The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is the highest it has been in at least a million years. The US Agency for Climate and Oceanography (NOAA) recently came to this conclusion and referred to data for the year 2021. Global warming is also continuing, as the agency’s report said. Sea temperature and sea level are also at record highs.
Many countries therefore want to reduce their CO2 emissions – with renewable energies, electric cars or stricter requirements for industry. Norway sees another way of keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere in a certain method: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
But what exactly is that? What are the Norwegians doing there?
So-called CO2 management is about separating, transporting and storing CO2 from industrial processes, electricity generation or the production of hydrogen. This is intended to reduce emissions of the climate-damaging gas in the atmosphere.
There are several techniques to do this. Some of these are being tested at the carbon capture technology center in Mongstad, Norway. Which option is best depends on the amount of CO2 to be transported and the distance between source and storage.
Norway wants to store the CO2 in the seabed. There are large reservoirs at depth that ensure suitable pressure and temperature conditions and are intended to prevent the CO2 from escaping. For this purpose, the Norwegian Oil Directorate has created an atlas showing the storage possibilities on the Norwegian continental shelf. According to this atlas, there is a storage capacity for more than 80 billion tons of CO2 on the base.
According to the German Federal Environment Agency, scientists assume that CO2 capture “when burning fossil fuels (…) can permanently keep 65 to 80 percent of the CO2 out of the atmosphere”. However, whether CCS can keep this promise has not yet been clarified and is the subject of various research and pilot projects.
One of these pilot projects in Norway is “Langskip” – in German “long ship”. The name was chosen based on the Vikings, who became great traders with longships. “Just like those who built the longships, the government’s goal is to bring the technology to the world.”
The main goal of the Norwegians: to take the first step with the “long skip” and implement CCS – and thus contribute to the reduction of CO2 emissions in Europe.
“In order to achieve the goals of the Paris climate agreement, we must, among other things, capture and store CO2 on a large scale,” explains Andreas Bjelland Eriksen, State Secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office, the star. In several industrial processes, such as cement production, CCS is necessary to significantly reduce emissions.
The Norwegian government sees itself confirmed in its CCS project. The UN climate panel’s fifth main report said it indicated that without CCS, the global cost of keeping this increase in average global temperature below 2 degrees could be more than double.
At “Langskip”, CO2 is already being captured in a cement factory and the waste incineration plant in Oslo, liquefied and collected by ship. It is then transported to an interim storage facility and then pumped through pipes onto the shelf where it is stored 2600 meters below the sea floor. The warehouse will initially have a capacity of 1.5 million tons of CO2 per year; the line from the land facility to the reservoir is designed for five million tons.
The advantage here is that Norway is an oil and gas producing country: CCS has many similarities with the production of these fossil fuels. There is a broad consensus in Norwegian politics that new technologies should be built on the shoulders of old ones. “Develop, don’t unwind” is the motto.
“We are in pole position to contribute to the development of CCS, building on decades of oil and gas exploration. One could say that this is one of the ways we use our knowledge from the offshore industry to develop new climate solutions for to develop the future,” says Eriksen.
The total cost of the project is estimated at 25.1 billion Norwegian kroner – the equivalent of around 2.48 billion euros. The state’s share is estimated at 16.8 billion crowns. Private partners pay the rest.
But does it even make sense to invest so much money in a technology that is still in its infancy? Eriksen counters: “CCS is a proven technology and we have more than 25 years of experience with safe storage on the Norwegian continental shelf.” The technology is “ripe”.
“Someone had to take that first step and take the risk that others would follow. No company would be able to make this investment decision alone, so we decided to support it with public funds.”
One can already see that commercial projects will be spun off from the “Langskip” project; European companies are actively involved in the development of the technology.
These include the Norwegian oil and gas company Equinor and the oil and gas producer Wintershall Dea from Germany. Both want to jointly promote a “comprehensive and secure value chain” for CCS, as they announced at the end of August this year.
The aim of the alliance is to direct CO2 from Europe to the Norwegian deposits. Germany and Norway in particular are to be connected in this way.
A pipeline of around 900 kilometers in length is planned in northern Germany for this purpose, with a connection to storage sites in Norway. This should go into operation before 2032 and have an expected transport capacity of 20 to 40 million tons of CO2 per year, which corresponds to around twenty percent of all German industrial emissions per year.
In addition, the two companies want to jointly apply for licenses for the offshore storage of CO2. They plan to store 15 to 20 million tons per year on the Norwegian continental shelf.
But not everyone thinks as much of the project as Equinor, Wintershall Dea or the Norwegian state. Critics of CCS – including environmental organizations such as Greenpeace – emphasize the possible security risks of CO2 storage.
The Federal Environment Agency emphasizes that “as a rule” no negative effects on human health are to be expected during normal operation. However, there are risks from accidents or the release of CO2 from storage.
In addition, there are risks for the groundwater due to leaks. The released CO2 could release pollutants in the underground. Salty groundwater could also reach fresh groundwater and the earth’s surface, where it could cause damage to groundwater, soil and surface water.
The above-ground CCS systems could also have a negative impact on flora, fauna, landscape and biodiversity, according to the Federal Office, which is why effective monitoring is absolutely necessary.
Greenpeace Germany calls CCS a “deceptive package” that means “an ecological and economic legacy for future generations”. Greenpeace also emphasizes the risk of leaks: “CO2 is not poisonous, but in high doses it causes death by asphyxiation. And because it is heavier than air, it can collect in depressions in the ground in the event of leaks.”
The final storage of CO2 is a “dangerous mistake that cannot make any contribution to climate protection”. Greenpeace sees an “incalculable risk technology” in CCS, and the technology is not a solution to the climate problem. It only serves as a “fig leaf for the further mining of brown coal and the construction of new coal-fired power plants”. Climate change can only be slowed down if fewer fossil fuels are burned.
So wouldn’t it be better for the climate to get out of dirty oil and gas production than to store the CO2? State Secretary Eriksen argues against it. “Norway is the largest oil and gas producer in Europe, supplying about a quarter of the gas consumption of EU countries.” If production were stopped overnight, this would have serious consequences for European energy security. “I think a better strategy is that we work together to ensure a clean energy transition with reliable access to energy and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.”
Equinor sees no problems with the CCS technology and writes on its website: “Equinor has already safely stored more than 20 million tons of CO2 in this way. No leaks were found. (…) There were no safety risks or consequences for health and environment can be identified.”
The Norwegian government writes that two other CO2 management projects have “demonstrated the safe storage of CO2 in sub-seabed geological formations for several decades”.
There are “many misunderstandings about the security of CCS,” says Eriksen. “Our experience in real world conditions has shown that storage is safe and secure. Of course we have numerous methods in place to monitor the wells and deposits and there are strict contingency plans in place – just like any other area of the offshore industry.”
Eriksen thinks it is “very unfortunate” to have CCS oppose the fossil fuel phase-out. “We need to do both: drive the switch to renewables while introducing CCS in hard-to-constrain industries. If we get stuck in this either-or debate, time will run out and we could miss our climate targets.”
Sources: Government of Norway, Norway Oil Directorate, CCS Norway, Federal Environment Agency, Greenpeace, Equinor, Wintershall Dea
