Carbon Capture and Storage is a Pipe Dream. Here Are Five Reasons Why.
By Jillian Du and Maria Hart
This blog is part of a series focused on the inequitable, false promises of the energy transition.
Photo Credit: Matt Hrkac/Flickr CC
On the evening of February 22, 2020, a toxic green cloud blanketed the predominantly Black rural town of Satartia, Mississippi. It almost immediately left local residents gasping for air, hospitalizing forty-nine people for CO2 poisoning.
“A toxic green cloud blanketed the predominantly Black rural town of Satartia, Mississippi. It almost immediately left local residents gasping for air, hospitalizing forty-nine people for CO2 poisoning.”
The source of the toxic gas was a burst carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline that had been serving a nearby oil field to increase oil production. Many Satartia residents reported experiencing lingering physical symptoms and mental distress for months after the pipeline ruptured, including debilitating asthma, chronic fatigue, stomach ailments, and mental confusion.
The incident in Satartia foreshadows the dangerous – and often ignored – risks of expanding CO2 pipelines for carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the US. Despite the known risks associated with CCS, the technology has been gaining support as a “climate solution” in recent years. It has been marketed as an efficient and safe way to essentially “scrub” CO2 emissions directly from the source, and both Democrats and Republicans have supported billions of dollars in federal incentives for CCS. But when something sounds too good to be true, it often really is. And in the case of CCS, it is actually much worse.
Five Reasons Why CCS is a Pipe Dream
A new policy brief from the Equity Fund, Carbon Capture and Storage: A Dangerous Distraction, explains why CCS is not a viable climate solution and why we should be investing in better, safer decarbonization measures. The top five reasons are as follows:
CCS props up the fossil fuel industry and allows polluting industries to continue to operate business as usual.
First, CCS technology only captures a small portion of carbon emissions (usually, less than 10%) and none of the other emitted, harmful air pollutants. It can actually end up increasing carbon emissions and harmful air pollution – research estimates that power plants must burn 10–40 percent more fuel than a plant without CCS to produce the same amount of power. Plus, using CCS technology can also double the water requirements.
Second, over 80% of captured carbon is used to extract oil in a process called enhanced oil recovery (EOR). In other words, the primary beneficiary of CCS infrastructure will be, and has always been, the fossil fuel industry. Currently, only one out of 13 CCS facilities in the US actually store carbon underground.Compared to alternative strategies for cutting emissions, CCS is extremely expensive — the only reason it exists today is because of massive federal subsidies and demand from oil producers.
It is currently estimated that CCS would cost roughly $43 to $65 per metric ton of CO2 and, when installed on power plants, CCS could raise the cost of power to more than double that of wind or solar. Despite the expense, more than $11 billion was dedicated to CCS in the 2021 Infrastructure Act and tax incentives like the 45Q tax credit are widely supported by oil and gas companies and even some environmental groups. But even with subsidies, most CCS facilities are not financially viable without selling captured carbon for EOR.
CCS infrastructure poses serious health and safety risks for both people and the environment.
While proponents of CCS claim that the transport and storage of CO2 can be managed safely, well-documented research and case studies like the Satartia example warn us otherwise. When CO2 is turned into a liquid for transport, contaminants or moisture can corrode the pressurized pipelines, leading to dangerous leaks or ruptures (check out this video for CO2 pipe rupture test). Some studies show that permanently storing CO2 underground could contaminate underground aquifers, and natural disruptions to underground storage sites, like an earthquake, could have disastrous environmental health impacts.
CCS continues to overpromise and underperform.
Even after an investment of $1 billion into the Petra Nova power plant outside of Houston, Texas—the first large power plant using CCS in the country—only 7% of the power plant’s total CO2 emissions were captured, despite the company’s promises to reduce them by 90%. The plant has since shut down. Another form of carbon capture—direct air capture (DAC) —which has the potential to pull carbon directly out of the atmosphere, is even less certain. Most DAC plants are in the “proposed” stage and they require a lot of land and energy. Existing facilities, like Orca—the world’s first large-scale facility located in Iceland—rely on a very specific set of conditions (e.g., geothermal energy, vast space, geological storage) that are largely unavailable in most parts of the world and are at risk of under delivering, too.
The location of current and proposed CCS infrastructure puts low-income communities of color most at risk, exacerbating environmental injustices.
Many people living near CO2 pipelines, like those in Satartia, Mississippi, understand the dangers that CCS infrastructure poses to communities. In California, more than 80 environmental justice organizations have pushed the EPA to limit CCS projects in the Central Valley, pointing out that most of the proposed projects would threaten low-income communities of color who already suffer from some of the worst air quality in the US. In Louisiana, several CO2 pipelines run through the heavily polluted petrochemical corridor known as Cancer Alley, which is predominantly populated by communities of color.
We Already Have Proven Solutions To Address The Climate Crisis
Politics and corporate interests often drive large-scale industry change, and CCS is no different. Billions in federal subsidies combined with a strong market for CO2 in the oil industry has made CCS appear cost effective and has led to widespread, bipartisan support for the technology.
“Billions in federal subsidies combined with a strong market for CO2 in the oil industry has made CCS appear cost effective and has led to widespread, bipartisan support for the technology. Luckily, there are cheaper, safer, and more effective solutions to curbing emissions out there.”
Luckily, there are cheaper, safer, and more effective solutions to curbing emissions out there. Natural carbon capture methods like reforestation and peatland restoration are effective ways to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere while enhancing biodiversity and providing jobs for locals. Expanding the use of renewable energy alternatives like wind and solar can shift reliance away from highly emitting power sources. Decarbonizing the industrial sector by recycling materials and relying on clean energy sources can mitigate CO2 emissions at the source without using expensive and risky CCS technology.
Organizing and advocating against CCS can lead to positive change. On June 9, 2022, the New Orleans City Council passed an ordinance banning CCS, citing risks to Black communities. Environmental justice activists in California are making headway in blocking new CCS projects in the Central Valley. Other government actors and policy leaders should follow the example of environmental justice leaders by blocking new CCS infrastructure and redirecting efforts into the solutions we know work for both people and the planet.
For more information on the problems with waste incineration and alternative policy paths, check out the full policy brief.
Jillian Du is the research and engagement strategist at the Equity Fund. Maria Hart is an editorial consultant to the Equity Fund.
