Capturing a Solution? Unveiling the Myths and Realities of Carbon Capture and Storage

Written By Marcus Griswold

Climate change casts a long shadow, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) emerges as a potential weapon in our arsenal. But can this technology truly capture our environmental anxieties? Carbon capture has taken off as a way to reuse oil and gas wells to inject carbon underground. But is it another way for the fossil fuel industry to keep its head above water?

Myth #1: CCS is a Silver Bullet for Climate Change

CCS focuses on capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from industrial sources or directly from the atmosphere, then storing it underground. While it can reduce emissions, it doesn't address existing atmospheric CO2 levels. A multifaceted approach remains crucial. Some have called it a “Boondoggle”.

For example, the Weyburn Midale oil pool, which since 2000 has been receiving carbon dioxide injections - the world’s longest-running enhanced oil recovery project using carbon capture and storage. Without CO2 injection the pool would have ended its life by 2016, but that enhanced oil recovery (part of carbon capture) could extend the pool’s lifespan to 39 or even 84 more years.

Myth #2: CCS is Completely Safe

Leakage from storage sites poses a potential environmental risk, although advancements in geological monitoring aim to minimize this concern. Additionally, the long-term safety of underground CO2 storage remains under investigation.

A study released in 2023 found that carbon capture pipelines are more likely to experience small punctures than large ruptures. Smaller holes release the gas at a slower rate, which makes them harder to locate. And a delayed response to smaller punctures could cause them to be deadly. Impurities in the liquified gas can erode a pipeline and increase the chance of a leak. Potentially dangerous contaminants include water, nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides—all of which are sometimes found in CO2 captured from power plants.

Myth #3: CCS is Cost-Effective and Ready for Widespread Use

CCS technology is still under development, and the costs associated with capture, transportation, and storage are significant. Scaling up the technology faces economic and logistical hurdles. Hundreds of sites are developed or in development. New research shows that governments have spent over $20 billion to date, and have approved up to $200 billion more, of public money on CCS.

In the United States, it is estimated that to capture a quarter of current emissions by 2050, the industry would need to manage nearly two-and-a-half times more carbon dioxide than the total volume of current US oil production, and construct over 60,000 miles of pipelines.

Source: IEA

Myth #4: CCS Disincentivizes Renewable Energy Development

CCS should be seen as a complementary strategy, not a replacement for renewable energy sources. Ideally, we should strive for a future powered by renewables while mitigating existing CO2 emissions through CCS.

However, the vast majority of the carbon dioxide being buried by the oil and gas industry is currently being used to extract more oil. As DeSmog reported last year, 22 of the world’s 32 commercial carbon capture facilities use captured CO2 to prolong the life of aging oil wells. Brazilian oil major Petrobras injected a record 10.6 million tons of CO2 underground in 2022 that went towards extracting more oil.

Beyond the Myths: Unveiling the Potential and Pitfalls of CCS

Let's analyze the potential benefits and challenges associated with CCS:

Benefits:

  • Reduces Emissions from Difficult-to-Decarbonize Industries: CCS can target emissions from sectors where transitioning to renewables might be challenging, like cement production or steel mills.

  • Negative Emissions Potential: Some CCS technologies, like bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), can potentially remove existing CO2 from the atmosphere.

  • Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR): Injecting CO2 underground can help extract more oil from existing reserves, but the environmental implications of EOR need careful evaluation.

Challenges:

  • High Energy Consumption: Capturing and storing CO2 can be energy-intensive, potentially negating some of its environmental benefits. Transitioning to renewable energy becomes crucial to address this concern.

  • Limited Storage Capacity: Finding suitable geological formations with sufficient capacity for long-term, secure CO2 storage presents a significant challenge.

  • Public Perception: Concerns about leakage and potential environmental risks require clear communication and robust safety regulations to gain public trust.

Exploring Alternatives for a Sustainable Future

While CCS holds promise, other solutions are crucial:

  • Renewable Energy Development: Prioritizing wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources is essential for reducing reliance on fossil fuels and lowering emissions at the source.

  • Energy Efficiency Improvements: Investing in energy-efficient technologies and practices across all sectors can significantly reduce overall energy consumption and CO2 emissions.

  • Nature-Based Solutions: Protecting and restoring forests, wetlands, and other natural ecosystems can enhance their natural ability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.

  • Carbon Pricing: Implementing carbon pricing mechanisms can incentivize industries and consumers to reduce emissions by making them bear the cost of carbon pollution.

Ranking CCS Among Strategies for Sustainability

  • Accuracy: The claim that CCS is a standalone solution for climate change is inaccurate. It's a potential tool to be used alongside other strategies.

  • Effectiveness: The effectiveness of CCS depends on overcoming technological challenges, ensuring secure storage, and deploying it alongside emissions reduction efforts.

  • Cost: The high costs associated with CCS pose a significant hurdle.

  • Ethics: Responsible deployment with robust safety regulations, transparency, and public engagement is crucial for ethical considerations.

  • Impact on Climate Change: CCS can be a valuable tool for mitigating emissions and potentially achieving negative emissions with BECCS, contributing to tackling climate change.

Overall: CCS offers a potential avenue for mitigating climate change, particularly for hard-to-decarbonize industries. However, it's not a magic bullet. We need a multifaceted approach that prioritizes renewable energy development, energy efficiency, nature-based solutions, and carbon pricing. By deploying CCS responsibly alongside other strategies, we can build a cleaner and more sustainable future.

Further Resources:

Marcus Griswold