by The future of fossil fuels is at the center of the United Nations climate summit in Dubai, where many activists, experts and nations are calling for 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 continue drilling in the future.
In the background of those discussions is carbon capture and removal, technologies that most, if not all, producers are counting on to deliver on their promises to reach net-zero emissions. Skeptics fear the technology is being oversold to allow the industry to maintain the status quo.
“The industry must commit to genuinely helping the world meet its energy needs and climate goals, which means putting aside the illusion that capturing implausible amounts of carbon is the solution,” said the executive director of the International Agency of Energy, Fatih Birol, before the start of the meeting. talks.
WHAT EXACTLY IS CARBON CAPTURE?
Many industrial facilities, such as coal-fired power plants and ethanol plants, produce carbon dioxide. To prevent those planet-warming emissions from reaching the atmosphere, companies can install equipment to separate that gas from all the other gases coming out of the smokestack and transport it to a location where it can be permanently stored underground. And even for industries trying to reduce emissions, some will likely always produce some carbon, such as cement manufacturers that use a chemical process that releases CO2.
“We call that mitigation technology, a way to stop the rise of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere,” said Karl Hausker, an expert on reaching net-zero emissions at the World Resources Institute, a nonprofit focused on in the climate that supports fossil fuels. reductions along with a limited role for carbon capture.
The captured carbon is concentrated into a form that can be transported by vehicle or through a pipeline to a location where it can be injected underground for long-term storage.
Then there is carbon removal. Instead of capturing carbon from a single, concentrated source, the goal is to remove carbon already in the atmosphere. This already happens when forests are restored, for example, but there is also a push to implement technology. One type captures it directly from the air, using chemicals to extract the carbon dioxide as the air passes through.
For some, carbon removal is essential during a global transition to clean energy that will take years. For example, despite notable advances in electric vehicles in some countries, gasoline-powered cars will continue to operate long into the future. And some industries, such as shipping and aviation, face challenges in fully decarbonizing.
“We have to remove some of what’s in the atmosphere, in addition to stopping emissions,” said Jennifer Pett-Ridge, who directs the carbon initiative at the federally supported Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the United States, the second-largest emitter. of greenhouse gases in the world.
HOW IS IT GOING?
Many experts say the technology to capture carbon and store it works, but it is expensive and still in the early days of implementation.
According to the International Energy Agency, there are about 40 large-scale carbon capture projects in operation around the world that capture approximately 45 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year. That’s a small amount (about 0.1%) of the 36.8 billion metric tons emitted globally according to the Global Carbon Project.
The IEA says the history of carbon capture “has largely been a story of unmet expectations.” The group looked at how the world can achieve net zero emissions and its guiding path relies heavily on reducing emissions by reducing the use of fossil fuels. Carbon capture is only a small part of the solution (less than 10%) but, despite its comparatively small role, its expansion is still lagging.
The pace of new projects is accelerating, but they face significant obstacles. In the United States, there is opposition to CO2 pipelines that transport carbon to storage sites. Safety is a concern; In 2020, a CO2 pipeline in Mississippi burst, releasing carbon dioxide that displaced breathable air near the ground and sent dozens of people to hospitals. The federal government is working to improve safety standards.
Companies may also have difficulty obtaining permits. South Dakota regulators, for example, this year rejected a construction permit for a 1,300-mile network of CO2 pipelines in the Midwest to transport carbon to a storage site in Illinois.
The technology to remove carbon directly from the air also exists, but its widespread deployment is even further away and especially expensive.
WHO SUPPORTS CARBON CAPTURE?
The American Petroleum Institute says oil and gas will remain a critical energy source for decades, meaning that for the world to reduce its carbon emissions, the rapid expansion of carbon capture technology is “key to the use of cleaner energy throughout the economy. A review of most oil companies’ plans to reach net zero emissions also reveals that most of them rely in some way on carbon capture.
The Biden administration also wants more investment in carbon capture and removal, taking advantage of the United States’ comparatively large spending compared to the rest of the world. But it is an industry that needs subsidies to attract private financing. The Inflation Reduction Act makes tax benefits much more generous. Investors can get a credit of $180 per ton for removing carbon from the air and storing it underground, for example. And the Department of Energy has billions to support new projects.
“What we’re talking about now is taking a technology that’s been tried and tested, but applying it much more broadly and also applying it in sectors where it has a higher cost to implement,” said Jessie Stolark, executive director of Carbon Capture. Coalition, an industry advocacy group.
Investment is picking up. The EPA is considering dozens of applications for wells that can store carbon. And in places like Louisiana and North Dakota, local leaders are struggling to attract projects and investment.
Even left-leaning California has an ambitious climate plan that incorporates carbon capture and carbon removal directly from the air. Leaders say there is no other way to reduce emissions to zero.
WHO IS AGAINST?
Some environmentalists argue that fossil fuel companies are delaying carbon capture to distract from 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 of eight demonstration projects aimed at capturing and storing carbon from coal plants, only one had begun operating at the time the report was published despite of hundreds of millions of dollars in financing.
Opponents also point out that carbon capture can serve to prolong the life of a polluting plant that would otherwise close sooner. That can especially harm poorer minority communities that have long lived near highly polluting facilities.
They also note that most of the carbon captured in the United States is now eventually injected into the ground to expel more oil, a process called enhanced oil recovery.
Hausker said it is essential that governments establish policies that mandate reduced use of fossil fuels, which can then be complemented by carbon capture and removal.
“We’re not going to ask Exxon, ‘Please stop developing fossil fuels,’” he said.
___
The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of environmental and water policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment
