[ad_1]
Although carbon capture and storage hasn’t really taken off in Canada, or globally, proposals are mounting from corporations, pipeline companies, oilsands consortiums and chemical manufacturers. (Photo by ETA+ via Unsplash
Global warming is increasing. We continue to emit fossil fuels and destroy forests, wetlands and bogs.
Our long-term survival and well-being depend on our ability to change course quickly. However, if we fail to act sooner, then we will need to remove the greenhouse gases already present in the atmosphere. One solution is to do as plants do and capture carbon dioxide, store it or convert it into something else.
Most carbon captureThese facilities reduce CO2 emissions in industrial operations. Less common but garnering interest are “direct air capture” technologies, which extract CO2 from the atmosphere. The CO2 from both can be injected into deep geochemical formations for permanent storage. But, it can also combine with hydrogen to. create synthetic fuelsUsed for other purposes or products. CO2 from industrial operations is often injected into oil and gas wells to force more “product” out.
Letting plants do their work — by protecting and restoring green spaces, planting trees and preventing wildfires — is an efficient, cost-effective way to capture carbon on a large scale, but technology can play a role in site-specific carbon reductions and converting CO2 to other products. Whether it’s viable on a large enough scale to make a dent is another question.
Fossil fuel and other industries have latched onto carbon capture, utilization and storage as a way to continue business as usual, raking in profits — and government subsidies, including tax credits.
The few carbon capture and storage facilities that are currently available have been expensive and not very effective. One facility is located in Saskatchewan. Unimpressive capture rateIt uses CO2 from a coal fired power plant to extract more oil. Therefore, any climate benefits are negligible. Two plants are located in Alberta, and they cost $1.24 Billion. The provincial government has promised more funding — even using carbon tax money.
Despite claims by industry that facilities can capture more then 90% of emissions, Shell’s Quest projectTo capture carbon from a fossil or “blue” hydrogenfacility (used for upgrading oilsands bitsumen) removed approximately 48% of CO2 per annum and 39% total emissions between 2015 to 2019, according to a Global Witness report. It captured 4.81 million tonnes of greenhouse gases, including methane, but emitted 7.66 million tonnes — all to process oil that will eventually be burned!
Fossil fuel and other industries have latched onto carbon capture, utilization and storage as a way to continue business as usual, raking in profits — and government subsidies, including tax credits. Claims of significant reductions in operations emissions don’t account for the much greater emissions from burning the end products in cars and factories.
Technological innovation is critical to resolving the crisis, but governments shouldn’t subsidize expensive, time-consuming, often unproven technologies aimed more at keeping the fossil fuel industry alive than helping resolve climate disruption.
Organisations like the International Energy Agency say it’s needed to address the climate crisis. But it’s expensive, and injecting massive amounts of CO2 into the ground, whether to force more oil or gas out or to store it, may not be problem-free. Although it is possible to convert it into fuels, this must be done in a clean manner.
Although carbon capture and storage hasn’t really taken off in Canada, or globally, proposals are mounting from corporations, pipeline companies, oilsands consortiums and chemical manufacturers.
Most would inject operations-generated CO2 deep underground, storing it in porous rock — requiring a lot of “pore space.” As with most “out of sight, out of mind” approaches, there could be unintended consequences. One, the CO2 could leak. And, although people once thought no life existed below bedrock, bacteria have since been found kilometres underground — including methanogens, which convert CO2 to methane, a shorter-lived but much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
To reach our 2030 climate goals and beyond, we must cease using fossil fuels. Instead, we must focus on easily available, affordable solutions such as renewables.
The IEA says “emissions reduction targets cannot be met without employing the technology, estimating 7.6 gigatonnes of carbon would have to be captured annually around the world to achieve net-zero emissions.” That’s almost 200 times what’s being captured now, a Narwhal article explains.
Technological innovation is critical to resolving the crisis, but governments shouldn’t subsidize expensive, time-consuming, often unproven technologies aimed more at keeping the fossil fuel industry alive than helping resolve climate disruption. And we can’t use current or future technologies to justify continuing to overload the atmosphere with CO2.
We must abandon fossil fuels in order to reach our 2030 climate goals and beyond. We must also stop burning them. Instead, we should focus on cost-effective solutions that are readily available and affordable such as renewables and electrification. While technologies that can truly assist in the transition are important, we must also ensure that natural systems play a significant role in carbon capture efforts.
