News Section
Stories from Climate Central's Science Journalists and Content Partners

Carbon Capture Faces Hurdles of Will, Not Technology

If human-caused climate change is to be slowed enough to avert the worst consequences of global warming, carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and other pollutants will have to be captured and injected deep into the ground to prevent them from being released into the atmosphere.

Such is the scenario the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change paints in its recent report outlining ways climate change can be mitigated as civilizations across the globe continue to burn fossil fuels with little sign they’ll stop anytime soon.

A carbon capture and storage plant in Germany.
Credit: Vattenfall/flickr

But that scenario hinges on a huge question: How realistic and feasible is it for carbon sequestration, also known as carbon capture and storage, or CCS, to be implemented globally in the coming decades and on such a wide scale that it helps to vastly reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Scientists say that if the will and incentives exist, CCS can be one of the biggest of many solutions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. 

And there's no mistaking how critical the IPCC thinks carbon capture is to saving mankind from the ravages of climate change.

In order to keep the global average temperature from warming no more than 2°C by the year 2100 relative to the global temperature prior to 1900, the concentration of carbon dioxide must be capped at 450 parts per million. (Global CO2 concentrations hit 400 ppm for the first time last year.) To do that, global greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 must be between 40 and 70 percent lower than they were in in 2010.

That would be a huge feat, and would require vast “decarbonization,” according to the IPCC. That means a major rollout of renewable energy technology that emits no carbon at all, a global emphasis on energy efficiency and, among other things, capturing emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and burying them deep underground or storing them elsewhere — forever. In fact, all fossil fuel power generation without CCS would need to be totally phased out.

The total amount of carbon that would need to be diverted from being emitted into the atmosphere is stunning: Current global atmospheric CO2 emissions total roughly 30 gigatons, or 30 billion metric tons per year. That's about the equivalent of 1 billion barrels of compressed CO2 per day, or more than 10 times the amount of oil transported around the globe on a daily basis, Ruben Juanes, associate professor in energy studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an expert in CCS, said. 

"Of course, we don't expect to take our current emissions to zero, or that one single technology will do it, but this does give a sense for the scale of the problem," he said. 

A viable technology to deal with such a large amount of CO2 should need to divert 1 gigaton of CO2 per year from the atmosphere, and there's only one technology capable of doing that — CCS, he said. 

"If one wants to dismiss CCS because of the scale at which it should be implemented, the same (or worse) can be said about all other mitigtation technologies," Juanes said. "It is a curse of the scale of the problem."

The IPCC report says the technology needed to implement carbon capture and storage operations exists today, but outside of fossil fuel extraction and refining, CCS has never been applied on a wide scale, or at any major electric power plant burning fossil fuels.

Carbon sequestration works basically like this: CO2 is captured from a coal-fired power plant, compressed, and then injected into an air-tight rock formation thousands of feet underground, isolated from the atmosphere forever. Five of these kinds of carbon storage operations exist today worldwide.

Credit: U.S. Department of Energy

On a small scale, CCS technology is part of proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards for emissions at new coal-fired power plants in the U.S., but those standards are not yet finalized and are expected to be challenged in court. A coal-fired power plant in Mississippi is expected to begin operations later this year with the ability to capture and store its carbon emissions. 

Though the technology exists, there are still many questions about whether carbon dioxide can be stored underground permanently and safely. Carbon sequestration projects are suspected to have caused earthquakes in some places, and there is concern about whether the underground storage sites could leak CO2 into the atmosphere, or be somehow breached with catastrophic consequences.

Scientists have divergent views on how and when carbon sequestration projects can do the job the IPCC suggests may be necessary for them to do in order to keep climate change in check.

“Capture technology is probably sufficient to provide CO2 for an increased number of large-scale pilot projects, but is many years from providing gigatons of CO2, and thus having a significant impact on mitigating emissions,” Peter Kelemen, earth and environmental sciences professor at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., said.

Carbon sequestration technology is primed for expansion, and pilot projects have shown that the technology works, but funding and permitting for the projects move slowly, he said.

“In the absence of carbon tax or caps — except for EPA limits on power plant emissions that, practically speaking, have no impact except to discourage construction of any new coal-fired power plants in the U.S. — there is no way that large-scale CCS will be commercially viable in the U.S.; at the same time, there is little or no political momentum behind expansion of government funding for expanded CCS,” Kelemen said.

Carbon capture should be seen as a "bridge" technology, Juanes said. 

