How (and why) to boost carbon capture, usage and storage to move towards net-zero

Research Highlight How (and why) to boost carbon capture, usage and storage to move towards net-zero

To reach carbon emission targets laid out in the Paris Agreement, one promising process is carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS). But the current shortcomings of these technologies (high costs, low efficiency) need to be addressed before CCUS can be deployed at scale – and turned into an effective climate solution.

Unlike the proverbial cat let out of the bag, carbon dioxide, once let out into the atmosphere, may be recaptured. As climate urgency mounts, one promising path to keep greenhouse gas levels in check is that of Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage (CCUS). CCUS technologies enable the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from large, polluting industrial facilities and/or the removal of existing CO2 from the atmosphere. Various methods exist to separate and capture CO2 from flue gas streams, with the CO2 either reused (directly or after transformation) in industrial processes or stored underground, for instance in saline aquifers or depleted oil and gas wells.

An underdeveloped path towards carbon emission targets

While such technologies have been commercially available for decades, only 30 CCUS projects are currently in operation across the globe according to the Global CCS Institute. Another 153 are in development, and in 2022 alone, 61 new CCUS projects were initiated. Yet it is now time to step on the gas, so to speak, and change scale. So argue Wioletta Nawrot and Tomasz Walkowicz, in a recent impact paper. 

“Climate scientists claim that it is impossible to reach net-zero targets without CCUS deployment on a wide global scale and several organisations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) advocate an effective acceleration of CCUS globally if we are to reach climate targets,” they write. Also, “an acceleration of the deployment of CCUS technologies would (…) enhance energy security, especially in times of significant geopolitical reconfigurations,” they add, alluding among others to the possible use of CCUS technologies to separate hydrogen with its potential of serving as a source of energy of various applications after carbon dioxide is set to be permanently removed. Yet a number of significant obstacles stand in the way of the expansion of CCUS projects. 

Expensive, under-performing operations

The professor and her co-author identify three main challenges. The first is cost, as CCUS facilities are both “capital-intensive to deploy and energy-intensive/expensive to operate.” Some technologies are pricier than others: for instance, natural gas processing (from highly concentrated CO2 streams) is way less expensive than direct air capture – for the moment. Indeed, costs go down as technologies mature: in large-scale facilities, the cost of CO2 capture in the power sector has already dropped by 35% since the first deployments according to IEA estimates. But for heavy industries like cement production, that struggle to achieve necessary emission reductions, even the most expensive technologies can be cheaper than other alternatives – or than having to shut down altogether in a restrictive future scenario. 

A second challenge is the underperformance (and sometimes outright failure) of CCUS operations, possibly due to their relative technological youth. For example, according to recent reports, the world’s only large power station with CCUS, SaskPower’s Boundary Dam in Saskatchewan, Canada, underperformed by close to 50%. 

Finally, CCUS operations are not free of environmental concerns. One risk is CO2 leakage from storage, though the authors seem confident about the solidity of natural geological formations that have already stored gas for millions of years. The researchers do write that “CCUS systems increase environmental damages from toxicity, acidification, eutrophication, etc. But [the literature] also concludes that there is a net environmental benefit if we compare the reduced environmental damage from climate change achieved by CCUS systems with environmental and health damage induced by CCUS itself.” Still, the complex climate implications of carbon uses, especially the controversial enhanced oil recovery technology that ultimately serves to produce more fossil fuel, require more research.  

The solution: boosting innovation

Costly, under-performing and potentially risky technologies perhaps don't sound like a very apt climate solution, yet many aspects of these challenges can be effectively addressed by boosting innovation, according to Wioletta Nawrot and Tomasz Walkowicz. It is normally expected that a cost and performance gap (with established technologies) will be closed when the deployment of CCUS moves to the mainstream. In turn, the pace of innovation will depend on the involvement of various stakeholders and the policies governments introduce today. 

This is why the authors call on further, “significant” public and private investment in R&D. As knowledge and practical know-how accumulates, the market will grow and economies of scale will help lower costs, as happened with the solar photovoltaic industry. 

Through funding and incentives, governments can also support building and improving CCUS infrastructure. For instance, developing industrial clusters is especially beneficial to generate economies of scale.

Once the technologies become mainstream, governments need to consider making carbon capture, usage and storage a legal requirement for the most polluting industries. The authors suggest starting policy consultations as soon as possible, for companies to start preparing operationally and financially, incorporating the requirements of future climate legislation into their budgets and long-term business models.

Some governments have already launched initiatives to strengthen investment in CCUS development. Nawrot and Walkowicz single out the US as a leader, with a recent $US62 billion budget for the Department of Energy, including $10 billion earmarked for carbon capture, direct air capture and industrial emission reduction, and Canada, which has established a CAN$2.6 billion tax credit budget for CCUS projects. In Europe, the UK, Norway and Denmark are also investing. “It is of high importance that governments place CCUS policy high on the list of their national priorities as the recent UN IPCC assessments leaves no reasonable doubt that the transition to net-zero cannot be delayed if the world is to avoid a humanitarian crisis on an unprecedented scale.” 

Other countries must follow suit, as the authors point to the evidence that government incentives do influence companies' investment commitments. They warn Western governments against the temptation to heavily tax the windfall profits of energy companies, which may slow their investments towards net-zero. Instead, they suggest encouraging fossil fuel extractors to invest in technologies to dispose of carbon dioxide safely and permanently, possibly through such requirements as a 'carbon takeback obligation'.