Carbon Capture
By Mitchell Hart
About this collection
## Carbon Capture and Storage: Promise vs. Reality This collection examines the current state of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, revealing a significant gap between industry promises and actual performance. Try asking: How does Carbon Capture compare to renewable energy? What are the key arguments for an against Carbon capture? At current costs, how much investment would need to be made to meet climate goals?
Curated Sources
Carbon Capture and Storage Education Guide
This educational guide from MIT's TILclimate series focuses on teaching students about carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture and utilization (CCU) technologies. It includes a hands-on chemistry lab where students produce a key ingredient in low-carbon concrete, readings, discussions, and data exploration on existing CCS facilities worldwide. The guide aims to help students understand the role of CCS in mitigating climate change, its potential applications, and limitations. It also explores the concept of biomimicry in developing sustainable technologies. The activities are designed to be flexible and adaptable to different classroom settings, with links to additional resources and MIT explainers on related topics.
Key Takeaways
- The guide highlights the importance of considering multiple climate solutions, including CCS, to address the complex issue of climate change.
- By exploring real-world CCS facilities and their applications, students can develop a deeper understanding of the technology's potential and challenges.
- The integration of biomimicry and hands-on experimentation in the guide provides a unique approach to teaching climate change mitigation strategies.
Unpacking Carbon Capture and Storage: The technology behind the promise | International Institute for Sustainable Development
The document analyzes the feasibility and effectiveness of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology in reducing emissions from industrial processes and fossil fuel production. Despite its promise, CCS has several limitations, including high costs, technological challenges, and a slow development pace. The technology is not cost-competitive with renewable energy sources, and its large-scale deployment is hindered by significant infrastructure and storage challenges. The document also highlights that CCS is often used to justify continued fossil fuel expansion, which is incompatible with global climate targets. To limit warming to 1.5°C, the production of oil and gas needs to decline significantly, and reliance on CCS in the energy sector is misguided.
Key Takeaways
- CCS technology is not a silver bullet for climate change mitigation due to its high costs, technological challenges, and limited scalability.
- The use of CCS in the fossil fuel sector is often used to justify continued expansion of fossil fuel production, which is incompatible with global climate targets.
- Renewable energy sources are more cost-competitive and effective in reducing emissions than CCS in the energy sector.
- Limiting warming to 1.5°C requires a significant decline in oil and gas production, making CCS in the fossil fuel sector an inadequate solution.
Research progress on CO2 capture and utilization technology - ScienceDirect
This document reviews the research progress on CO2 capture and utilization technology. It discusses various CO2 capture technologies, including chemical absorption, solid-phase porous materials adsorption, membrane separation, cryogenic separation, hydrate method, and microbiological method. The document also explores CO2 utilization technologies, such as physical utilization, chemical utilization, biological utilization, and mineralization utilization. The review highlights the advantages and disadvantages of different CO2 capture and utilization technologies and identifies areas for further research and development.
Key Takeaways
- Chemical absorption is the most suitable CO2 capture technology for industrial applications, but its energy consumption is high.
- CO2 utilization technologies, such as converting CO2 into organic fuels and chemical products, can offset the cost of carbon capture and conversion.
- Mineralization utilization technology realizes efficient CO2 conversion, and mineralized products can be sold or used as high-value-added products.
- The simultaneous conversion of CO2 and other harmful gases, the introduction of metabolic engineering, and novel catalytic systems are potential research directions for CO2 utilization.
Feasible deployment of carbon capture and storage and the requirements of climate targets | Nature Climate Change
This study examines the feasibility of carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment in meeting climate targets. Using historical growth patterns of policy-driven technologies like nuclear, wind, and solar power, the authors assess the potential CCS capacity by 2030, 2040, and beyond. They find that only 10% of 1.5°C-compatible and 44% of 2°C-compatible pathways depict realistic CCS capacity by 2040. The study highlights challenges in CCS deployment, including high failure rates of planned projects and the need for rapid acceleration post-2030. The authors conclude that feasible CCS deployment pathways capture less than 600 GtCO2 by 2100, impacting global carbon budgets.
Key Takeaways
- Only 10% of 1.5°C-compatible pathways meet all CCS feasibility constraints.
- CCS capacity must reach 0.37 GtCO2 yr-1 by 2030 to be on track for climate targets.
- Most 1.5°C- and 2°C-compatible pathways depict CCS growth rates exceeding historical nuclear power growth.
