Thread by @ieefa_institute

Carbon capture and sequestration (or CCS) is being touted by some as a potential solution for #decarbonization in industries like cement and steelmaking. But how promising of a solution is it? A deep dive 🧵

There is only limited experience with CCS at industrial facilities beyond gas processing. Only one steel mill in the entire world (and no cement plants), capture CO2. Little info is available about how much they capture, and key info about cost and reliability is missing.

Only 3 of 26 CCS projects currently operating in the world have reported any information that would allow their “capture rates” to be determined. Without this information, it’s impossible to show that any existing CCS projects are economically, financially or technically viable.

In fact, the limited information available suggests that CCS projects may not be meeting their targeted CO2 capture rates. 90% is considered the holy grail—the lower the capture rate, the higher the amounts of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere.

Estimated costs for using CCS in various industries are very uncertain. And while #carboncapture proponents claim cost reductions have been achieved and are forecasting lower costs in the future, there’s no evidence to support these claims.

There’s no clear answer on how long it will take to design, build, test, & bring a new industrial CCS facility online & demonstrate it functions effectively & reliably. A new project will take at least 5yrs & could take much longer if it’s first-of-a-kind technology—many will be.

And what happens to the carbon captured by CCS projects? Only 6 of 26 CCS projects currently inject it into dedicated underground storage. The rest use it for enhanced oil recovery or EOR. via @KateAronoff newrepublic.com/article/159473…

Oil produced through EOR is burned or used as petrochemical feedstock, creating more emissions. It becomes unclear whether these CCS projects, financed and built to reduce emissions, actually lead to net overall reductions in CO2 at all. via @HoustonChron houstonchronicle.com/business/energ…

CCS faces hurdles before widespread use can be funded by governments:
➡️Will communities accept siting of large new CO2 pipelines?
➡️If not, how will thousands of miles of pipeline be built?
➡️Who pays for damage caused by CO2 leaks?
via @hellokatepayne iowapublicradio.org/ipr-news/2021-…

But if we are to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change, time is of the essence. So if carbon capture isn’t today’s solution, what is?

Energy efficiency, renewables and battery storage, are low cost and available now, while CCS can be studied for future industrial use.

For CCS for fossil fuel generation, the case is clear: @ENERGY, @USDA and U.S. government should not fund any more CCS projects to capture CO2 from gas or coal-fired power plants. Shut fossil plants down; we already have less expensive alternatives. ieefa.org/ieefa-u-s-coal…

@threadreaderapp unroll