"A bridge between our current energy systems and some future, yet-to-be-determined, low-carbon energy system," he said. "So the question becomes, how long is that bridge?" The conclusion Juanes came to by analyzing models of geologic formations in the U.S. is that CCS could contribute effectively to mitigating CO2 emissions in the U.S. for the next 100 years or more.

Worldwide, there are ample underground rock formations in which carbon dioxide emissions could be stored, Juanes said. 

The lack of progress on developing CCS projects so far has more to do with politics than technology, said integrated modeling and energy engineer Jim Dooley of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Dooley is CCS research lead for the Joint Global Change Research Institute and the Global Energy Technology Strategy Project, and a lead author of the IPCC’s special report on carbon capture and storage.

The Wallula Carbon Capture Storage Basalt Project in Washington State.
Credit: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

“I think the answer is less about the underlying technology than it is a statement about mankind’s inability to decide if we’re really going to address climate change in a significant fashion,” Dooley said. “CCS can really only be used at a large scale for one thing, and that’s really to reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2. If we don’t have agreement on that, there’s really no economic driver to deploy it.

“I can’t give you a technological answer of when I expect to see large-scale commercial deployment,” he said. “Fundamentally, what we need is the policy driver that would make it economic. No matter how advanced capture technologies are going to be, it’s always going to be cheaper to vent the CO2 into the atmosphere rather than compressing it.”

Very few advancements need to be made in CCS technology to prove it is safe, so long as carbon sequestration projects are built someplace offshore or in very remote onshore locations where they pose a much lower safety and terrorism risk than near populated areas, Kelemen said.

“There will be some leaks, probably even some that release Mt (megatons) of CO2 in minutes to days, and these will have legal and financial ramifications, but they probably will not present a serious safety hazard from my point of view, particularly when compared, for example, with the existing safety record of the fossil fuel industry — that is, not perfect, but de facto acceptable to most of society,” he said.

Until society considers carbon storage a necessity, any risk it poses will be viewed as an unacceptable risk, he said.

Leakage and earthquakes resulting from storing carbon dioxide underground are concerns that need to be addressed with more research, proper site selection for CCS projects and adequate field monitoring of those sites, Juanes said. 

Until those questions are answered, addressing climate change should begin by reducing consumption and increasing energy efficiency, he said. 

Making carbon capture happen is really about will, Dooley said.

“How fast the interstate highway system grew and how fast natural gas pipelines grew in this country — you know we put men on the moon,” he said. “I think that if we decided this is what we wanted to do, and this being address climate change, not necessarily CCS, I think it can be ramped up quickly.”

You May Also Like
Huge Methane Leaks Add Doubt on Gas as ‘Bridge’ Fuel
Move Over Kimye, El Niño Bound 2 Take Over Headlines
March Was 4th Warmest on Record Globally
Huge Hole in Earth’s ‘Detergent’ Layer Found Over Pacific


By Dave (Basking Ridge, NJ 07920)
on April 23rd, 2014

People working in any field will always say that the technical problems can be solved and that the hurdle to use is something other than technical issues. I think that is still debatable with CCS since at the very least it has not been demonstrated at full scale. Certainly it would be predictably expensive to deploy. Personally I think widespread CCS is a risky proposition at best. Assuming all the technical problems can be solved, I am quite wary of US energy companies as corporate citizens and the power of the US government to regulate them. Because of that I think their willingness to invest in the appropriate quality of CCS equipment, facilities and operations when such ever existed so as to ensure safety would not be something we could just assume. An accidental leak of a few megatons – let alone gigatons - of CO2 from underground storage could easily wipe out anything that breathes for miles around and potentially represent a disaster that would dwarf Fukushima. An energy company geologist will always swear up and down that could never ever happen with CCS. And yet we know from experience that occasional, large, destructive accidental leaks of just about anything and everything nasty are par for the course with energy companies.

Also, although I know it’s in the nature of the story, but these IPCC 40-70% emissions reductions by 2050 scenarios for limiting GW to 2C that keep getting discussed here at CC really are the most EXTREME and unlikely examples of a very wide range of scenarios starting from RCP2.6 that were considered by the IPCC. I think it needs to be pointed out that that these particular extremes are mere pipe dreams, especially because they are heavily back loaded with correspondingly even deeper emissions cuts that would also be required after 2050 out to 2100 of up to as much as minus 118% relative to 2010. It’s all there in the reports. Forget CCS – how do you get >100% emissions cuts?

