the last 200 years' worth of carbon stocks turned to flows

Up
1

Had a look at the CO2 atmospheric concentration graphs lately? We're in no danger of running out. You might find people are quite concerned about the opposite, in fact. 

Up
8

Too right mate the bloody plants will be starving if we take out the CO2!

People like you should be in charge not these numpties.

Up
2

Your logic here is like complaining about people pumping water out of their suburbs in a flood, because you are worried that plants need water to survive. 

Up
4

My comment was deeply sarcastic, please refer to my comment made 4 minutes later, below.

Up
2

Yep, posted before seeing your follow up and missed the sarcasm. Consider it rescinded. 

Up
2

Plants are very adaptable. Good old tuatara has had to cope with CO 4x times higher that today. These laughable vain glorious politicians and environmentalists who think they can change the weather.

"Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution

The decline of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 65 million years (Ma) resulted in the ‘carbon dioxide–starvation’ of terrestrial ecosystems and led to the widespread distribution of C4 plants, which are less sensitive to carbon dioxide levels than are C3 plants."

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.1998.0198

Plate tectonic controls on atmospheric CO2 levels since the Triassic

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1315657111

Up
2

Tuatara, will inherit the planet after the human self engineered civilisation collapse. Good for them. 

Up
3

My comment was deeply sarcastic, please refer to my comment made 4 minutes later, below.

Up
1

The fact that "we" blame recent weather events on man-made CO2 I find completely bonkers. As if that tropical cyclone that always occurs late summer and always tracks down to NZ when there is a blocking high, and subsequently flooded housing built on flood-prone land and residential area's with blocked drains, was an entirely unexpected and sinister development requiring urgent climate change response. LOLZ

Up
1

I know this is a double comment, but I sat here for 10 minutes re-reading your message and I would like to let you know, this is my favourite comment ever posted on interest.co.nz. 

 

No idea where to even begin with how to address how moronic it is, it has to be a troll comment, and bravo at the quality of trolling.

 

Every sentence is completely cooked.

 

This comment truly is a masterclass in moronics.

Up
5

Better hold your breath engineer. The burn is depleting oxygen.

https://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/

Judging by the quality of thought coming from our esteemed political superiors, oxygen deprivation has already been going on for a while. I used to think it was because their ties cut off circulation?

Up
3

I always wonder what is like living day to day with this lack of nuance. Like, do you understand the concept of quantity? How do you buy groceries?

Up
3

I like to think this is the kind of person who buys things they don't need that are on sale, because that actually saves them money compared to not spending.

Up
2

"The whole climate change fantasy gets whackier and whackier! "

Indeed it is.

I just read on FB where people were saying carbon capture like this could be great because 'we' could release the gas when it got cold.

Up
0

Can you not do subscripts for CO2?

Up
0

CO2

Up
0

I was commenting on the article not your comment 🙄

Up
0

https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/27264-review-of-ccus-ccs-potential…

 

Apparently the 2023 report did not have the right answers. 

Up
3

That report was made with basically no industry input and is a more or less worthless report. The much older Worley one at least was based in reality

Up
0

More distractions

Up
3

Better off going nuclear eliminating the need for all this.

Up
2

Let's burn some energy to create pollution then burn some more energy to take it away. Good job energy is limitless, oh wait!

Up
8

Energy is limitless. If we could pipe the methane emissions from the recycled 1950s thinkers in the beehive, then pipe the CO2 emissions back in, we'd have closed loop energy production. Sort of a perpetual motion machine.

Up
2

Hopefully it keeps the climate alarmists at bay for a decade or more while they investigate a cost effective way to do carbon sequestration or storage.

Up
0

Nah, green wash is too easily recognised as brown wash for anyone with an IQ above amoeba level. This government was tired and old the day it was elected.

Up
5

What a circus this government is! Dig up more FFs that then need the byproducts disposed of? Anything to keep the cult of human industrialist exceptionalism mythology alive. 

Up
5

Why don't we just do the simple stuff first.

Free public transport paid for by having all cars pay a RUC and a congestion charge.

At the same time invite BYD or another battery manufacturer to manufacture home storage batteries to take advantage of all the roof top solar we are going to import and install.

Why waste time effort and money trying to trap something that doesn’t need to be burnt and released because we have better tech.

Up
3

Better off growing trees, and turning it into charcoal. You can then use that charcoal to create carbon neutral hydrocarbons.

Up
0

How is that carbon neutral? Carbon is absorbed by trees, temporarily locked up, turned into charcoal then burnt and releasing the same carbon as was originally absorbed? Meanwhile significant energy input to grow and harvest the trees and then turn them into charcoal and inefficiently transport them around the country (as opposed to like a pipeline network specifically designed to transport high energy dense natural gas)?

Up
2

For all the ignorant naysayers in this group, Contact Energy already have a CO2 reinjection capability with plans to scale up to commercial CO2 production. See https://www.nzgeothermal.org.nz/downloads/Contact-Energy---Geothermal-W…

Up
1

They are basically just condensing the exhaust steam , and injecting it into the bore. a lot simpler than scrubbing co2 out of a exhaust , transporting it to an old well , and injecting and sealing it there. Good on them for doing it though. 

Up
2

When the Simeon Brown can stump up one - just one - example where carbon capture is being used anywhere in the world at a cost effective level when compared to investing in renewables ... I'll take notice. Until then, this is nothing but a sop for NACTF supporters to rabbit off about (while showing their absolute ignorance on the subject). Pie in the sky nonsense.

Up
2

"sop for NACTF supporters". What NACTF voters would vote for this drivel? What  leftie supporters would vote National because of this policy? This isn't about voters.

Up
0

Donors, not voters.

Up
0

Yes, the green blob is insidious. A lot of money to be made in green scams.

Up
0

Imagine a machine that consumes fossil fuel in order to capture carbon.  ETS prices CO2 at $70 per tonne.  Fuel is $2.5/l, so in order to be financially viable, the machine has to consume less than 28L of fuel per tonne of CO2 put in the ground. The broad economy will mimic the aforementioned machine running furiously, until fossil fuel is used up and gone.    

If CO2 isn’t really a problem, as many scientists strongly believe, then CO2 capture disastrously counterproductive for the economy and for mankind.  Particularly since CO2 is actually beneficial to plant growth. 

This is from the consultation document: "In the first half of 2023, about 35,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2-e) was re-injected back underground at Ngāwhā. This represents a saving about 2.5 million dollars’ worth of emission units at a carbon price of $70 per tCO2-e" my question is how much energy was used to put the CO2 back into the ground?  How many kWh/tonne, or alternatively, litres of fossil fuel equivalent per tonne of CO2 were sacrificed for this virtue signalling endeavour?    

Up
0