Carbon Capture...Is it a YES or NO?

In the past two weeks, I have posted blog updates arguing critical points in favour (The great potential of Carbon Capture & Storage) of implementing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as well as arguments against (So CCS isn't perfect either?!) this technology form. Here I shall attempt to evaluate the opposing arguments to determine whether this method of geoengineering is a realistic and viable option to tackle the threats posed by climate change.

Firstly, in terms of mere practicality aspect, there can be an excuse for...dare we say it...optimism. The storage potential for CO₂ within accessible geological formations undoubtedly impressive. Jon Gibbins and Hannah Chalmers' work alone which argues that the UK could use this technology to store forty years’ worth of carbon emissions is worthy of governments offering their attention to this concept. When examining this idea, one must also analyse the environmental risks offered by this method to determine whether this advantage is actually worth it at all.

As outlined in 'So CCS isn't perfect either?!', the threats to the environment through ways such as: CO₂ leaking at the surface and creating a risk of asphyxiation amongst those living close to the source, CO₂ leaking into oceans contributing to the production of carbonic acid further enhancing ocean acidification and the contamination of vital groundwater sources that are used to provide fresh drinking water for many. Therefore if we are to proceed with CCS, I believe that a certain criteria should be met to avoid or at the very least minimalise negative environmental impacts that may be caused. Firstly, the materials used to create transport pipelines and storage facilities must be of the highest quality and be constantly analysed for any potential re-occurring maintenance issues. Storage at onshore localities should be very limited, areas that contain diverse ecosystems should be totally avoided. I also believe there should be further collaboration between researchers, industrial companies and policy-makers to ensure that further testing of limiting CO₂ can be done before any amount of carbon is to be stored beneath the sea. If these points met, then CCS may be a viable option.

However, in refutation of the previous argument, to meet this criteria would impose an even greater financial burden for this technology. It is predicted that per tonne of Carbon removed, the cost would be €60-90, which when taking into account the megatons of carbon that would be abated represents a severe economic investment. Such an investment would no doubt require government subsidies to attract companies to undertake CCS.

Is at all worth it? Are we better suited investing or subsidizing ‘greener’ technologies?



To conclude, I believe that CCS is by no means a perfect solution, and requires further development and investment to ensure it would not hinder environmental processes. However, one must realise that currently (as of 29^th November) CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere is at 403.84ppm, the highest concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere for 650,000 years. It is also clear that as a society, there will not be a decline in fossil fuel use for considerable time. Taking these thoughts into account I believe that there is hope for CCS as a policy. I’d like to point out the ‘Carbon bathtub’ analogy (fig.1). This analogy allows us to identify that even if we were to cut carbon emissions right now, we still have an atmospheric CO₂ and so we require at least some form of removing current CO₂ from the atmosphere. At this current point, a further enhanced CCS method may be a positive option.  





Fig.1 http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/05/carbon-bath