Carbon capture technology has become a key point in debates about how to reach our climate goals. Developed by advocates as a potential game-changer in the fight against carbon dioxide emissions, especially in hard-to-abate heavy industries, carbon capture has serious promise. Experts worry it’s not just their effectiveness, but their practicality that is in question, exposing a tricky mix of challenges and limitations.
Alex is the research manager at the Environmental Integrity Project’s Oil & Gas Watch. She pointed out that no one has ever accomplished the predicted carbon capture rates of 90% or over in real life. This startling observation throws into serious doubt whether we can or should plan to bank on such lofty expectations in the future.
Last year, only about 45 carbon-capture facilities operated on a commercial scale. Collectively, they captured a staggering 50 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Despite major progress in the energy sector, it still created a colossal 37.8 geo ton carbon dioxide. This sobering figure underscores the incredible challenge we have before us.
The challenge of removing carbon dioxide at each source of emission introduces a second major challenge for the viability of carbon capture technology. The predominant approaches allow facilities to extract process emissions, which can then be stored or sequestered. All they succeed in doing is retaining roughly 60% of those emissions. This inefficiency casts a painful spotlight on the potential for improvement through technology.
Moreover, reports from the International Energy Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicate that about three-fourths of captured carbon dioxide is not stored permanently. Instead, it’s usually injected back into oil fields to help increase pressure and maximize oil extraction. Although this practice can be a stopgap measure to reduce emissions without providing a real solution to the climate crisis, it is still dangerous.
BKV Corp., for example, has constructed a new, carbon capture facility in Texas that injects carbon dioxide underground under high pressure. We are putting carbon nearly two miles beneath the ground. These underground geological formations can keep it locked away safely for millennia. Experts warn that even this approach doesn’t insure long-term storage.
Sangeet Nepal, a noted voice in climate technology discussions, remarked on the role of carbon capture within the broader context of renewable energy solutions:
“It’s not a substitution for renewables … it’s just a complementary technology.”
This one additional statement highlights a growing pro-repair sentiment that is emerging within the national climate arena. Despite the need for a strong transition to more sustainable energy sources, carbon capture is now the darling of the fossil lobby.
