Carbon Capture Tech: Is it a Solution, a Distraction, or an Excuse?

As global leaders grapple with the climate crisis, Europe is placing its bets on carbon capture technology. But is it the solution or a distraction?

The 4th Industrial Carbon Management Forum in Europe ended in October. Its conclusion? Despite advancements in carbon capture, more needs to be done to meet Carbon Zero agendas.

However, not everyone agrees with the carbon capture industry. Environmental organizations see it as ‘fossil fuel lobbyists’ who are looking to get their hands inside the European governments’ deep incentive pockets with a technology that is not yet ready.

Does carbon capture help the planet, or does it just offer a license for businesses to create more carbon? Where does current technology fit into the equation?

Techopedia speaks to carbon capture experts and industry-related sources to discuss a tricky issue.

Table of Contents Table of Contents

1. Key Takeaways
2. 'Carbon Capture is Not Just an Alternative': Europe Forum
3. How The Urgency of Global Emissions Shapes the Sector
4. Should We Convert CO2 to Fuels or Store it Underground?
5. The Bottom Line
6. FAQs
7. References

Show Full Guide

Table of Contents

1. Key Takeaways
2. 'Carbon Capture is Not Just an Alternative': Europe Forum
3. How The Urgency of Global Emissions Shapes the Sector
Show Full Guide
4. Should We Convert CO2 to Fuels or Store it Underground?
5. The Bottom Line
6. FAQs
7. References

‘Carbon Capture is Not Just an Alternative’: Europe Forum

Representatives of European countries, institutions, NGOs, and academia met to discuss the future of carbon capture in the region under the umbrella of the ICM Forum, previously known as the CCUS Forum.

While what exactly was discussed received little press coverage, industry experts who attended said the most pressing issue at hand was carbon storage and the deployment of more industrial carbon management projects in Europe.

The European thesis is that carbon capture, utilization, and storage will “play a major role in our journey to 2050”.

In his keynote speech, the Commissioner of the Forum, Kadri Simson said that under the European Commission’s 2040 Climate Target Plan, “industrial carbon management is not just an alternative”, adding:

“In 2023 alone, the world doubled its industrial carbon management projects.”

Norway, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, and Italy all have — or are planning to build — carbon capture industrial facilities.

However, as mentioned, environmental groups are not happy. They claim that government incentives are a “waste of public money” that should be spent elsewhere. A recent report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) calls Europe’s carbon capture plan a “climate gamble“.

How The Urgency of Global Emissions Shapes the Sector

Phil De Luna, Chief Carbon Scientist and Head of Engineering at Deep Sky, a large-scale CO2 removal company, told Techopedia that the E.U. should “absolutely” incentivize carbon capture, describing it as imperative to solving the climate crisis.

“The technology is ready; it just hasn’t had the opportunity to scale,” De Luna said. “Once it scales, costs will come down, and it’ll be more widespread.”

Meanwhile, Oil Change International, a research, communications, and advocacy organization focused on the transition to clean energy, has called the European carbon capture subsidies failed funding. The group estimated that the industry has already received $3 billion in subsidies — with $16 billion more available since 2020.

They argue that carbon capture storage gives the green light to the fossil industry to continue to generate emissions.

We asked De Luna from Deep Sky what his take on all of this was.

“The reality is that we need ALL solutions to tackle the climate crisis. Emissions reductions, reforestation, carbon capture, and engineered carbon removals.

“All of it is needed if we want to have any chance to reverse climate change. And we need to do it all urgently.”

The carbon capture industry has earned a strange public reputation. Environmental groups and some think tanks doubt the technology and motivations, while business leaders see an opportunity.

Brian Flis, Chief Development Officer at LF Bioenergy, a renewable energy company focusing on innovation and advanced performance, told Techopedia that carbon capture technologies should be regarded as “a transition toward better practices rather than a way to offset emissions”.

“We cannot shut off fossil fuels overnight, but we can take steps to do better, and when we can do better at scale, we’re making a real difference.”

Experts agree that carbon capture technology has not yet reached the efficiency and performance levels needed to turn around the emissions crisis. We asked Flis from LF Bioenergy what the industry needs to take the big jump.

“We must look to private sponsorship over individual investment because there is urgency for these technologies and their innovation moves in giant leaps, not the small steps of incremental dollars.”

Flis added that government incentives and investments in climate tech that consider return on investment are wise. However, Flis said considering where these investments have the greatest impact on emissions is also critical.

“Methane has a higher global warming potential than carbon, so capturing methane has a larger climate benefit — and greater ROI — than carbon capture.”

Should We Convert CO2 to Fuels or Store it Underground?

Andrew Symes, CEO of OXCCU, a spinout from the University of Oxford, specializing in converting CO? into fuels, chemicals, and plastics via novel catalysis, spoke about the issue with Techopedia.

“Given the urgency of the climate crisis and the need for all sectors to decarbonize, the E.U. is right to invest in carbon capture. The interesting question, though, is whether this is used for carbon capture and utilization (CCU) or buried underground (CCS).”

Symes said that the question is not whether carbon capture storage technology is ready or not:

“Carbon capture technology is ready, but the bigger question is what next? What do you do with the CO2?

Symes explained that storing carbon underground is not the norm outside of the fracking industry. Storing carbon has become a significant challenge, is highly expensive, and the process is not yet optimized, so it lacks efficiency.

“If, instead, CO2 is used, you can convert captured CO2 into valuable products like fuels, chemicals, or plastics,” Symes said.

“We could become more carbon efficient and get closer to a circular carbon cycle — the difference with utilization is that you have a physical product to sell.”

Buff Lopez, Research Analyst of Materials and Chemicals at Cleantech Group, a research and consulting company, told Techopedia that both storage and utilization are important.

Lopez believes that capture and storage represent a relatively cost-effective abatement solution for existing infrastructure in particular.

“Captured carbon is also an important feedstock to enable the production of fuels and chemicals,” Lopez said.

“We currently have a capture capacity of around 50 MtCO2 per year which is trailing behind the gigatons of capture required to reach 2050 net-zero goals,” Lopez said. “Projects are struggling to meet the 90% capture targets.”

Lopez spoke about novel solvents (CarbonClean) and sorbent-based technologies (Svante), as promising advancements in carbon capture.

“There are also approaches which address some of the key issues associated with storage such as leakage,” Lopex added.

“Without the scale-up of alternative energy sources, e.g., nuclear and energy imports, Europe will likely find itself unable to meet energy needs without the use of fossil fuels.”

“Technology-neutral policies which penalize/incentivize emissions abatement (or removal) would potentially yield the most significant reduction per spend.

“However, it’s possible that in many cases, carbon capture applied to existing infrastructure would be one of the more cost-attractive approaches.”

Lopez told Techopedia that carbon capture projects are CAPEX intensive and require significant investments.

“Considering that abatement realizes no financial benefits for companies, certainty around policy measures is required,” Lopez said. “Blended finance, contracts for difference and other financial instruments can help address risks.”

The Bottom Line

The carbon capture industry, which is moving forward and gaining ground, is one of those sectors where experts from different fields struggle to agree.

Those who look at the books and those see the need for more solar and wind and the eventual end of fossil fuel use strongly oppose the technology.

On the other hand, all business leaders whom we talked to agree that carbon capture is vital to curb global emissions, and will continue to evolve.

FAQs