Talk:Carbon capture and storage

Does anyone have time to add more images to this article? For the lead, I think an image of a technical installation for CCS would be better than an image with a bar chart with a very long caption that takes a while to read and understand. I've done a quick search on Wikimedia Commons but nothing jumped at me, except for two protest images which I have now added. EMsmile (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

:Thanks for finding these. I've been looking for more and the best I've found so far is a diagram, which I added. I would love to add photographs of CCS facilities and pipelines, but most of the photographs [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Carbon_capture_and_storage on Commons] that are labelled as showing CCS infrastructure actually do not show anything CCS-related as far as I can tell. The main image for the category is of a power plant where CCS was never implemented, which in a weird way is actually emblematic of the technology's history. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks, that's interesting. Wondering why the image labeling is often wrong, I guess people are confused over what CCS entails. EMsmile (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

:::I wonder too. I removed the [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q41491&diff=prev&oldid=2226666964 miscategorized main image] from the category home page. FYI {{ping|Bluerasberry}} in case I've misunderstood something. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Clayoquot|EMsmile}} I agree with the assessment you both made. The situation is that some category images come from Wikidata, and there is incorrect labeling of images in Wikidata which propagate elsewhere. Wikidata is powerful because it allows centralized multilingual management of Wikimedia content, but dangerous for the same reason as in this case when a random power plant is the image for an environmental protection practice. Bluerasberry (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::If interested/relevant I have some self-taken photos of the new CC plant at the Heidelberg cement factory in Brevik, Norway. CCS is mostly pipes and metal boxes so we can't get around that.

:::::The issue with my image is that storage is not carried out on site, only CC, treatment and compression. Storage occurs elsewhere. Example here [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heidelberg_Brevik_Carbon_Capture.jpg] - it was a characteristically grey November day. PutTheKettleOn (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm impressed that you managed to take this photo! Thanks for doing this. I'd be in favour of replacing the main image with this one and moving the main image further down. Fingers crossed that this project works out. Do you know what the different parts of this facility do? E.g. will the shiny pipe be used to transport CO2? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It was on an official visit, so no sneakiness! This was as close as they'd let us though as it was the week before mechanical completion. And I do indeed - here are a couple of explanatory slides https://imgur.com/a/FCqLckE. The CO2 pipeline is comically small as it's cooled and pressurised into a liquid. The big shiny pipe is for heat recycling - if I remember correctly they're using the heat to warm up the amine solution, which causes it to release/desorb the CO2 for treatment and compression. The amine solution can then be cooled and reused in the tower. PutTheKettleOn (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Very interesting! I've added the photo to the body of the article for now. If nobody objects in the next few days we can make it the main image. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the flag placed and assume the bias was about bias towards treating this as a credible, significant climate solution despite significant evidence casting a doubt on these strategies. I have added discussion of one article in the lead and politics sections and wanted to start this thread to be able to link to from the flag for any discussion to make this a more neutral article. Superb Owl (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

:I agree with a bias flag. CCS is basically a way for oil companies to get more oil out of the ground and make money from the government. It’s not good for the climate. LizIndy (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

::Superb Owl's comment above is from July 30, when the article looked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carbon_capture_and_storage&oldid=1237307567 like this]. At the time, the article did not make it clear how closely the CCS industry is tied to the oil industry, how heavily it is subsidized by governments, and how much additional fossil fuel usage it causes. The article has changed a lot since then to make these things more clear. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:::I added the flag back as there is no consensus for removing it and agree the article still appears to be written more from a fan's perspective. WP:DUE and WP:AGEMATTERS do not seem to be met here with regard to how the technology is received and its impact or potential impact Superb Owl (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

::::I'm open to changes. Can you be more specific about what issues need to be addressed? E.g. what should be added or covered in more or less depth to satisfy WP:DUE? What sources does the article use that have been superseded? (FYI for new editors, the above comment refers to the guideline WP:AGEMATTERS).

::::One thing to keep in mind is that if we make the article sound like it has anti-CCS bias, people who are already anti-CCS might like it but undecided people will trust it less.