Reply to this comment

By Helmut Lubbers (Switzerland)
on April 27th, 2014

CO2 stays CO2. Fukushima is radioactive pollution, incomparable
“How do you get > 100% emissions cuts?”
Shut down modernity. Yet it’s still too late.

Reply to this comment

By Mark Heinicke (Ruckersville VA 22968)
on April 24th, 2014

So it’s OK to bury CO2 but not nuclear waste.  Not saying CCS is a bad idea, but the volume of CO2 waste is far larger, especially once we start recycling plutonium in reactors. Am I missing something?

Reply to this comment

By Dave (Basking Ridge, NJ 07920)
on April 25th, 2014

Excellent point. The spent fuel from all the US nuclear reactors that currently produce about 20% of our electricity is about 2,000 tonnes per year. By comparison US energy related CO2 emissions are about 5,000,000,000 tonnes per year but also generate about 3 ½ times the electricity. So, for the same electricity generated the mass ratio in round numbers is something on the order of 700,000 to one. Not forgetting also that safe disposal schemes already exist for spent nuclear fuel. So, I wonder how the cost of (zero carbon) nuclear energy compares to that of fossil with CCS. I imagine it may be starting to look a bit more competitive. So how come nuclear isn’t the bridge technology? The capture part of CCS is in any case less than 100% efficient…

Reply to this comment

By Tom Bond (Perth Western Australia)
on April 26th, 2014

Dave and Mark, thanks for some reality!  In comparison to CCS and scaling up renewable energy, the replacement of fossil carbon fuels with nuclear power is a relatively simple task, if you take away the emotional ideology.  One tonne of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor replaces 20,000 tonnes of coal, one tonne of nuclear waste in a fast breeder reactor replaces 2 million tonnes of coal.  Just 7000 tonnes of conventional nuclear waste in 24,000 GE PRISM fast breeder reactors could provide energy for the entire world, leaving a waste that only requires storage for a few hundred years. If we really want to reduce fossil carbon emissions to near zero, I would suggest that the annual storing of 7000 tonnes of nuclear waste is a much more realistic solution than the annual capturing and storing of 30 billion tonnes of CO2.

Reply to this comment

By David Chase (Belmont, MA 02478)
on April 27th, 2014

There’s at least one difference—CO2 is not an intrinsic hazard in the way that nuclear waste is.  As long as we effectively capture enough in total, it doesn’t matter if our process is somewhat leaky.  If some gets in the water, it’s just “fizzy water”.

Reply to this comment

By Mark Heinicke (Ruckersville, VA 22968)
on April 30th, 2014


The hazard of nuclear waste, if properly stored in a facility such as Yucca Mountain far away from population centers, is less than that of background radiation by orders of magnitude.  That’s not to factor in the increasing medical uses of radioactive materials, which expose the average American to more radiation than someone living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone gets. Burning coal subjects us to far more radiation than “burning” uranium—there’s an intrinsic hazard with which we are already being bombarded.  Once we (should sanity prevail) in the U.S. reprocess plutonium such as the French do, the nuclear waste problem gets even more manageable.  Talk about a technical problem having been solved while the sociopolitical will is lacking! We are forced to put Yucca Mountain on hold because Democrats need to get Harry Reid re-elected: there’s the problem in a nutshell.

Reply to this comment

By Chip Tuckett (Santa Rosa, CA 95404)
on April 26th, 2014

This is probably implausible and only a thought experiment for early graduate students to drag out from time to time but is there some reasonable way (even if it has to be subsidized) to simply take carbon dioxide and strip the carbon as part of a manufacturing process? It would probably need a serious source of alternative energy. But so many processes are getting down to the atomic level, it might be usable. If nothing else, it would save on transporting carbon material and might cut down on loose soot (then again, artificial photosynthesis might eventually be around; so then this would only make sense as some kind of working bridge).

The more I think about storing carbon dioxide, the more it sounds exactly like trying to find a good place to store nuclear materials. In both cases, the problem can’t be left to future generations, if possible. But desperation could eventually drive us to storing CO2.

Reply to this comment

By Denis Frith (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia)
on April 27th, 2014

One point not mentioned in this discussion is that every CCS system is constructed, operated and maintained by irreversibly using some of the remaining natural material resources during its limited lifetime. That factor should be taken into account in assessing whether a proposed CCS system is worthwhile. It is a more rational consideration than the economics of a proposal.

Reply to this comment

Name (required):
Email (required):
Enter the word "climate" in the box below:

[+] View our comment guidelines.

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until reviewed by Climate Central staff. Thank you for your patience.