The Tough Reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

Depending who you ask, carbon capture and storage (CCS) might seem like a vital fix to climate change, or a dangerous distraction from the hard work we need to do decarbonising - from protecting nature to building renewables. But when it comes to tackling climate change, there are no simple truths - carbon capture and storage is both hero and villain of our fight against global warming.

This film has been supported by the Meliore Foundation. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this film lies with the author. The Meliore Foundation cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained or expressed therein.

#ClimateChange #cop28

==MORE INFO==

Renewable cheapness
Leaks
IEA 1.5 roadmap
Chevron making CCS rules
Comment on CCS’s role
Unabated fossil fuels’ role in our climate future
Doubling costs with CCS retrofit
Update on the text (two options plus a no option)

==THANKS==

Gaza destruction from Kanal13
Global warming simulation from Nasa Goddard
COP28 footage Narendra Modi
CCS visual from Everything Science
CCS visuals from Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung
Demolition from News 360 Tv

[ClimateAdam]

quick note that I def should've clarified in the video! in general "carbon capture & storage" refers to capturing CO2 where we produce it and storing it. this is different from lots of "negative emissions" (things that suck CO2 out the air somehow - e.g. planting trees, or using some kind of machine to do 'direct air capture'). although it gets a little confusing because CCS can also be done in combination with bioenergy, to achieve negative emissions..! anyway - I will certainly be making a video about negative emissions in the not-too-distant-future so stay tuned for that!

[implicitmatrix]

As someone who is currently doing engineering research on the CC side of CCS, aimed particularly at hard to decarbonise industries, I'm very glad to hear you mention the need for it here.
Sometimes I worry that the use of CCS as a greenwashing tool by oil companies will prevent development of the technology for where it is actually essential to reducing emissions.

[isabelle]

About geoengineering, i recently heard Jean-Marc Jancovici say that when you are at the top of Eiffel tower you have the choice to decide not to jump. Or you can jump and believe that you'll have time to knit a parachute before you reach the bottom. He said geoengineering seems to belong to the 2nd option.

I like this image, so clear.

[bettyswallocks]

By far the biggest problems with carbon capture schemes, are that 1) They cost too much, which would be better invested elsewhere, 2) They don’t capture enough and 3) the capture itself, potentially generates more carbon.

The answer is cessation, not capture.

[tommclean]

Excellent video. Also, as you alluded to briefly, CCS aims to trap CO2 but continues to release other components of combustion. Many of those are toxic and contribute health problems such as lung disease.

[nordic]

Large CCS projects have already been cancelled because no insurers could be found that were prepared to insure against the risk of leaks. The insurance industry already know that the risk of leakage is high.

[Philoxime]

Thanks Adam for the nuanced and thoroughly researched video, as always!

[williandalsoto]

Such a informing video, I really wish more people would see!

[rizzm.eickelman]

Bill Gates is a big proponent of CCS and owns stock in 4 of 16 CCS companies. Gates has also stated very clearly that he thinks planting trees is a 'stupid idea'.

[fishyerik]

Great video! Using CCS to make fossil fuels seem kind of OK seems so stupid in multiple ways. The biggest practical problem with most of transition is that renewable power requires significant investments. Add the problem of additional significant investments, and more, to just keep using fossil fuels, and keep the costs to run and other issues, (save for the fact that some of the CO2 is captured and stored for a while), and we have situation where fossil fuels can't compete economically without much much more subsidies than what they already get.

Even the window where fuel has an advantage even for backup/emergency power over batteries is closing.

And, one thing I think is very important: We have solar, wind, batteries and other technologies to harvest energy and make sure supply meets demand that we know works, and will become better. But we actually don't know that CCS would work well in the long run, there are very optimistic estimates about what costs per ton could eventually be achieved, that I personally doubt very much. And even if CCS on fossil fuel plants didn't cost anything, fossil fuels with CCS would still be more expensive than renewable power. But CCS cost money, it requires a lot of money to build and to run.

And, if we assume that CO2 capture and storage will become necessary to reduce the CO2 level in the atmosphere, it would be idiotic to use all the best places for storage to greenwash fossil fuels. Lets hope we won't reach the point where we will need to actually store many gigatons of CO2 to stop average temperature from increasing multiple degrees. I find it unlikely that we actually would do that, even if we technically could do it, and had to do it in order to prevent total collapse of human civilization. Governments might promise to fund it, and companies might say they store that much CO2, but that it will actually happen is unlikely.

[vernonbrechin]

Most of the promoters of CCS either don't know, or withhold, the history of CCS efforts. The efforts began around two decades ago and compared to the hopes of expansion little progress has taken place since then. In some cases specific sites have abandoned their efforts due to the high costs. Using the captured CO2 to extract more fossil fuels is just a shell game to fool the masses.

Those promoting CCS tend to have become masterful at excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. I urge readers to search for the following article titles.

IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian)

UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill)
* This statement was made 4.8 years ago.

[oleonard]

The problem is even getting CCS to net zero itself is a problem. Most CCS projects at this point actually produce more Co2 than they capture. When they are claiming reductions. They are only looking at the gross not net reductions in C02. Beyond that they are very hard to keep functional for long periods of time

[adrianafernandez]

Coming back to this video just before COP 29!!

[sciencesplained]

Great video, you are really talented.

[illiteratemochi]

“The president of this year’s climate negotiations is a CEO.”

That’s concerning.

[TennesseeJed]

It will work if we are willing to spend all the energy we have ever extracted to do it.

[davestagner]

I think there’s a workable solution for the sequestration side - dissolving it in water, and injecting that water into basalt formations. This is being done by Carbfix in Iceland. They’ve had it working since 2014, and can do it for $20/ton. The beauty of this is that the CO2 reacts with the basalt, forming calcium carbonate and other rocks. It takes about two years for the CO2 to be absorbed, and the water just returns to the water table. Over 99% of the carbon on Earth is already in such rocks, and basalt covers much of the Earth’s surface (like half of Canada, for example, not to mention most of the sea floors), so it COULD work - permanently, and it could absorb all 2.2T tons of anthropogenic CO2 we’ve put into the atmosphere in the past 200 years.

Of course, that’s just the sequestration side, not the capture side. And it is absolutely NOT an excuse to just keep burning fossil fuels. But as a medium-term (1-2 centuries) system for restoring atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels, it could work.

[AlanDeRossett]

Carbon Storage injecting C02 into the earth is also called Enhanced Oil extraction. Selling of Carbon offsets only allow others to pollute.

[nicholas_obert]

An interesting idea would be to implement a carbon cycle like this:
- capture CO2 and use it to synthesize a carbohydrate (like plants do, but more efficiently)
- calcinate the carbohydrate to produce water vapor and pure carbon (recent technology also claims to produce high quality graphene from carbohydrates through thermolysis by means of high current)
- use the pure carbon (or possibly graphene) for something

Would it be convenient? I don't know. However, it would be an interesting field to explore

[abacaba]

so the conclusion is: CCS will be heavily promoted because it costs 1 trillion annually compared to phase-out... but that cost is paid by the broad societies, while the cost of phase-out is paid by the oil sector. For the oil sector who controls CCS it's a win-win situation. Further transfer of wealth to oil companies on top of the usual fossil fuel profits.