As the world grapples with the urgent need to mitigate climate change, carbon capture and storage has been touted as a potential solution by the fossil fuel industry. However, a closer examination of CCS reveals that it is an expensive, unproven technology that distracts from genuine decarbonization efforts while allowing the oil and gas industry to continue business as usual.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, even if CCS is realized at its full announced potential, it will only account for about 2.4% of the world's carbon mitigation by 2030. This sobering statistic highlights the limited role that CCS can play in addressing the climate crisis, despite the hype surrounding the technology.
The financial rationale for CCS is equally questionable. Projects from Algeria to Texas have demonstrated the technology's troubled history of cost overruns and delays. An IEEFA review of 16 projects found that no existing CCS project has consistently captured more than 80% of carbon, despite industry claims that a 95% capture rate is achievable.
Furthermore, for the hundreds of currently proposed CO₂ disposal projects, there is scant information on the technical efficacy of their underground storage sites. An IEEFA study explored the unexpected challenges faced and interventions needed in two Norwegian projects touted as successes, offering cautionary tales for proposals that are at least 10 times larger.
The reality is that we already hold the key to most CO₂ mitigation. According to both the IPCC and International Energy Agency, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and eliminating fugitive methane emissions can address more than 80% of the world's decarbonization requirements by 2030. CCS, even if its technical deficiencies can be overcome, can only provide a minimal contribution to decarbonization.
Despite this, fossil fuel preservationists continue to give CCS equal billing next to proven solutions. This is a dangerous distraction that risks delaying the necessary transition to a low-carbon economy. As Dennis Wamsted, an energy analyst at IEEFA, warns, "Proponents of [CCS] projects are selling an unproven dream that in all likelihood will become a nightmare for unsuspecting investors."
The risks and costs associated with CCS are not being adequately addressed in public discourse by either industry or government. Grant Hauber, a strategic energy finance advisor at IEEFA, notes that "subsurface CO₂ storage is an amalgamation of probabilities and risks ... these risks and the costs that accompany them are not being made part of public discourse by either industry or government."
In conclusion, while the idea of capturing and storing carbon emissions may seem appealing, the reality is that CCS is an expensive, unproven technology that cannot meet the scale of the climate challenge we face. Instead of investing in false solutions like CCS, we must prioritize proven strategies such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, and reducing methane emissions. Only by focusing on these genuine solutions can we hope to avoid the worst impacts of climate change and build a sustainable future for all.