Trends in Research and Development for CO2 Capture and Sequestration - PMC
The document discusses the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions and the various approaches being researched for CO2 capture and sequestration. It highlights the importance of developing novel materials and technologies to mitigate CO2 emissions and achieve the goal of 'net zero' by 2050. The review analyzes publication trends in CO2 capture and sequestration research from 2001 to 2021, focusing on technologies capable of reducing global atmospheric CO2 levels. The document covers various CO2 capture processes, including postcombustion, precombustion, oxy-fuel combustion, and direct air capture, as well as biological, chemical, and geological sequestration methods.
Key Takeaways
- The development of novel CO2 capture and sequestration technologies is crucial for achieving 'net zero' emissions by 2050.
- Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is a rapidly deployable and effective method for CO2 sequestration.
- Geological sequestration of CO2 can be successfully achieved with economic incentives and significant advances in site characterization, monitoring, and leak assessment and management.
The current scope and stand of carbon capture storage and utilization ∼ A comprehensive review - ScienceDirect
This comprehensive review examines the current state of carbon capture storage (CCS) and utilization (CCU) technologies, highlighting their role in reducing CO2 emissions. The paper discusses various CO2 capture methods, including post-combustion, pre-combustion, and oxy-fuel capture, as well as different utilization pathways such as enhanced oil recovery, chemical conversion, and mineralization. It also addresses the challenges associated with CCS and CCU, including high costs, energy penalties, and leakage risks. The review concludes that integrating CCS and CCU can provide a promising approach towards economically viable value chains and mitigating climate change.
Key Takeaways
- CCS and CCU are crucial for reducing CO2 emissions from industrial sources.
- The high cost of CCS technology is a significant barrier to its widespread adoption.
- Integrating CCS and CCU can create economically viable value chains and help mitigate climate change.
Will There Be Enough Power to Remove Carbon From the Sky? - The New York Times
The direct air capture (DAC) industry is facing a significant challenge in securing enough renewable energy to power its operations, particularly wind and solar power, as it races to develop technology to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Companies like CarbonCapture and Climeworks are vying for limited resources in an increasingly competitive U.S. power market, with some areas having more suitable geologic formations for storing carbon underground than others. The energy challenge is massive, with DAC facilities requiring between 5-10 gigajoules of energy to capture one ton of carbon dioxide. The U.S. has a backlog of requests from proposed power plants waiting to connect to the grid, with 95% being for solar or wind energy, or battery storage. As a result, some are considering using fossil fuels to power DAC plants, although this goes against the industry's goal of reducing carbon emissions.
Key Takeaways
- The DAC industry's growth is being hindered by the limited availability of renewable energy, highlighting the need for increased investment in clean power infrastructure.
- The competition for renewable energy resources is driving some DAC companies to consider alternative, potentially less sustainable, energy sources.
- The geographic limitations of DAC technology, including the need for suitable storage sites, are a significant factor in the industry's development and deployment.
Carbon Capture Comes Back Down to Earth - The New York Times
The carbon removal market, which had been gaining momentum with significant investments from major companies and investors like Bill Gates, Google, and Amazon, has faced uncertainty due to the Trump administration's policies. The Energy Department terminated $3.7 billion worth of awards for carbon capture and storage projects, and applications for new permits dropped by 55%. Climeworks, a prominent carbon removal company, cut 22% of its staff due to anticipated slower growth. Despite this, some projects like Project Cypress in Louisiana are expected to move forward. Tax credits for carbon capture projects have survived Republican negotiations, and Occidental Petroleum received approval for a new facility in Texas. The industry now focuses on improving technology efficiency and reducing costs.
Key Takeaways
- The carbon capture industry is experiencing a slowdown due to the Trump administration's climate policies and the termination of significant funding for carbon capture projects.
- Despite the challenges, major companies continue to invest in carbon removal credits, and some projects like Project Cypress are moving forward.
- The industry is shifting its focus from rapid scaling to improving technology efficiency and reducing costs to remain viable.
Removing Carbon From the Sky Could Be the Next Climate Gold Rush - The New York Times
The article discusses the growing investment in carbon dioxide removal technologies as a potential solution to combat climate change. Bill Gates and other wealthy investors have backed companies working on carbon capture, with over $5 billion raised since 2018. Companies like Deep Sky and Climeworks are developing projects to strip carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, with the market potentially worth $1.2 trillion by 2050. However, critics argue that carbon capture may not be effective at scale and could perpetuate fossil fuel production. Despite this, the US government is supporting the industry through tax credits and funding for demonstration projects.
Key Takeaways
- The carbon dioxide removal industry is attracting significant investment from wealthy individuals and companies, with over $5 billion raised since 2018.
- Despite the potential for the market to be worth $1.2 trillion by 2050, current carbon capture technologies are expensive and not proven at scale.