::::This talk page has been quiet lately - I'll ping everyone who was involved in prior discussion about neutrality so we can hash it out as a group: {{ping|Superb Owl |Wuerzele | Jondvdsn1| EMsmile |PutTheKettleOn |Chidgk1|LizIndy}} Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for the ping. I am actually very surprised that User Superb Owl undid Clayoquot's removal of that bias tag, given that Superb Owl has not edited the article nor participated on the talk page until now, as far as I can see (I didn't check the archive). Personally, I trust the judgement of Clayoquot who has tiredlessly slogged away at this difficult article over several weeks, including writing on this talk page on many occasions to explain her changes and asking for input (very little input has been forthcoming from the other page watchers). Myself, I've been quiet on this talk page for two reasons: 1) don't have the time for this difficult topic at the moment, and 2) I trust Clayoquot's judgement and editing performance. She's very, very thorough. So when she feels confident to remove that particular tag, I think the timing is right. - Anyone who wants to insist that the tag remains should indicate where in the article the problem areas apparently still lie? EMsmile (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::I didn't actually remove the tag - it was Chidgk1 who did that on Sept 16. I appreciate your comments but honestly I'm not asking anyone to trust my judgement. I'm looking for consensus and fresh eyes are always good. I saw some specific issues raised by Supreme Owl within the article that I think made sense. I tried to address them in a series of edits here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carbon_capture_and_storage&diff=1255412763&oldid=1255401972] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, I know but that's just my own reason for not engaging in the issue of tag "yes or no" any further. Don't have time and trust yours and Chidgk1's judgement. :-) Hopefully others will have more to bring to this brainstorming than I do, especially Superb Owl if they insisted on putting the tag back in on 4 November. I'll stay out of this discussion now. EMsmile (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

::::@Superb Owl I hope the changes made since you re-added the tag have fixed the problem. If not please could you let us know specifically what problem remains in the current article - thanks. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::My issues have largely been addressed - thank you for making those fixes and improvements and removing the tag Superb Owl (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::Thanks Superb Owl, Chidgk1, and EMsmile! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I see some have been attempted, similar to the “hydrogen ladder” in Hydrogen economy#Uses, but CCS seems to be very region specific. As I have not been able to find one for China maybe we should not add US and Europe even if we can find CC-BY versions of

https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/commentary/blog/u-s-ccs-ladder-for-industrial-decarbonization/

and

https://www.e3g.org/publications/carbon-capture-and-storage-ladder/ ? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for looking into ways to add more visual communication. I agree being global rather than region-specific is important. When it comes to charts, I'd also consider 1) how understandable the chart is to a general reader, and 2) whether it gives viewpoints more weight than we would give if we didn't have a nice-looking free chart. I think both of the charts above fail #1 because of jargon and complexity, and I'm not sure about #2. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The IPCC definition says it is “conditioned” but I could not find where in the article that is explained. Is that to remove some impurity which might corrode the pipe taking it to storage? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:It involves removing water as well as other impurities. I believe yes, it's about preventing pipes and other equipment from corroding, and it's also about the fact that impurities affect the phase behavior of CO2. I'll add an explanation. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians,

Could an independent editor please take a look if CO2-Plume Geothermal can feature on this page?

This is a proposed technology researched at the ETH Zurich that combines CCS with Geothermal (all CO2 stored just like in CCS while geothermal power is produced using the benefits of CO2 as a working fluid). Thank you

—Rtmgeo (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (CET)

: Hi Rtmgeo. Thanks for asking - it's great to see someone from the research community getting engaged with Wikipedia. Regarding new technologies, there is a lot of research going on in the area of clean energy and we have to triage so that broad-scope articles like this one don't become overwhelmed with lists of research areas. The main way we do this triage is to look at recent review articles like [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236123003897?via%3Dihub this one] from 2023. I don't see a mention of CO2 Plume-Geothermal in that article or in any similarly broad sources, so I think it should stay out for now. We like to follow the literature rather than decide for ourselves what technologies and approaches have the most promise. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

:Hello @Clayoquot, many thanks for your reply. I can understand your considerations about triage. Regarding technology review articles / reports, how about this one? [https://ieaghg.org/publications/prospective-integration-of-geothermal-energy-with-carbon-capture-and-storage/ IEAGHG: Prospective Integration of Geothermal Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage]. There is a lot going on to combine geothermal and CCS, for good reasons; in my opinion, this is relevant information for the audience of wikipedia. Would it be an idea to insert a link to this literature review to at least make readers aware of this combination, instead of referring to individual technologies? Thank you for your ideas, Rtmgeo (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

