John Gale

Bio: John Gale is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Greenhouse gas & Enhanced oil recovery. The author has an hindex of 18, co-authored 23 publications receiving 1675 citations.

Coal-Bed Methane Enhancement with CO2 Sequestration Worldwide Potential

Abstract: A new coal-bed methane production technology has the added attraction of tackling greenhouse gas emissions. Injection of carbon dioxide, an important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, into deep coal seams can enhance methane recovery, while simultaneously locking up the carbon dioxide in the coal measure. Providing the coal is never mined, the carbon dioxide would be sequestered for many years, and thereby help to avoid climate change. Initial results from the world’s first carbon dioxide- enhanced coal-bed methane (CO2-ECBM) pilot in the United States have shown this new technology to be technically and economically feasible. Since 1996, over 57 million m3 (2 Bcf) of CO2 has been sequestered in the coal seams. Based on current costs and performance, CO2-ECBM may be profitable in the United States at prevailing well-head natural gas prices of US$0.06 to $0.07/m3 ($1.75 to $2.00/Mcf), representing an estimated 8.5 Gt of CO2 sequestration potential. The technology for implementing and operating CO2-ECBM recovery is based on demonstrated oil field technology, although further refinements are needed. The worldwide CO2-ECBM potential has been estimated at 150 Gt CO2. Analysis of representative CO2-ECBM projects indicates that 5 to 15 Gt of carbon dioxide could conceivably be sequestered at a net profit, while about 60 Gt of sequestration capacity may be available at moderate costs of under $50/t CO2.

An overview of current status of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies

Abstract: Global warming and climate change concerns have triggered global efforts to reduce the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is considered a crucial strategy for meeting CO2 emission reduction targets. In this paper, various aspects of CCS are reviewed and discussed including the state of the art technologies for CO2 capture, separation, transport, storage, leakage, monitoring, and life cycle analysis. The selection of specific CO2 capture technology heavily depends on the type of CO2 generating plant and fuel used. Among those CO2 separation processes, absorption is the most mature and commonly adopted due to its higher efficiency and lower cost. Pipeline is considered to be the most viable solution for large volume of CO2 transport. Among those geological formations for CO2 storage, enhanced oil recovery is mature and has been practiced for many years but its economical viability for anthropogenic sources needs to be demonstrated. There are growing interests in CO2 storage in saline aquifers due to their enormous potential storage capacity and several projects are in the pipeline for demonstration of its viability. There are multiple hurdles to CCS deployment including the absence of a clear business case for CCS investment and the absence of robust economic incentives to support the additional high capital and operating costs of the whole CCS process.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward

Abstract: Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is broadly recognised as having the potential to play a key role in meeting climate change targets, delivering low carbon heat and power, decarbonising industry and, more recently, its ability to facilitate the net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. However, despite this broad consensus and its technical maturity, CCS has not yet been deployed on a scale commensurate with the ambitions articulated a decade ago. Thus, in this paper we review the current state-of-the-art of CO2 capture, transport, utilisation and storage from a multi-scale perspective, moving from the global to molecular scales. In light of the COP21 commitments to limit warming to less than 2 °C, we extend the remit of this study to include the key negative emissions technologies (NETs) of bioenergy with CCS (BECCS), and direct air capture (DAC). Cognisant of the non-technical barriers to deploying CCS, we reflect on recent experience from the UK's CCS commercialisation programme and consider the commercial and political barriers to the large-scale deployment of CCS. In all areas, we focus on identifying and clearly articulating the key research challenges that could usefully be addressed in the coming decade.

Carbon capture, storage and utilisation technologies: A critical analysis and comparison of their life cycle environmental impacts

Abstract: This paper presents a first comprehensive comparison of environmental impacts of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) technologies. Life cycle assessment studies found in the literature have been reviewed for these purposes. In total, 27 studies have been found of which 11 focus on CCS and 16 on CCU. The CCS studies suggest that the global warming potential (GWP) from power plants can be reduced by 63–82%, with the greatest reductions achieved by oxy-fuel combustion in pulverised coal and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants and the lowest by post-combustion capture in combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants. However, other environmental impacts such as acidification and human toxicity are higher with than without CCS. For CCU, the GWP varies widely depending on the utilisation option. Mineral carbonation can reduce the GWP by 4–48% compared to no CCU. Utilising CO2 for production of chemicals, specifically, dimethylcarbonate (DMC) reduces the GWP by 4.3 times and ozone layer depletion by 13 times compared to the conventional DMC process. Enhanced oil recovery has the GWP 2.3 times lower compared to discharging CO2 to the atmosphere but acidification is three times higher. Capturing CO2 by microalgae to produce biodiesel has 2.5 times higher GWP than fossil diesel with other environmental impacts also significantly higher. On average, the GWP of CCS is significantly lower than of the CCU options. However, its other environmental impacts are higher compared to CCU except for DMC production which is the worst CCU option overall.