Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technology
Governments around the globe have included carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) as part of their net-zero plan, but there is no evidence that CCS will work. We can’t rely on non-existent technologies to save us instead of acting on the solutions we already have - a rapid transition off fossil fuels onto renawable sources of energy.
Read a round-up of the headlines:
“In short, carbon capture is not the same thing as carbon sequestration. Carbon capture is the trapping of carbon emissions after they have been emitted but before they enter our atmosphere. Carbon sequestration is the storage of removed or captured carbon in various environmental reservoirs.”
Impactful Ninja, Carbon Capture vs Carbon Sequestration: What’s the Difference?
“Notwithstanding that metaphorical lines in the sand are still at the mercy of changing tides, a lot of the damage has already been done. Even if humanity went carbon-neutral today, temperatures would continue to rise, a product of our already-oversaturated atmosphere.
Enter Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS). Essentially, fans suck in high volumes of air, using a reusable media — a sponge-like foam — to absorb carbon dioxide. This media is treated to high temperatures, which re-releases the gas into a controlled environment; specialized vessels from which it can't escape back into the atmosphere. The next step is figuring out what to do with it.”
Rochester Institute of Technology, Carbon Capture Can't Save Us
“Carbon capture and storage schemes, a key plank of many governments’ net zero plans, “is not a climate solution”, the author of a major new report on the technology has said.
Researchers for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) found underperforming carbon capture projects considerably outnumbered successful ones by large margins.
Of the 13 projects examined for the study – accounting for about 55% of the world’s current operational capacity – seven underperformed, two failed and one was mothballed, the report found.
“Many international bodies and national government are relying on carbon capture in the fossil fuel sector to get to net zero, and it simply won’t work,” Bruce Robertson, the author of the IEEFA report, said.”
The Guardian, Carbon capture is not a solution to net zero emissions plans, report says
“The world is experiencing unprecedented fuel price increases, energy blackmail between countries, up to 7 million air pollution deaths per year worldwide and one climate-related disaster after another. Critics contend that a switch to renewable energy to solve these problems will create unstable electricity grids and drive prices up further. However, a new study from my research group at Stanford University concludes that these problems can be solved in each of the 145 countries we examined — without blackouts and at low cost using almost all existing technologies.
The study concludes that we do not need miracle technologies to solve these problems. By electrifying all energy sectors; producing electricity from clean, renewable sources; creating heat, cold, and hydrogen from such electricity; storing electricity, heat, cold and the hydrogen; expanding transmission; and shifting the time of some electricity use, we can create safe, cheap and reliable energy everywhere…
Finally, our findings contend that a transition to 100 percent clean, renewable energy in each country should occur ideally by 2035, and no later than 2050, with an 80 percent transition by 2030.”
The Hill, No miracle tech needed: How to switch to renewables now and lower costs doing it
“Scientists told the Guardian that an overdependence on CCS was ill-advised. More than 700 scientists have written to the prime minister asking him to grant no new oil and gas licences, describing CCS as “yet to be proved at scale”, and the UN secretary-general called on governments last week to stop developing oil and gas.
Bob Ward, head of policy at the Grantham Institute, said CCS technology would be needed for certain industries, but that using it to enable the continued use of fossil fuels was a mistake. “What does not make sense is to carry on with further development of new fossil fuel reserves on the assumption that CCS will be available to mop up all the additional emissions. While the costs of CCS will come down, it will make fossil fuel use even more expensive, and it will not eliminate all the risks resulting from the price volatility and energy insecurity of fossil fuels. A successful and competitive economy in the future will be powered by clean and affordable domestic energy, not unreliable and insecure fossils fuels,” he said.
“CCS is not required if the government moves to renewables as quickly as possible – especially as I am unaware of any CCS that works,” added Mark Maslin, professor of earth science at UCL.”
The Guardian, UK government gambles on carbon capture and storage tech despite scientists’ doubts
More reading