Should Colorado really sequester carbon?

By: Jacob Barrons

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is a technology that has the potential to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities. Colorado has been identified as one of three places in the southwestern United States with possible geographical sequestration formations that would allow it to serve as a regional sequestration sink. There are numerous risks that carbon sequestration carries.

One of the primary risks associated with CCS is the potential for CO2 leakage from underground storage sites. The CO2 is typically stored in geological formations such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs, deep saline aquifers, and unmineable coal seams. In northeastern Colorado, a commercial-scale carbon sequestration plant is planned to go online in 2024. This plant will store the carbon dioxide from two ethanol plants in an underground saline aquifer. It aims to pump 350,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually into this aquifer. There is a risk that the CO2 could leak from these types of sequestration plants into the surrounding environment.

If CO2 were to leak into the atmosphere, it could contribute to global warming and other negative environmental impacts. In addition, if CO2 were to leak into groundwater or surface water, it could harm aquatic ecosystems and potentially contaminate drinking water sources. Another risk associated with CCS in Colorado is the potential for induced seismicity. This occurs when the injection of fluids, such as CO2, into underground geological formations, triggers earthquakes. Colorado is already prone to earthquakes due to natural geologic conditions, and the injection of large volumes of CO2 into the ground could potentially exacerbate this risk. There have already been several cases of induced seismicity associated with injection wells used for oil and gas production in Colorado. In 2011, a magnitude 5.3 earthquake occurred near Trinidad, Colorado, which was linked to the injection of wastewater from oil and gas operations. If CCS were to become more widespread in the state, there could be an increased risk of induced seismicity.

In addition to the environmental risks associated with CCS, there are also economic and social challenges. CCS is an expensive technology, and the cost of implementing and maintaining CCS facilities could potentially lead to higher electricity prices for consumers.

Furthermore, there are concerns about the long-term viability of CCS as a solution to climate change. While CCS can help to reduce CO2 emissions, it does not address the root causes of climate change, which are the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Some argue that investing in renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, would be a better long-term solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

There are also concerns about the potential for CCS to be used as a justification for continuing to rely on fossil fuels. If the development of CCS technology is seen as a way to continue using fossil fuels without reducing emissions, it could potentially delay the transition to cleaner energy sources.

Finally, there are social and environmental justice concerns associated with CCS. The storage sites for CO2 are typically located in rural areas or near low-income communities, which could potentially expose these communities to environmental and health risks.

CCS has the potential to help reduce CO2 emissions and mitigate climate change, but there are also significant risks associated with this technology. In Colorado, these risks include the potential for CO2 leakage, induced seismicity, higher electricity prices, and the long-term viability of CCS as a solution to climate change. There are also social and environmental justice concerns associated with CCS, particularly related to the location of CO2 storage sites. As such, any decision to implement CCS in Colorado or elsewhere must carefully consider these risks and public comment in order to decide if there is where Colorado wants to spend it energy and capital in the fight against climate change.