Why burying greenhouse pollution won’t save the day
Here’s six reasons why we think relying on carbon capture and storage (CCS) to save the day is a risky strategy that's likely to fail:
It can't deliver in time or at scale
According to the United Nations Development program: “CCS will arrive on the battlefield far too late to help the world avoid dangerous climate change”. A detailed scientific review of CCS carried out by the IPCC, found that CCS is not likely to deliver at scale until the second half of the 21st century. Even the coal industry doesn’t think that CCS will be up and running at scale quickly. According to the World Coal Institute there will be only nine CCS plants operating globally in 2020.
Even if CCS eventually works it will only capture a fraction of emissions from electricity generation. In Australia CCS at best leads to nine percent emissions reduction in 2030 and 2.4 percent reduction in cumulative emissions over period to 2030 (modelling by Hugh Saddler).
It wastes water and energy
Because it takes energy to capture, compress and transport greenhouse pollution, , CCS uses a third more energy and a third more water than conventional coal-fired power stations.
It creates a long-term, potentially dangerous liability
So far the longest running carbon storage project is at Sleipner in Norway. This project is 14 years old. However if CCS is going to work it needs to ensure that greenhouse pollution stays underground forever. Can the coal industry really guarantee that this will happen? Apparently not, because our state and federal governments have both recently agreed to accept liability in the event that there is a problem at any CCS sites. This ‘liability shifting’ is being enshrined in both Victorian and federal legislation. That’s right folks - the coal industry makes the profits, but if anything goes wrong the community wears the liability.
It's expensive and undermines funding for sustainable solutions
The IPCC study estimated that CCS will cost between US$15-$75 per tonne. This makes it more expensive than energy efficiency, gas, and most renewable energy technologies. The reason that the cost falls within such a broad range is because the technology is not yet proven and has no track record by which we can make an accurate assessment of costs.
Despite its expense though, CCS has been dominating government climate change expenditure in Australia. Every cent spent on CCS, is a cent not going to proven technologies.
Get the low-down on the coal versus renewable energy debate
Trial projects have over-promised and under-delivered
In 2007, eleven CCS projects were scrapped globally. In Australia the much-hyped ZeroGen project has been delayed and the Shell/BP project scrapped. Current Victorian trials of CCS are ridiculously small and expensive (Oh, and by the way - we’re paying).
It's completely unnecessary
At Environment Victoria we’ve completed detailed work which shows that Victoria can halve its emissions by 2020. And that’s without CCS.
Hop here to read Turning it Around: Cliamte solutions for Victoria
What's it all mean?
All of this means that relying on carbon capture and storage to solve the climate crisis is an extremely risky strategy. It will likely lock in further climate change. There are quicker and cheaper, proven technologies that our governments could be pursuing and funding right now, rather than betting our future on the coal industry’s pipe-dream.