- Critics argue that carbon capture could perpetuate fossil fuel production and distract from efforts to reduce emissions, highlighting the need for careful consideration of its role in addressing climate change.
Why carbon capture and storage is not a real climate solution
The David Suzuki Foundation argues that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is not a viable climate solution. CCS involves capturing CO2 from fossil fuel power generation and industrial facilities, compressing and transporting it, and then using it to extract more oil or injecting it into geological formations. Despite five decades since the first CCS project, it has captured only 0.001% of global emissions. CCS primarily addresses emissions from industrial sources, not the 80% of oil and gas emissions from downstream use. In Canada, 70% of captured carbon is used to extract more oil. CCS is expensive, with costs up to 10 times more than reducing emissions using wind and solar. It also requires significant energy to build and operate CCS infrastructure. With only seven CCS projects in Canada, capturing about 0.5% of national emissions, it is not a scalable solution. The foundation emphasizes that real climate solutions involve shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy, electrifying transportation, and increasing energy efficiency.
Key Takeaways
- CCS is not a substitute for reducing fossil fuel use, as it doesn't address downstream emissions.
- The high cost and energy requirements of CCS make it an impractical solution for significant emissions reduction.
- Renewable energy and energy efficiency measures are more effective and affordable climate solutions than CCS.
Study casts doubt on carbon capture | Stanford Report
A Stanford University study led by Mark Z. Jacobson suggests that current carbon capture technologies are inefficient and can increase air pollution, casting doubt on their effectiveness in reducing carbon emissions. The research analyzed data from a coal plant with carbon capture equipment and a direct air capture plant, finding that they captured only 10-11% of total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions over 20 years. The study concluded that the social cost of carbon capture, including air pollution and health costs, is higher than operating a fossil fuel plant without carbon capture. Jacobson argues that focusing on renewable energy sources like wind and solar power is a more effective solution to reducing carbon emissions.
Key Takeaways
- The study highlights the inefficiency of current carbon capture technologies, which can actually increase air pollution and have higher social costs than traditional fossil fuel plants.
- Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources like wind and solar power is a more effective and cost-efficient way to reduce carbon emissions.
- The research suggests that investing in carbon capture technologies may divert resources away from proven solutions like reforestation and reducing other sources of emissions and pollution.
How Does Carbon Capture Work? - The New York Times
The article discusses the concept of carbon capture and its potential role in mitigating climate change. It explains that carbon capture involves removing CO2 from the atmosphere or capturing emissions from industrial sources before they are released. The article highlights two main methods of carbon capture: post-combustion capture, which involves capturing emissions from smokestacks at power plants or factories, and direct air capture, which involves removing CO2 directly from the air. The captured CO2 can be used or stored underground. However, the article also notes that carbon capture is not yet being done on a large scale and is still a developing technology. Some experts are skeptical about its potential, citing concerns that it may distract from efforts to reduce emissions in the first place. The article also discusses the challenges and limitations of carbon capture, including the energy required to capture and isolate CO2, the costs involved, and the need for suitable rock formations for underground storage.
Key Takeaways
- Carbon capture technologies are being developed to mitigate climate change by removing CO2 from the atmosphere or capturing emissions from industrial sources.
- The effectiveness of carbon capture in reducing net emissions is disputed, with some studies suggesting it may only reduce emissions by 10-11% after accounting for energy used in the capture process.
- Experts argue that carbon capture should be pursued as part of a multi-faceted approach to addressing climate change, rather than relying solely on it as a solution.
Frequently Asked Questions
- How do the energy requirements for DAC facilities (5-10 gigajoules per ton CO2) compare to the renewable energy capacity needed to replace equivalent fossil fuel generation, and what does this reveal about optimal resource allocation?
- Given that 70% of captured CO2 in Canada is used for enhanced oil recovery, how does this practice affect the net climate impact of CCS investments compared to direct renewable energy deployment?
- What explains the persistence of 85-90% efficiency claims in CCS literature when Stanford research and real-world data consistently show 10-11% net effectiveness?
- How might the competition between DAC facilities and AI data centers for renewable electricity reshape the geographic distribution of both industries?
- What role does the bipartisan political support for CCS play in its continued funding despite poor performance metrics, and how does this compare to support patterns for other climate technologies?
- Given the IPCC finding that oil and gas production must decline 65% by 2050 for 1.5°C targets, how do current CCS deployment scenarios align with these production decline requirements?
- How do the infrastructure requirements for CO2 transport pipelines compare to renewable energy transmission infrastructure in terms of cost, timeline, and public acceptance?
- What accounts for the dramatic difference between the projected 149 CCS projects by 2020 and the actual 30 commercial facilities currently operating?