::To justify including this topic, we would need a much more broadly-scoped source than that, like an overview of CCS technologies or an overview of a major aspect of CCS such as capture. And that's just to start considering it. I think everything currently in the article is currently at at least a [https://www.iea.org/reports/ccus-in-clean-energy-transitions/ccus-technology-innovation technology readiness level] of 7 (demonstration stage). Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

:::@Clayoquot, indeed, that makes a lot sense, to me to broaden the scope. Glad to make a start - would you recommend this to be a separate article or a dedicated section about emerging technologies / intersection areas? Rtmgeo (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

::::I suggested broadening the scope of the sources to look at. In terms of what content to add, my opinion is that Wikipedia should not be used to promote CO2 plume geothermal. We have a policy that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy or public relations. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Talk:Carbon capture and storage/GA1}}

I'm planning to undo [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carbon_capture_and_storage&diff=prev&oldid=1267791420 this removal] that was explained with "1.5 degrees is now impossible". First, limiting warming to 1.5 degrees - which is defined as an average of 1.5 degrees as measured over decades rather than a single year - is not impossible.[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7575x8yq5o] Second, even if 1.5 degrees were out of reach, there is still a valuable takeaway that oil and gas investment is too high. I don't see how removing this information helps the reader better understand the issues.

Much of the climate literature is framed in terms of whether a given policy or practice (in this case oil and gas investment) is compatible with 1.5 degrees. Before we start treating that literature as wrong or irrelevant, I'd like to see a discussion at WikiProject Climate Change.

Regarding the sourcing, the original source is an IEA report and I'll cite that. I used a Fatih Birol tweet as I thought it explains things in a more accessible way. But Esculenta's question (Who is Fatih Birol?) makes me wonder if readers will give a tweet as much credence as a report. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Clayoquot @Esculenta Fatih Birol is my hero and one of the best products of my adopted country! I certainly agree with you that this article needs to emphasise that even with the fullest rollout of CCS only a small fraction of the emissions from burning fossil fuels as we do today would be captured (we drove a petrol car and cooked on a gas stove today). But I don’t think oil and gas investment is relevant to this article. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

::The relevance is explained in one of Birol's tweets: "[https://x.com/fbirol/status/1727552767256932766 Continuing with business-as-usual for oil & gas while hoping a vast deployment of carbon capture will cut the emissions is fantasy.]" Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/cement-and-concrete-companies-leading-the-net-zero-transition/ says “ Meanwhile, some working facilities have turned to carbon capture and storage (CCS) to capture up to 100 percent of their emissions in the next decade …. ” but is it a reliable source? https://www.ramboll.com/decarbonisation/carbon-capture-for-cement-production claims 60% presumably with current tech. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:I would not use this source for scientific claims. 100% capture is thermodynamically impossible. The Center for American Progress is a think tank/advocacy group that doesn't seem to have much WP:USEBYOTHERS in the area of CCS. One of the plants they say can do 100% capture describes itsellf as aiming for 95% capture.[https://www.holcim.us/further-develop-carbon-capture-technology]. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the following addition:

: However, recent research suggests that Carbon Capture and storage still hold potential if implemented strategically. A 2024 study published in Global Environment change introduces a model framework that evaluates CCS’s contribution to carbon neutrality, using China as a case study. It demonstrated that when integrated with national energy planning and efficient management, CCS can significantly reduce emissions and refine climate mitigation strategies globally.{{cite journal |last1=Cheung |first1=W. W. L. |last2=Gaines |first2=S. D. |last3=Sumaila |first3=U. R. |year=2024 |title=Climate change impacts on marine biodiversity and fisheries: Current knowledge and future directions |journal=Global Environmental Change |volume=84 |pages=102804 |doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102804 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378024000517 |access-date=2025-05-06}}

This point of view that CCS can hold potential if implemented strategically is already stated at length in the article. That is the whole point of the "Priority uses" section. Wikipedia policy is that articles should use secondary sources as guideposts for the level of acceptance for claims such as these. We do not take a paper about a single study - particularly a modeling study for a single country - and give it undue weight. I'm planning to remove the addition. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)