/Carbon Capture

by Marcio Rodrigues / 25.07.2022

Carbon Removal Technology can be exciting, but it should not contribute to emissions reduction.

Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) technologies are viewed optimistically in the fight against global warming. However, they are not without controversy. A significant fraction of researchers, activists, and other experts express concerns about investments in CCUS.

Carbon removal technologies.

Carbon removal technologies have existed since the 1970s, but the discussion of their expanded use gained momentum in the 1990s. At that time, the scientific community was already aware of the risks of global warming, but there was a prevailing sense that there was still time for the development of alternatives.

As a result, despite having nearly half a century of existence, the development of CCUS remained suspended for many years. Consequently, the costs are still substantial, and uncertainty remains about the environmental consequences of storing carbon underground.

Moreover, the technology is still not widely used. According to Camilla Hodgson, a climate reporter for the Financial Times, "the number of operational CCUS devices is quite small. Globally, they do not remove much carbon."

For comparison, in 2021, CCUS managed to remove approximately 40 million tons of carbon. To achieve net-zero emissions globally, this number would need to increase 40-fold to 1.7 billion tons by 2030. By 2050, carbon removal would need to reach around 7.6 billion tons.

How CCUS works

There are two types of carbon removal technology, both of which come with massive costs. The first is associated with a factory retaining the gas directly at the source of creation. The other, which is even more complex and therefore more expensive, can capture CO2 in the atmosphere and separate it. Once the carbon is captured, it is either buried underground, where it cannot re-enter the atmosphere, or sold to other companies for various uses.

What supporters say

Although the technology faces many criticisms, supporters emphasize that in order for the world to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, the use of any available technology is necessary.

This is the opinion, for example, of the International Energy Agency (IEA). According to Samantha McCulloch, head of CCUS at the agency, carbon removal technologies have strategic value in the fight against global warming, even though they have not yet delivered on past promises.

"They [CCUS] are contributing, but not at the scale we expected in terms of what is needed for net-zero carbon emissions," she explained. "The encouraging news, I think, is that in recent years the technology has been getting attention, and that reflects that without CCUS, achieving net-zero emissions will be very difficult, perhaps impossible."

Similarly, the American Petroleum Institute, the largest oil and gas lobby in the United States, supports the same perspective. According to the institute, carbon removal technologies are a rare example of bipartisan approval in the U.S. Congress, involving Republicans, Democrats, and independent lawmakers.

Criticism of CCUS

Indeed, support for carbon removal technologies is not as unanimous as the American Petroleum Institute suggests. The more focus there is on CCUS, the more criticism the technology receives.

Costs and scale

The Norwegian oil company Equinor started using CCUS as early as 1996, and initially, the results were positive, with emissions reduction around 1 million to 2 million tons per year.

However, in 2008, the then Prime Minister of Norway launched a massive installation project of the technology on the country's west coast. After spending billions, the plan had to be abandoned due to economic unfeasibility. The fact is that the technology, which already demands colossal expenditures at the initial stage, requires even more with its extensive use. In other words, the economies of scale are negative.

According to Richard Milne, the Financial Times correspondent in Norway, CCUS is "essentially economically unviable at any scale." According to the article 'The grand challenges in carbon capture, utilization, and store,' the carbon stored in geological structures underground would need monitoring, and this process alone would be economically unfeasible under current conditions, not to mention transportation and the capture system itself.

A report by the CIEL (Center for International Environmental Law) stated that "the unproven economies of scale of the technology and prohibitive costs mean that they cannot contribute significantly to the rapid reduction of global emissions."

Uses of carbon and urgency

Two main arguments are used against the economic impossibility of CCUS. The first argues the possibility of selling CO2, implying that there could be an economic value to be gained. The second argument discusses technological development that could reduce the costs involved in carbon removal.

Against the argument of using CO2, critics evaluate that about 81% of the carbon removed is used in a process called 'Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR),' which aims to extract the remaining oil from a reservoir that would not be possible without the addition of the gas. The operation can store about half of the carbon used.

Although the oil industry argues that emissions are negative in EOR extraction, as only half returns to the atmosphere, this is not entirely true. After all, the end product of the process is more fossil fuel that will be burned, and therefore, it will generate more CO2 emissions.

Regarding technological development, the argument is that the world does not have time to wait for CCUS economies of scale. All the investment in the technology could be directed towards the development of new energy sources. Pursuing carbon removal is a diversion from what should actually happen, which is the reduction of emissions.

The same CIEL report stated that the technology only prolongs the resilience of fossil fuel industries and distracts the world from what truly matters: renewable energy sources.

Conclusion

Indeed, the main supporters of carbon removal technologies seem to be involved with the oil and gas industries. However, the fact remains that CCUS is still largely impractical to implement, either due to the high costs involved or the lack of knowledge about certain environmental consequences. In the current scenario where urgent action is required, relying on this technology instead of reducing emissions can certainly jeopardize the world's future.

Sources:

Climate crisis and carbon capture: Why some are worried about its role (cnbc.com)

Confronting the Myth of Carbon-Free Fossil Fuels: Why Carbon Capture Is Not a Climate Solution (Jul 2021) – Center for International Environmental Law (ciel.org)

Frontiers | The Grand Challenges in Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage | Energy Research (frontiersin.org)

Carbon capture: the hopes, challenges and controversies | FT Film – YouTube

How carbon capture technology can add to the emissions problem | CBC News

Assessing Carbon Capture: Public Policy, Science, and Societal Need | SpringerLink