Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) has garnered significant attention in the realm of climate change, with high expectations as the forthcoming COP28 conference approaches. Positioned to be pivotal in reducing emissions, this technology involves the capture of carbon dioxide from industrial activities and its subsequent storage deep underground. Nations such as the US, Canada, China, and India are all exploring the potential application of CCS across various sectors. Nevertheless, amidst the fervor surrounding this technology, it is imperative to assess whether it truly lives up to its potential.
The CCS technology has been devised to capture emissions at their source, prior to their release into the atmosphere, distinguishing it from Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies, which concentrate on extracting CO2 from the atmosphere once it has been emitted. While CCS holds the potential to capture CO2 from fossil fuel production, it does not address downstream emissions resulting from the combustion of the fuel. Furthermore, the operation of CCS technology demands a substantial amount of energy, which may lead to further emissions if derived from fossil fuels. Critical analysis has even suggested that in some instances, CCS could result in more emissions than it captures.
Despite being among the few solutions for emissions in challenging sectors like cement production, CCS encounters formidable obstacles. The development of this technology has progressed slowly over the years, with a mere 30 commercial CCS projects currently operational worldwide. These projects capture less than 0.2% of the emissions reduction required to bridge the gap by 2030. Projections by the International Energy Agency for CCS storage have significantly fallen short, with numerous projects being cancelled due to exorbitant costs and technological difficulties.
One of the primary apprehensions about CCS pertains to its high expenses, which vary significantly based on factors such as industrial processes, CO2 concentration, transportation, and storage. Estimations for the cost of capturing CO2 range from CAD 27–48/tCO2 to CAD 50–150/tCO2, predominantly based on modelling and devoid of long-term cost data from operational projects.
In the realm of the fossil fuel sector, CCS continues to heavily rely on government subsidies to sustain its viability. Despite the steep costs and sluggish progress, several oil and gas companies are making minimal investments in CCS or renewable energy. This dependency on subsidies raises concerns regarding the sustainability and economic competitiveness of CCS.
Moreover, the performance of CCS in the coal industry has been notably lacklustre, with merely four coal-fired plants employing CCS technology operational worldwide. Despite billions of dollars in investment, these facilities capture less than 0.02% of the total emissions from the coal industry. Similarly, in Canada’s oil and gas sector, the amount of carbon captured is minimal and primarily utilized to facilitate further oil extraction, thus casting doubts on the true efficacy of CCS.
Furthermore, doubts loom over the potential of CCS to significantly contribute to restricting global warming to 1.5C. Considering the necessity of reductions in oil, gas, and coal production, it remains unclear whether CCS can bridge the gap in emission reductions. Additionally, concerns exist regarding the discussion surrounding ‘abated’ fossil fuels at COP28, as the efficacy and feasibility of CCS technology remain uncertain.
In summation, despite being heralded as a transformative force in addressing climate change, CCS technology contends with substantial challenges in terms of cost, feasibility, and performance. As discussions concerning fossil fuels and climate change intensify, it is imperative to critically scrutinize the veracity behind the promises of CCS. The potential of CCS to authentically tackle emissions and assume a decisive role in combatting climate change necessitates a thorough and critical assessment.
+ There are no comments
Add yours