1. The solvent in carbon capture runs in a closed loop. You typically heat it, and it releases the CO2 so you can compress it and inject it below ground.
2. You don't necessarily need a depleted natural gas reservoir to inject CO2 subsurface (though they sure are convenient) and there is plenty of room for CO2 subsurface. It also doesn't creep to the surface on any meaningful timescale.
3. How do we transport it there? Pipelines.
I feel like CO2 sequestration is second only to nuclear in the amount of unfounded concerns. There's one very well founded concern directly in the article - they estimate $50 per tonne of CO2 just to capture, let alone to store. My experience on a 2009 carbon capture plant design was that approx $100 per tonne of CO2 was the lowest carbon price that would really make carbon sequestration highly attractive and widespread.
I also happen to think a $100 per tonne carbon price is not such a bad idea. But it is possible that other technologies would beat carbon sequestration at that carbon price point. I don't know.
2. You don't necessarily need a depleted natural gas reservoir to inject CO2 subsurface (though they sure are convenient) and there is plenty of room for CO2 subsurface. It also doesn't creep to the surface on any meaningful timescale.
3. How do we transport it there? Pipelines.
I feel like CO2 sequestration is second only to nuclear in the amount of unfounded concerns. There's one very well founded concern directly in the article - they estimate $50 per tonne of CO2 just to capture, let alone to store. My experience on a 2009 carbon capture plant design was that approx $100 per tonne of CO2 was the lowest carbon price that would really make carbon sequestration highly attractive and widespread.
I also happen to think a $100 per tonne carbon price is not such a bad idea. But it is possible that other technologies would beat carbon sequestration at that carbon price point. I don't know.