by The future of fossil fuels is at the heart of the United Nations climate summit in Dubai, where many activists, experts and nations are demanding an agreement to phase out the oil, gas and coal responsible for warming the planet. On the other side: energy companies and oil-rich nations with plans to keep drilling well into the future.
In the context of these discussions are carbon capture and carbon removal, most, if not all, of the producers are relying on technologies to fulfill their commitments to achieve net zero emissions. Skeptics worry that the technology is being oversold to allow the industry to maintain the status quo.
“Industry needs to commit to really helping the world meet its energy needs and climate goals – which means letting go of the illusion that large amounts of carbon capture are the solution,” said Fatih Birol, Executive Director of International Energy Agency before the start of the year. discussions.
WHAT EXACTLY IS CARBON CAPTURE?
Many industrial facilities such as coal-fired power plants and ethanol plants produce carbon dioxide. To stop those planet-warming emissions from reaching the atmosphere, businesses can install equipment to separate that gas from all the other gases coming out of the smokestack, and transport it to a place where it can be stored permanently underground. And even for industries trying to reduce emissions, some will likely always produce some carbon, like cement manufacturers who use a chemical process that releases CO2.
“We see it as a mitigation technology, a way to stop the increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere,” said Karl Hausker, an expert on achieving net-zero emissions at the World Resources Institute, a climate-focused non-profit that supports sour fossil fuel. reductions with a limited role for carbon capture.
The captured carbon is concentrated in a form that can be transported by vehicle or through a pipeline to a place where it can be injected underground for long-term storage.
Then there is carbon removal. Instead of capturing carbon from one concentrated source, the objective is to remove carbon already in the atmosphere. This already happens when forests are restored, for example, but there is also pressure to use technology. One type captures it directly from the air, using chemicals to draw out carbon dioxide as air passes through it.
For some, carbon removal is essential in a global transition to clean energy that will take years. For example, despite significant gains for electric vehicles in some countries, gas-fueled cars will work well into the future. And it is challenging in certain industries, such as shipping and aviation, to completely decarbonize.
“We need to remove some of what’s in the atmosphere as well as stop the emissions,” said Jennifer Pett-Ridge, who heads the US federally supported Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s carbon initiative, second world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
HOW ARE THINGS?
Many experts say the carbon capture and storage technology works, but it’s expensive, and it’s still in the early days of deployment.
There are about 40 large-scale carbon capture projects in operation around the world capturing about 45 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year, according to the International Energy Agency. That’s a tiny amount – about 0.1% – of the 36.8 billion metric tons emitted worldwide as tallied by the Global Carbon Project.
The IEA says the history of carbon capture has been “one of largely unfulfilled expectations.” The group analyzed how the world can achieve net zero emissions and its guiding path depends heavily on lowering emissions by reducing fossil fuel use. Carbon capture is only a slice of the solution – less than 10% – but despite its relatively small role, its expansion is still behind schedule.
The pace of new projects is increasing, but they face significant obstacles. In the United States, there is opposition to CO2 pipelines that move carbon to storage sites. One concern is safety; in 2020, a CO2 pipeline ruptured in Mississippi, releasing carbon dioxide that displaced breathable air close to the ground and sent dozens of people to hospitals. The federal government is working on improving safety standards.
Companies may also face difficulties in obtaining licences. South Dakota regulators this year, for example, denied a construction permit for a 1,300-mile network of CO2 pipelines in the Midwest to transfer carbon to a storage site in Illinois.
The technology to remove carbon directly from the air also exists, but its widespread deployment is further away and especially expensive.
WHO SUPPORTS CARBON CAPTURE?
The American Petroleum Institute says that oil and gas will remain a critical source of energy for years to come, meaning that rapidly expanding carbon capture technology is “key to cleaner energy use throughout the economy for the world to reduce carbon emissions.” When checking most oil companies’ plans to achieve net zero emissions, most of them rely on carbon capture in some way.
The Biden administration wants to invest more in carbon capture and transfer, too, taking away from America’s relatively large spending compared to the rest of the world. But it is an industry that needs subsidies to attract private funding. The Inflation Reduction Act makes tax benefits much more generous. Investors can get a credit of $180 per ton to remove carbon from the air and store it underground, for example. And the Department of Energy has billions to support new projects.
“What we’re talking about now is taking proven and tested technology, but applying it much more widely and also applying it to sectors where the cost of deployment is higher,” a said Jessie Stolark, executive director of the Foundation. Carbon Capture Coalition, an industry advocacy group.
Investment is rising. The EPA is considering many applications for wells that can store carbon. And in places like Louisiana and North Dakota, local leaders are fighting to attract projects and investment.
Even left-leaning California has an ambitious climate plan that incorporates carbon capture and removes carbon directly from the air. Leaders say there is no other way to get to zero emissions.
WHO’S IN FRONT OF IT?
Some environmentalists argue that fossil fuel companies are holding up carbon capture to draw attention to the need to quickly phase out oil, gas and coal.
“The fossil fuel industry has proven to be dangerous and deceptive,” said Shaye Wolf, director of climate science at the Center for Biological Diversity.
There are other problems. Some projects have not met their carbon removal targets. A 2021 US government accountability report said that out of eight demonstration projects aimed at capturing and storing carbon from coal plants, only one had started operating when the report was published despite hundreds of millions of dollars in funding.
Opponents also note that carbon capture can extend the life of a polluting plant that would otherwise shut down sooner. This can especially hurt poorer minority communities who have long lived near heavily polluted facilities.
They also note that most of the carbon captured in the United States is eventually injected into the ground to squeeze out more oil, a process known as enhanced oil recovery.
Hausker said it is critical that governments set policies that force less fossil fuel use – which can then be complemented by carbon capture and removal.
“We’re not going to ask Exxon, ‘fine, stop developing fossil fuels,'” he said.
___
The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation to cover water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all matters. For all AP environment coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment
