Five Myths about Carbon Capture and Storage

With regular media headlines about global warming and its consequences, the need to address the climate crisis has never been more important and urgent.  

When carbon capture and storage (CCS) is mentioned in media reports and articles, it’s often with inaccuracies and bias.  The UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Centre would like to address five of the common myths.

Myth 1 – CCS just enables fossil fuel industries to continue business as usual

The goal of most people working in CCS is to see deep emission cuts to sustain and save the planet. Many international climate organisations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and International Energy Agency (IEA), as well as the UK Government, state that CCS is needed in all scenarios to reach net zero emissions, in the timeframes required to curb dangerous climate change.

CCS is an essential technology for decarbonising hard-to-abate sectors like cement, steel and chemicals – industries that are required for building the wind turbines and electric vehicle batteries that are also part of the journey to net zero, and providing key chemicals such as fertilisers. CCS is also one of the ways to deliver negative emissions, or CO₂ removals, that put the ‘net’ in net zero – for example, the Orca direct air capture plant in Iceland which is capturing and storing 4,000 tonnes of CO₂ per year.

It is true that many current CCS projects around the world are connected to fossil fuel industries. This is due primarily because of investment to date and industry expertise. Fossil fuel usage cannot just be switched off instantly, from either an energy or employment point of view. Rather than allowing these businesses to continue polluting unrestrained, with CCS, emissions can be decarbonised during fossil fuel phase-down and phase-out.

Another reason why people link CCS with fossil fuel companies is because some projects plan to use the rock formations in depleted oil or gas wells, as well as offshore oil and gas infrastructure, as permanent CO₂ storage sites.

Myth 2 – CCS storage is in “caverns”, unsafe and there isn’t enough capacity

Despite government officials and some media outlets sometimes stating the CO₂ will be stored underground in caverns, it will not. For the UK, all currently planned storage is offshore in rock formations over 1km beneath the seafloor.  CO₂ will be stored there permanently, i.e. for millennia, rather than temporarily utilised, for example in the carbonated drinks industry.

Companies involved in carbon storage are strongly motivated to keep it locked away for both environmental and business/financial reasons.  Research has shown that CO₂ can be safely stored underground for millions of years.  Techniques have been, and continue to be, researched and developed to monitor CO₂ underground and ensure storage integrity.

There is a vast capacity for carbon storage underground – in the UK alone, it has been estimated that we have 16-20 gigatonnes of storage capacity in abandoned hydrocarbon fields, and 19-716 gigatonnes in saline aquifers. This is enough to store over 500 years of the UK’s annual emissions. Visit the Clean Air Task Force’s interactive map to find out more about the size and development of storage sites across the globe.

Illustration of depth and geology of carbon storage (copyright UKCCSRC)

Myth 3 – CCS is expensive

The cost of not taking action on climate change is far far greater than the cost of acting, and the sooner and faster we act, the less costly it will be. Every year the estimated cost of inaction and adaptation get more and more expensive.

CCS is also a relatively cheap way to decarbonise the “hard-to-abate” energy intensive sectors like cement, steel and chemicals, which account for 20% of global emissions.

The most expensive part of the CCS technology chain is carbon capture. There has already been a significant amount of cost reduction in recent years, and research is constantly being undertaken in order to reduce costs further.  Early adopters of CCS technology can also help to drive down adoption costs for lower-income countries, often the ones most affected by climate change.

Another significant part of the cost of CCS is in creating new infrastructure, so existing facilities and transportation systems need to be used wherever possible.  In the UK, the focus of CCS rollout is through clusters – bringing together multiple CO₂ emitters in a geographical area, to share transportation and storage infrastructure.  Costs will also reduce as more deployment happens.

Myth 4 – CCS is unproven

CCS technology IS proven and currently being used all around the world. The 2023 Global Status of CCS Report found that at mid-September 2022 there were 41 operational CCS facilities, with 26 under construction and 325 in development.

Commercially, the slow adoption of CCS is due primarily to weak policy frameworks, business models and investment, and a low carbon price. Until recently, there have not been adequate incentives to make CCS happen at the quantity and scale needed to comfortably establish the sector. These still differ widely depending on country and region. 

CCS, like any other new industrial activity, needs to develop how to regulate, finance and insure the industry.  Environmental regulations must be very thorough.  These areas can get stuck in a chicken-and-egg situation, however, where they cannot be put in place until projects are in place, and projects cannot be put in place… (you get the idea).  

Myth 5 – We should be focusing on renewables not “wasting” money on CCS

CCS is commonly viewed as a technology that is competing with renewable energy for public and private investment.  This is wrong.  In reality, investments in CCUS and renewable energy can be mutually reinforcing rather than competing.  There is a high degree of connectivity between different solutions, and the best thing for the climate is to utilise them all together. Renewables and low-carbon tech need vastly more investment, as do ‘circular economy’ measures that reduce the quantities of materials that need to be mined and refined.

We need an “and/and” situation, not an “either/or” one.  Every tool in the toolkit will be required to fully tackle climate change.  No tool is perfect.  Many businesses involved in renewable energy and reducing emissions also create CO₂ emissions in their manufacturing processes (e.g. the steel needed for wind turbines). 

Natural carbon sinks like forests and peatlands are important for locking away CO₂ and bring lots of ecological benefits too. However, they cannot pull out enough CO₂ from the air to hit net zero targets and do not lock it away for thousands of years like carbon storage. In addition, climate change is impacting the stability and resilience of these carbon sinks.

And, while planting more trees is important, we would need to plant a forest approximately the size of 1&½ Indias to offset global emissions for just ONE year.  There are also complications and concerns about the credibility of carbon credits/offsets. 

Conclusion

CCS might not win hearts and minds the way other climate change technologies do, like wind/solar power and electric vehicles, but it is essential for stopping the world heating up catastrophically, as well as removing existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 200 years of emissions.

Its reputation is confounded by the fact that it is not one simple or perfect technology – there are many CCS technologies and they can be applied to multiple different applications and sectors, as well as developed and funded in different ways. While CCS is vital, it also needs to be done right, and in a way that drives down emissions, supports transition and reduces global inequalities. 

Written by Jen Roberts (UKCCSRC Deputy Director and University of Strathclyde), Mathieu Lucquiaud (University of Sheffield) and Mel Green (UKCCSRC Communications Officer)