Environment

Record-breaking carbon capture plant to snatch 800K tons of CO2 a year

Record-breaking carbon capture plant to snatch 800K tons of CO2 a year
These giant white tanks hold liquified CO2 that'll be stored thousands of feet beneath the seabed in Norwegian waters
These giant white tanks hold liquified CO2 that'll be stored thousands of feet beneath the seabed in Norwegian waters
View 3 Images
These giant white tanks hold liquified CO2 that'll be stored thousands of feet beneath the seabed in Norwegian waters
1/3
These giant white tanks hold liquified CO2 that'll be stored thousands of feet beneath the seabed in Norwegian waters
Another view of Yara's CCS facility in The Netherlands
2/3
Another view of Yara's CCS facility in The Netherlands
Northern Lights uses its own large carriers to transport CO2 in tanks to be stored in enormous reservoirs under the seabed
3/3
Northern Lights uses its own large carriers to transport CO2 in tanks to be stored in enormous reservoirs under the seabed
View gallery - 3 images

Norwegian chemical company Yara has inaugurated the largest industrial carbon capture facility in all of Europe this week. Set up at the company's ammonia and fertilizer plant in Sluiskil, the Netherlands, it can capture 800,000 tons of CO2 per year.

That carbon dioxide comes from its ammonia production process. Once it's captured, it's liquified, temporarily stored in those large white tanks you see in the photos, and subsequently transported by ship to Norway. This last bit is handled by Norwegian CO2 transport firm Northern Lights, which stores its cargo in a reservoir 8,530 ft (2,600 m) beneath the seabed.

This new carbon capture and storage (CCS) project represents a positive step toward large-scale industrial decarbonization for Europe. Over the next 15 years, it's expected to store about 12 million tons of CO2.

Carbon capture and storage in action | Yara Sluiskil

Not to be a sourpuss, but it's worth putting these figures into perspective. 800,000 tons a year amounts to 0.5% of total Dutch greenhouse gas emissions annually. Meanwhile, Global Carbon Budget estimated a couple of years ago that for 2025, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use would surpass 42 billion tons in the atmosphere worldwide.

The other way to look at it is that we need every effort like this that we can implement. Northern Lights has built out a storage capacity of 1.5 million tons of CO2 per year, and is now expanding to 5 million tons annually to meet growing demand from European industries.

Northern Lights uses its own large carriers to transport CO2 in tanks to be stored in enormous reservoirs under the seabed
Northern Lights uses its own large carriers to transport CO2 in tanks to be stored in enormous reservoirs under the seabed

The more CO2 we can get out of the atmosphere, the better a chance we have of mitigating the drastic effects of climate change. Cement, steel, chemicals, and fertilizer production are a major target for CCS, and hopefully we'll see more such projects come online in the near future.

Another view of Yara's CCS facility in The Netherlands
Another view of Yara's CCS facility in The Netherlands

Yara's setup may be the largest in Europe, but it's not quite as big as the one operating at a 1 GW coal‑fired plant in the Zhengning power station in China's Gansu Province. The Huaneng Longdong Energy Base CCS project can capture 1.5 million tons of CO2 a year from the unit’s flue gas.

Source: Yara

View gallery - 3 images
10 comments
10 comments
Username
Storage is ridiculous. Especially storing liquids in tanks , which will eventually degrade, at the bottom of the sea. There needs to be a way found to separate the C and the O2 and then both can be of service. Maybe not cutting down all the Earth's forest would be a start.
matthew4506
The only thing that has a hope of slowing down climate change is a worldwide industrial tree planting program... Drones, robots, humans all working together to re-forest the earth. Any one else want to help?, I'm keen!
WONKY KLERKY
For all the energy expended to do this, (FULL audit count of ALL affecting factors of input please), it might well be better overall, including energy expended, to treat the CO2 on land to crack and meld it to a petroleum feedstock (at the least)*. That would, to the rack of Klerky's eye, result in less energy expend, and simply, be easier. *ie. 'Send it round again'.
CliffG
The merit of this plan depends on the details of the 8,530'-deep reservoir. It it a void related to O&G extraction? Does the geology make it permanent?
michael_dowling
800,000 tons is a drop in the ocean. Matthew 4506: Trees take TIME to grow. We need to start removing existing CO2 on a huge scale right now!! One way that does work is spreading rock dust on farmer's fields,which absorbs CO2,and improves crop yields. Removes 1-4 gigatons/yr if used worldwide.
Cornerstone
Colossal waste of money, both in accumulating and storing.
Christian
The earth is greener and more forested now than it was 100 years ago (since we're not having to burn wood to heat our homes and survive winters). Building homes out of wood is a great way to sequester wood and store it for a few generations, especially if built out of fast growing pine and built in places where trees naturally don't grow. Half of the United States grows trees without trying, just stop mowing an old farm field and it'll be full of new oaks, pines, maples, and poplars within 10 years, by 20 years it'll be a mature forest. The few hundred acres around us of thick woods don't have any trees older than 80 years old. The whole area was clear cut for farming and lumber, and the only clue of it is carefully checking the ages of the biggest trees.
It's interesting that it's Norway attempting this, as they are a large exporter of Oil themselves. Their economy is so prosperous from it that they can afford to go fully electric for transportation. But this plant will only capture .0004% or so, of the world's carbon, and how much carbon is needed to burn to manufacture the plant? It seems a little fishy and more like politicians and builders helping each other pad their pockets with a project that won't actually accomplish anything truly meaningful but emotionally looks good on paper.
Lastly, are we sure that sequestering excess carbon is the right thing to do? The greatest civilizations the world has seen occurred during warmer periods. The most abundant biologically life-filled times of earth's entire history occurred when it was so warm there were no ice caps at all, the largest plants and animals the earth has seen. Is our current society actually the cause of the earth warming? Or the result? When we have enough food, we can experiment with technology and the dirt and resources around us. The great majority of wars fought by humanity are over growing plants, mostly for food but textiles and lumber also, including WWI and WWII. When there's lots of food, and no wars to disrupt people we tinker and experiment and grow and develop like we have. The troubled middle ages of Europe happened because of a mini-ice age and the earth cooling by just one degree for a few hundred years. We were still coming out of that by the early 1800s. The Pueblos, Aztecs, Mayans, Romans, all thrived during warm periods and collapsed during cool ones. Even our whaling industry grew out of the need to warm our homes with the easiest fuel we could find in a deforested England: whale blubber. Discovering Coal in England saved the whales. Discovering crude oil saved even more animals and environments. Nuclear is 100x better for the environment than Solar when compared watt-for-watt. Having abundant food from warmer weather and more Carbon Dioxide for plants to live off of and grow from has allowed us to tinker with the dirt in ways no civilization ever could before. Are we sure that trying to cool the earth is a good thing or possible? There's no actual proof that there are more hurricanes than before (there hasn't even been a single hurricane this year) and we can only barely detect any actual average rise in global temperature, and with it only being a century old, that's a blip in the static of historic climate fluctuation.
This plant seems really, like some clever folks have figured out how to milk the Norwegian government for a vanity project that will make the builders and designers of it wealthy.
Christian
How about this: In areas of the world where trees have no problem growing in abundance, use that wood as compost and chips to build up soil in places where things don't grow so easily, like sandy deserts. Use wood to build up small dams that retain and slow water run off and allow more plants to grow. Sequester the carbon that way, and promote a better ecosystem that needs fewer foreign resources, or will allow the local populations to help develop new technologies once they aren't so worried about starving?
Wavmakr
And they are serious about this??...........Fascinating
richdin
800,000 tons equals approximately the annual tailpipe emissions of 174,000 cars, or the total annual carbon footprint of 200,000 average people worldwide—or 50,000 average Americans. Pipe dreams. Plant trees instead.